Author Topic: GOP Leadership Plotting to Pass Amnesty in August, May Put AZ, TX in Play for Dems  (Read 3875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 251,981
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/27/GOP-Leadership-Plotting-to-Pass-Amnesty-in-August-May-Put-AZ-TX-in-Play-for-Dems

by Tony Lee 27 Apr 2014



Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the House GOP Conference Chair, said that amnesty legislation could come to the floor by August.

Her comments come after multiple House Republicans have ramped up support for amnesty legislation and discussed bills they plan to introduce in the coming months.

“I believe there is a path that we get a bill on the floor by August,” McMorris Rodgers said, according to the Spokesman-Review. “We’re going to have to push that this is a legal status, not amnesty,” she said.

According to NBC 5, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) "will soon introduce a bill that will establish a path to citizenship for the minor children of illegal immigrants and a guest worker program."

"If the only illegal act they committed was coming into the country without proper documentation we'd put them on a path to legalization," Barton said.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) said the Republican leadership is "as close as we have ever been" and, though "it is still a big, big, heavy lift... I think we’re going to get there.”

“I think we finally have the policy right,” Diaz-Balart told Roll Call. "And what we’re finding is more and more people out there as they’re seeing it, different aspects of the policy, are starting to say, ‘Hey, that is something that makes sense.’”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has said he was "hellbent" on passing amnesty and mocked conservative opponents who opposed it, to let him know that he would support amnesty legislation because it would help the party.

“It would be in our country’s national interest as well as the interest of our party if this could be achieved and I want to assure you of my support as this effort goes forward,” King wrote to Boehner.

But studies and polls suggest that amnesty legislation, in addition to lowering the wages of American workers, would go against the political interest of Republicans, contrary to the claims made by amnesty proponents.

According to a Washington Post report, amnesty legislation could put states like Arizona and Texas in play for Democrats.

In addition, two national polls, conducting by NBC News/Wall Street Journal and ABC News/Washington Post, have also found that a plurality of Americans are less likely to vote for candidates who support amnesty legislation.

And when Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promote granting work visas to all of the country's illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the country, he is promptly greeted the next day by Hispanic leaders in Wisconsin who call him "offensive."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who recently said not passing amnesty is "a stain on America's honor," said last year that amnesty proponents would make a final push for legislation after the GOP primaries, many of which are in May and June, are done. Prominent Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) have said that this year is the last chance to pass sweeping amnesty legislation.

And though momentum for amnesty legislation has stalled after Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) blasted the GOP leadership's "immigration principles," as amnesty, the Republican leadership seems intent on making that final push for amnesty legislation during this Congress.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 11:27:06 AM by mystery-ak »

Support the USO

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
I am a man with no party. No representation. The current Republican leadership wants to "get theirs" while they can. They'll pass this, then fade off to irrelevance as they are voted out of office. But, they'll have an enormous bank account to help soothe them.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
In addition, two national polls, conducting by NBC News/Wall Street Journal and ABC News/Washington Post, have also found that a plurality of Americans are less likely to vote for candidates who support amnesty legislation.


That's more than just a stretch.  The actual polling data shows something quite different.  The ABC poll actually shows that by a 59% to 38% respondents were either more likely or unchanged on voting for someone who supports a path to citizenship.  The NBC poll referred to had similar results.  The most recent Pew poll had 76% who thought immigration was an important issue for Congress this year. 

Every poll shows that by large majorities, Americans want this issue settled in favor of some type of legalization. 

That is why the Republican leadership is pushing this issue.  It's consistent with what Americans want.  The illegals are not going to be deported, it's a tremendously divisive issue, and we are certainly no better off today than 7 years ago when the GOP scuttled the best deal they could have ever gotten on immigration reform.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 251,981
Quote
That is why the Republican leadership is pushing this issue.  It's consistent with what Americans want.  The illegals are not going to be deported, it's a tremendously divisive issue, and we are certainly no better off today than 7 years ago when the GOP scuttled the best deal they could have ever gotten on immigration reform.

...but conservatives don't and they need us to win elections...we have a chance to win and win big...just like the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....GOP = Stupid Party

Support the USO

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,056
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
I think most people realize that mass deportation is unfeasible. I do prefer Rand Paul's idea of issueing work visas - with the provision that they aren't given voting rights, etc.  They need to get rid of the anchor baby privilege though.  These workers should be employed above-board, trackable and paying taxes like the rest of us. 

Of course, that will never happen - can't buy votes that way. 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline Scottftlc

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,806
  • Certified free of TDS

Every poll shows that by large majorities, Americans want this issue settled in favor of some type of legalization. 


Americans always want issues settled...as in solved and put away and forgotten about.  The problem is that any legislatin on this issue will not "settle" immigration issues for anything more than a very brief time.  The issue will always keep coming back, it will never be settled at least until the U.S. is no longer an attraction...a place that people in other countries no longer want to come to for economic reasons.  If this bill were truly to settle the immigration issue for a generation or more, then yes, it would be supported by the general public because the general public always wants issues to be solved and go away.  It won't do that.  All it will do is hasten the demographic suicide of traditional America.
Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew
You can't open your mind, boys, to every conceivable point of view

...Bob Dylan

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
...but conservatives don't and they need us to win elections...we have a chance to win and win big...just like the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....GOP = Stupid Party

Yes we do have a good chance this November.  But one of several issues hindering that is the lingering issue of immigration, which is why GOP leaders want something done today rather than next year. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
I think most people realize that mass deportation is unfeasible. I do prefer Rand Paul's idea of issueing work visas - with the provision that they aren't given voting rights, etc.  They need to get rid of the anchor baby privilege though.  These workers should be employed above-board, trackable and paying taxes like the rest of us. 

Of course, that will never happen - can't buy votes that way.

As best as I can interpret the 14th Amendment, getting rid of the anchor baby issue is going to take another amendment.  Otherwise I don't disagree with you.  I think the type of legalization, while an issue, is potentially negotiable.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
...but conservatives don't and they need us to win elections...we have a chance to win and win big...just like the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....GOP = Stupid Party

Yup.  I would never vote for, nor support in any way, anyone pushing this crap.  They can all go to hell.

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
Americans always want issues settled...as in solved and put away and forgotten about.  The problem is that any legislatin on this issue will not "settle" immigration issues for anything more than a very brief time.  The issue will always keep coming back, it will never be settled at least until the U.S. is no longer an attraction...a place that people in other countries no longer want to come to for economic reasons.  If this bill were truly to settle the immigration issue for a generation or more, then yes, it would be supported by the general public because the general public always wants issues to be solved and go away.  It won't do that.  All it will do is hasten the demographic suicide of traditional America.

Exactly.  And since when have so many bought into the idea of polling data trumping principals??  You don't have a sustainable nation if you don't have borders that are enforced.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Americans always want issues settled...as in solved and put away and forgotten about.  The problem is that any legislatin on this issue will not "settle" immigration issues for anything more than a very brief time.  The issue will always keep coming back, it will never be settled at least until the U.S. is no longer an attraction...a place that people in other countries no longer want to come to for economic reasons.  If this bill were truly to settle the immigration issue for a generation or more, then yes, it would be supported by the general public because the general public always wants issues to be solved and go away.  It won't do that.  All it will do is hasten the demographic suicide of traditional America.

I'm reminded of what the left says every time we want to open new areas off the Atlantic or Alaska to drilling.  "It won't solve the problem forever.  It will only produce enough oil for X number of days".  Actually no law solves an issue forever.  Look at our criminal codes, tax laws, environmental and labor laws.  Before the ink is dry they all wind up either in court or being reconsidered for some amendment, or both.  It's just the nature of the beast, and yes, any immigration legislation would face the same issues before and after being signed into law.

S.1348 in 2007 wouldn't have solved the immigration issue forever, but would have been a great start.  And as most Americans believe, we have to start somewhere, not only with finding a solution to those who have been here for years, many working, but also for other immigration issues like border security enhancements, better identification, ending chain migration, ending the diversity lotteries, improving the laws that define who can legally come here on a permanent basis and other such issues.

As for traditional America these days, listen to the top 25 popular songs today.  The traditional America I remember has long since faded into oblivion.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 251,981
Yes we do have a good chance this November.  But one of several issues hindering that is the lingering issue of immigration, which is why GOP leaders want something done today rather than next year.

Do you really think these *new citizens* will vote Repub?..... the GOP will just be strengthening the Dems base....

Support the USO

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,103
    • Auktion Online
And when Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promote granting work visas to all of the country's illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the country, he is promptly greeted the next day by Hispanic leaders in Wisconsin who call him "offensive."

I'd support this.

It could be improved, however, by adding a few provisions:
1. By accepting the work visa you agree never to apply for citizenship unless you return to your home country and go through normal channels.  Your children, if they were born here, can apply.
2. You agree to forego all Social Security benefits derived from previous income, although you will qualify for benefits for future income.  Also, you understand that you are unqualified to receive food stamps, AFDC or any other form of public assistance.
3. If you do not agree to the foregoing, you will be deported.  It will be strictly enforced.

 
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Do you really think these *new citizens* will vote Repub?..... the GOP will just be strengthening the Dems base....

A few quick points on that.  First, most of those legalized under Reagan never did apply for citizenship.  Second, Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.  Finally, If done right, the legalization process would be long, tough and costly for the candidate. The 2007 legislation would have required a path that took approximately 13 years.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,532
    • Boiling Frogs
Ants…

That’s my answer.

My wife hates ants, she freaks out when she sees those little tiny ones (pissants we called them as kids) running across the kitchen floor. She buys gallons of insecticide, she drowns them in the stuff, and we pay a guy to fumigate every month.

But the ants always come back.

http://boilingfrogs.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/ants-redux/
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
And when Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promote granting work visas to all of the country's illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the country, he is promptly greeted the next day by Hispanic leaders in Wisconsin who call him "offensive."

I'd support this.

It could be improved, however, by adding a few provisions:
1. By accepting the work visa you agree never to apply for citizenship unless you return to your home country and go through normal channels.  Your children, if they were born here, can apply.
2. You agree to forego all Social Security benefits derived from previous income, although you will qualify for benefits for future income.  Also, you understand that you are unqualified to receive food stamps, AFDC or any other form of public assistance.
3. If you do not agree to the foregoing, you will be deported.  It will be strictly enforced.

I would think number 1 would be part of the negotiation process, but I wouldn't have a problem with the long path as proposed in S.1348 from 2007.  As for children born here, they are already citizens and need not apply.  No. 2 is fine with me on Social Security if they did not make contributions.  If they did then it could be problematic given that SS probably accepted the money.  The last part of No. 2 was in the prior legislation and should be in this new proposal.  I agree.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,243
  • #ToldYouSo
I would think number 1 would be part of the negotiation process, but I wouldn't have a problem with the long path as proposed in S.1348 from 2007.  As for children born here, they are already citizens and need not apply.  No. 2 is fine with me on Social Security if they did not make contributions.  If they did then it could be problematic given that SS probably accepted the money.  The last part of No. 2 was in the prior legislation and should be in this new proposal.  I agree.

we think along the same lines then.

Offline MBB1984

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
Yup.  I would never vote for, nor support in any way, anyone pushing this crap.  They can all go to hell.

I am completely with you.  What is the use in voting Republican if they pass amnesty providing a permanent wave of uneducated, impoverished, entitlement loving voters in the near future.
The slave labor wing of the GOP is hell bent on the GOP's suicide.  Maybe they need it sooner rather than later.

Romney probably lost due to the 1986 Amnesty fiasco.  Of course, they promised to secure the border in 1986, too.   :silly: 

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
That is why the Republican leadership is pushing this issue.  It's consistent with what Americans want.  The illegals are not going to be deported, it's a tremendously divisive issue, and we are certainly no better off today than 7 years ago when the GOP scuttled the best deal they could have ever gotten on immigration reform.

Why is it that amnesty supporters constantly bring up mass deportations? Is it that amnesty is so destructive that a strawman is required to defend your position?

There are a lot of moving parts to this:

Mass deportations, while technically possible, is unfeasible. Mass deportation would fuel emotional fires, and it's just wrong. Many illegals were tempted to come here, and given a simple path. They are wanted for their cheap labor. If they've been here for any substantial amount of time, arbitrarily let's say 5 years, (that can be negotiated), have worked, and stayed out of trouble, deportation is not an option.

The big issue is, you can't make a deal with the Obama administration. You just can't. If you give them a path to citizenship based on conditions, like improved border security, they'll take the path, and renege on the security.

The laws on the books would suffice. More laws makes it more confusing, just what the political class loves.

The last amnesty did nothing but make illegals citizens. The Democrats, shock of all shocks, reneged on security.

Fast tracking illegals to citizenship is wrong too. I know a coworker, not Mexican, who finally got his citizenship, he's been here 12 years. I know another immigrant family, where the man of the house lost his job and is worried he'll be deported, (also not Mexican).

Finally, while making illegals suddenly legal is not appealing, but seems to be pragmatic, what amnesty does is encourage foreigners to continue to break our laws. Mexicans may do what many Americans don't want to do, but they also take jobs that Americans would do, and suppress wages.

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,103
    • Auktion Online
No. 2 is fine with me on Social Security if they did not make contributions.

In most cases, they make contributions under a phony or borrowed social security number.  All of that needs to be erased off the books.

As for citizenship, given the high hurdle, we are probably not talking about a large number of people who will do it, but in principle I oppose the "path to citizenship."  People do have the right to sell their labor, and I do not fault anyone who comes to this country for that reason.  We should encourage free trade in all of its forms.  But citizenship -- given our neo-socialist, managerial state -- is a whole other animal.

In summary, it's not the amnesty that bothers me, but the insistence that as a condition of amnesty we increase the number of Democrats on the voter rolls. 
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline MBB1984

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
A few quick points on that.  First, most of those legalized under Reagan never did apply for citizenship.  Second, Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.  Finally, If done right, the legalization process would be long, tough and costly for the candidate. The 2007 legislation would have required a path that took approximately 13 years.

Bush's alleged 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 is widely disputed.   That figure came from exit poll data which had many false reads and projections.  More significantly, many Hispanic voters were asked in English rather than Spanish.  Those interviewed in Spanish overwhelming supported Kerry.  According to the Washington Post, Antonio Gonzalez, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, said his exit poll showed Bush taking 33 percent.  The Annenberg survey, which is run through the University of Pennsylvania, says its best estimate is that 41 percent of the Hispanic vote went for Bush over Kerry.  Bush received 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000.  Amnesty promoting McCain received 31% in 2008.  Romney received 27-29% in 2012.  Obviously, it takes a very strained reading of the data to suggest that the GOP can significantly win the Hispanic vote.  The clear data shows the GOP increasingly losing such vote and it will be permanent.     

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,332
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Yes we do have a good chance this November.  But one of several issues hindering that is the lingering issue of immigration, which is why GOP leaders want something done today rather than next year.

What makes anyone think that any NEW immigration law will be enforced any more than the ones we already have?

When they decide to enforce current law we can begin to talk about any reforms that may be necessary but not before!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Why is it that amnesty supporters constantly bring up mass deportations? Is it that amnesty is so destructive that a strawman is required to defend your position?

There are a lot of moving parts to this:

Mass deportations, while technically possible, is unfeasible. Mass deportation would fuel emotional fires, and it's just wrong. Many illegals were tempted to come here, and given a simple path. They are wanted for their cheap labor. If they've been here for any substantial amount of time, arbitrarily let's say 5 years, (that can be negotiated), have worked, and stayed out of trouble, deportation is not an option.

The big issue is, you can't make a deal with the Obama administration. You just can't. If you give them a path to citizenship based on conditions, like improved border security, they'll take the path, and renege on the security.

The laws on the books would suffice. More laws makes it more confusing, just what the political class loves.

The last amnesty did nothing but make illegals citizens. The Democrats, shock of all shocks, reneged on security.

Fast tracking illegals to citizenship is wrong too. I know a coworker, not Mexican, who finally got his citizenship, he's been here 12 years. I know another immigrant family, where the man of the house lost his job and is worried he'll be deported, (also not Mexican).

Finally, while making illegals suddenly legal is not appealing, but seems to be pragmatic, what amnesty does is encourage foreigners to continue to break our laws. Mexicans may do what many Americans don't want to do, but they also take jobs that Americans would do, and suppress wages.

A few points.  First there's a world of difference between wanting to see comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty.  The anti-immigration crowd (yes it does exist) seems to have only one word to fight with..."amnesty" because it reduces a very complex issue to absurd simplicity.  In 2007, most of what conservatives wanted was in the bill.  But that didn't matter, because creating a legal path to citizenship for some of those here was simply unacceptable.  Yet they're still here, and since many states have begun enforcement of what would have been in the 2007 bill, they have simply moved into the welfare system.

AS for strawman arguments, the 2007 legislation quickly devolved into issues having nothing to do with who would get legalized.  Stories abounded about all the crimes including rapes committed by the illegals.  They pro-created like rabbits.  The spoke Spanish.  They're illiterate.  They're going to wipe out our European heritage, yada yada yada.

But you'll get no argument from me on how bad the Obama Administration is relative to illegal immigration.  But if we're worried that a law won't be enforced in the future, then no laws should be passed, since that same argument was used in 2006 and 2007 in the Bush Administration.  No one can argue that the 1986 law solved the problem, and to be sure, both parties faltered in enforcement and border security. 

Bottom line is by any measure, we are worse off today without immigration reform than we were in 2007.  And while the left wants a legalization process they are just as content as the right to let it fester because Democrats are picking up the votes just by letting the right filibuster the issue.  Just look at any poll on the issue.  The winners and losers are pretty obvious.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
What makes anyone think that any NEW immigration law will be enforced any more than the ones we already have?

When they decide to enforce current law we can begin to talk about any reforms that may be necessary but not before!

You won't get any arguments from Democrats.  They love the status quo.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Bush's alleged 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 is widely disputed.   That figure came from exit poll data which had many false reads and projections.  More significantly, many Hispanic voters were asked in English rather than Spanish.  Those interviewed in Spanish overwhelming supported Kerry.  According to the Washington Post, Antonio Gonzalez, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, said his exit poll showed Bush taking 33 percent.  The Annenberg survey, which is run through the University of Pennsylvania, says its best estimate is that 41 percent of the Hispanic vote went for Bush over Kerry.  Bush received 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000.  Amnesty promoting McCain received 31% in 2008.  Romney received 27-29% in 2012.  Obviously, it takes a very strained reading of the data to suggest that the GOP can significantly win the Hispanic vote.  The clear data shows the GOP increasingly losing such vote and it will be permanent.   

We frequently attack exit polling when it challenges our position.  And I agree that the Hispanic vote for Republicans has decreased year after year since 2004.  Most of that came after the debates on the 2007 legislation, in which very public arguments were made that scared hell out of people about Hispanics in general, not the specifics of the legislation.  And Republicans did nothing to counter those arguments made in their name.  If I were a Mexican voter and I read arguments about losing American tradition and how my kind is prone to this and that, I wouldn't vote GOP either.

How to regain the Hispanic vote, which by the way isn't as entrenched in one party as the black vote, is another debate.  But a fair comprehensive immigration bill that includes border security and better enforcement as a starter would be a good beginning.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf