White House Tries to Bribe Critics in Exchange for Amnesty
Window Dressing at the Border
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | Immigration — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's obvious the White House is still having a very hard time defending its immigration plan. President Bush's decision to cut a deal with Senators Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) and Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) to spend more money on border security is an attempt to placate critics of the immigration bill. We're not buying it.
If you'll recall, the White House started out by selling its plan based on the so-called "trigger" in the bill that required the enactment of several border security measures before illegal immigrants were given amnesty. But a closer look showed that the bill provided immediate amnesty and all of the triggers were already in current law and were things the Bush administration was already compelled to do.
Now the White House is proposing Trigger 2.0, which would provide approximately $4 billion for border security measures if Congress passes the bill and allows these funds to be paid back with amnesty fees paid by illegal immigrants. Nice try, but no. There is zero reason for Congress to tie amnesty to border security. The fiscal 2007 funds for the border security measures called for in the bill have already been appropriated and the fiscal 2008 funds have been planned from the start.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the goal is "to get money to the border right away." It sounds eerily similar to the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina: throw a bunch of money at the problem without ever assessing its effectiveness. Essentially, it's window dressing.
This administration has already admitted (in the first section of the bill, nonetheless) that it already can secure the border within 18 months. Now all of the sudden it needs a $4.4 billion deposit?
The response to Bush's deal isn't convincing the conservatives I spoke to on Capitol Hill. One Senate Republican staffer remarked, "It sounds like Bush is promising what he's already promised."
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | In Which The Washington Post Jumps The Gun — Comments (6) »
White House Tries to Bribe Critics in Exchange for Amnesty 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Most of that money is supposed to be going your way already; they've earmarked it in past bills. It's just not being disbursed, making all this talk about additional spending egregiously bad...
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones
did when they paid off their party members on the Iraq War supplemental, I state again the melding of the two parties is becoming complete. I want to be clear when I say two parties I mean R's and D's however as we know there is the progressive's and the conservatives.
Stage II of the Sovereignty Sell-Out Act of 2007 is the bribery stage.
First it was bullying, now it is bullying plus bribery--using our money; which they've been spending like drunken sailors.
Sent my "Send a Birthday Wish to W" fund raiser letter back today with "NOT A CHANCE IN H***, AMNESTY = NO MONEY, NOT ONE DIME, EVER!" in large, black marker.
Where has my party gone to?
Do we really want to use our titles to accuse White House officials of felonies?
Run like Reagan!
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source bribe (brīb) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
2. Something serving to influence or persuade.
v. bribed, brib·ing, bribes
v. tr.
To give, offer, or promise a bribe to.
v. intr.
To give, offer, or promise bribes.
I don't see anything inaccurate in the title. Do you?
Well, "supposed to do" would be more accurate, since no power this side of Heaven can seemingly get the President to enforce the current law. But I know what you mean.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated
on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage
to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American,
and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag..
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...
and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
We should require the President and Congress to recite that quote daily.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to make things work (this doesn't mean we could get Democrats to go along) would be to deny any chance of citizenship (for them and for their family, including US born children) to all current or future illegal immigrants. The only way out would be for them to return to "wherever" and wait in line as others continue to do.
If that's too much of a sacrifice, I say give them to choice of getting legal residency after paying a significantly bigger fine than is in this bill. Still, no citizenship for them or their families, and the legal residency could be terminated by illegal behavior or excessive welfare/public trough activity. Follow the law, learn English, keep employed, and pay taxes, and they can stay as long as they want.
Whatever benefit our country might receive from the presence of unemployed/unemployable/criminal aliens is more than offset by the damage they could do if made citizens and given the right to vote. It isn't as if they had a right to be here in the first place, or nowhere else to live. They have a right to return home. That's where their support should come from. All we're managing to do is to facilitate disfunctional governments elsewhere by solving one of their problems for them.
This may sound xenophobic, but “Political Correctness” is just a euphemism for “Capitulation to Intimidation.”
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
$2.5 Trillion future charge against Social Security. Seems fair to me.
I have a simple question that the White House is apparently incapable of answering ... What happened to the 2006 fence promise and why is that now coupled to AMNESTY? I don't think that was a provision of the 2006 bill.
Is there anything that stops the President from today ordering ...
1.) The 2006 fence built
2.) The border agents hired
3.) New detention facilities built
4.) Workplace enforcement
The only thing I can see that stops the President from ordering this today is the need to try and slip AMNESTY by the public which the public does not want. I guess the White House fails to realize that failure to carry through on the 2006 bill is just more proof that there is no intent to follow through on any future enforcement, regardless what is promised. When you refuse to do what is already authorized, what else can you conclude?
Does anyone think a Clinton administration will allocate money for enforcement? Actually collect the new bill's fines and penalties? If so I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska for sale, cheap.
Yes, I am questioning the White House motives here, it does not appear to be honorable. When something this simple doesn't add up, there is clearly something wrong.
Bluey, it does sound a lot like circular promising, all in the name of "we got to have AMNESTY". I ask WHY?
Tell me again why should I believe this White House ...
I responded to the latest donation request from the RNC that once the 'triggers' of a reasonably secure border and enforcement of current immigration laws, were both achieved, I would consider donating again..
BTW, three solicitation requests within the past week..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
You know they aren't reading the negative ones.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
The white house can promise to spend anything it wants on border security. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can cut funding for a war they voted to declare, if they have no RESPECT for the men and women of our armed forces who serve us, they won't have any respect for the promises made in the heat of a passionate push to give away citizenship.
You know they are going to stop paying for the parts they don't like, such as border security.
Pelosi and Reed are dead beats when it comes to paying for the things they owe the American people. Who beleives anything these dead beats promise?
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
"One Senate Republican staffer remarked, "It sounds like Bush is promising what he's already promised.""
It now appears the 370 miles of fence in the Amnestia bill is the exact amount appropriated for the fence last year but never built. Thus, no new appropriation is needed to build the fence, they are counting last year's fence in this years bill. They don't have to build the fence anyway the money could be redirected by DHS Secretary if he saw fit to do so. Now that's a pretty good lie by itself. Now President Bush, why should I believe you? You've already dissembled the facts of the Bill.
Spend the money on border security then when illegal immigration is down we will talk about another to fix the problem of people here illegally.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Who stole George Bush?
The highpoint of his president came a few days after 9/11 when Republicans and Democrats alike met in the National Cathedral in Washington to honor the victims, a cermoney that concluded with a rousing "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
Bush should have marched to the Capitol, called a joint session of Congress and asked for declartions of war against Afghanistan and all states that supported terrorists -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea. It would have passed 100 to 0 in the Senate, and 421 to 3 in the House.
Instead, he brought a terrorist supporter Iman into the National Cathedral and told Americans they could support the war "by shopping."
Inspirational!
A patriot fooled an illegal immigrant out of this guidebook, used by the 20-30 million illegals to get into and prosper in America over the past 30 years.
Only illegals were permitted to purchase it. It was forbidden to let an American know about it, because the book made plain that Illegals were just taking advantage of spineless Americans and their lax laws to stroll in and take over the country.
How many generations of Americans, whether white and coming here from, or black and brought in chains, along with Native Americans, would have endured all of their sacrifices to turn the country over to other cultures who had nothing to do with making America great?
A renegade band of illegals, giddy with victory that the Bush-Kennedy immigration compromise, would turn over the country once and for all to them, got careless and let slip another copy of the secret handbook.
It has been translated into English again and sample pages are available to be read free at http://conservativehumor.net
Copies of the book can also be bought on the site, but the illegals are not putting into operation the strategy they used in 1994, to track down every purchaser of the book and eliminate the book, or the purchaser, or both.
They may have a little fun in hunting down some buyers, so be true to yourselves, you modern generation of Americans, who have thrown away the birthright that dozens of previous generations fought and died for to pass on to THEIR BLOODLINES!Not any illegal from a failed culture who decided to stroll in here not for freedom but to plunder the country.
REMEMBER, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!
95% of doctors feel that you pitiful Americans are too weak to read this book that shows how illegals took advantge of your stupidity. http//conservativehumor.net
stop posting this garbage
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...that illegal immigrants are flying around in unmarked black helicopters, mutilating cattle, and making crop circles.
No. Really. I mean it.
does it stand any chance of passing the House? Isn't the House our firewall in this case?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
If this thing gets 60+ votes in the Senate, they would probably have no problems ramming it through the House... assuming the leadership there wants to.
I'm not really clear on how much the Dem leadership is behind this bill. They seem conflicted. On one hand, it's a pretty good deal that will result in lots of new Democrat voters, but on the other hand, they think they can do damage to the White House by spiking it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
NoKidding
'House will kill it' is being used as an amnesty sales line with scared, under-pressure Senators, to help get them to vote Yes on Bush-Kennedy. It is nothing more than a bogus sales line. If Amnesty Inc wins in the Senate, they've probably won it ALL.
Here is why 'House-kills-bill' is a very dangerous illusion:
1. Pelosi can put any bill she wants on the H floor, including a 'conservative' bill with LOTS of enforcement mandates, superficially BETTER than the Senate bill. It doesn't matter. The House bill is written in water, just like the Senate bill.
The bill Bush SIGNS will be written by Ds in a Reid-Pelosi conference committee. An S bill and a H bill are vehicles only, mere placeholders, used to get to conference.
So, a D-controlled conference committee will write the final bill. It will be non-amendable. Bush will sign it. For Amnesty Inc, score this Game, Set, Match. For America, score it the most damaging single piece of federal legislation I have ever seen.
2. Pelosi probably doesn't WANT amnesty to hit the House, but, if a weak Senate drops it on her, after GOP capitulation to Kennedy, Gramnesty, and Bush, she will be forced to deal with it. The best way to deal with it? Answer, GET RID OF THIS. How to get rid of it? Answer, Pass "something/anything" and GET TO CONFERENCE. Pelosi: "This is really dangerous. Get it out of here. Write something that will pass and get it out of here, to the conference."
Therefore, the whole game is in the Senate, right now. The Senate is the ONLY point in the process where the GOP has any leverage. Ds run the House, and have the Rules Cmt, and, therefore, can have their members vote on anything they choose. There are GOP fight-back tools in the House, but they are much weaker than our Senate tools.
After voting Yes on a Pelosi placeholder bill (a Trojan horse, of course), the D member says back home, after Bush signs a bill FAR worse than today's Senate bill: "I voted for real enforcement. Darn it! That conference committee really disappointed me. I bet George Bush made them change it to a really weak, no-enforcement bill. That's Bush for you -- no fence, promises to fix the border, quickly broken. No-Border Bush. Amnesty Bush, the Republican. But the House voted for some real enforcement...did I tell you? ... "
The House is no firewall. The only firewall is the Senate. We have to win in the Senate. Sending it to the House is a huge win for Amnesty Inc. The Senate is the only game where we have a good chance. We have to win.
In your scenario, the bill has to come back out of conference as a different bill and must re-pass the Senate or the House as a significantly different bill.
However, I agree that killing it right here is a better idea.
Romney or Fred.
NoKidding
A conference committee can do essentially anything it chooses. By ancient usage, and probably a rule, it is said that the conference reconciles the differences between the S and H bills. Nope. The reality of power: they can write what they want. "Scope of differences" is what the H and S say they are, when they vote on the conference report.
"Enforcement" against a conference report is essentially meaningless. 1) In the Senate, you can make a point of order that the report exceeds the scope of differences. You will lose. The body works its will. If they want to adopt it, it won't fall on a point of order period. Fine, good try, you lose. 2) Amendments are not in order. 3) So, you can filibuster. But if the pro-amnesty coalition of Kennedy-McCain got 60 for cloture on the S bill, they will get minimum 60 for cloture on a conference report. Even without the power reality, it is profoundly against Senate tradition to attempt to filibuster a conference report. 4) Finally, you have human nature. At a conference report's adoption, thousands of hours are invested, baloney has been told to constituents, lobbies have been served, etc. They aren't going to dump the work at the last second.
House "enforcement" -- I'm not too conversant there -- might be a recommit motion. No problem for Amnesty Inc. Leave the vote open until you have 218, especially if the Senate already has adopted it. And the report, of course, will contain cover for the Yes on amnesty votes: empty promises to restore the border, MADE TO BE BROKEN, by every guide for two decades, AND under Bush. When promises aren't kept, it will be the fault of Bush, the REPUBLICAN. This is just another snapshot of how we are killing ourselves: branding ourselves as the party of no meaningful border, false promises, cheap labor, and big business. We are all hat, no cattle, Bush and the Republicans.
Certainly, the Ds would take heat for amnesty, as well. But we take a LOT more. For Reid and Pelosi, if they get a broken arm, but we get our head shot off, that's fine; that's a good trade, a D win. The calculus is the RELATIVE harm; two parties, competitors. "If I lose $10 but you lose $20, I win."
However, I agree, Reid, and probably Pelosi, are scared of the bill, because people know that a DEMOCRAT Congress is passing amnesty without border enforcement. But the final event here would be that Bush, the REPUBLICAN, signing it into law.
Bottom line, the game is the Senate.
sitters on this.
They started as big backers (Chambliss / Isackson) and then vascilated back to NO votes, but probably for the wrong reasons (i.e. the sunsetting of workers).
Now, I'm nervous so I emailed both of them and made sure I included a line that I knew about Bush's new "concessions."
Romney or Fred.
You have to call these Senators. They only take notice when their phones are ringing off the hooks and they have to directly deal with angry constituents. Emails are impersonal and can be deleted.
Frank Katz
Anything that produces a physical presence.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
numbersusa.com has free pre written faxes to send.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
And how many of these fines and penalities will the Hillary Administration collect? Exactly zero.
And how many miles of the fence will the Hillary Administration build? Exactly zero.
And how many AMNESTY tickets will the Hillary Administration issue, 100%.
Who thought of this -- And how many of these fines, penalties and gratuities will the courts uphold? The courts, and the ACLU, when they get involved -- No fines, No penalties, (unreasonable hardships, think of the children) and yes to all AMNESTY hammocks, freebies and gratuities. It's always for the children. Just use the courts and terrorists multiplied by 30,000,000 as the model.
Goodbye all fines, penalties, hello welfare hammocks. Who pays for this? I thought you could figure this out yourself. Goodbye funding for the $4 Billion in bribes. You didn't buy this did you?
And then this -- Once the newly legal illegals take up their positions in the labor force, after replacing current workers for minimum wage, here comes the next wave of illegals who work for substandard wages and no taxes, and the AMNESTY holders take up their positions in the welfare hammock.
And on the cycle goes when you have no border security, you are finished as a country. We are very near that point.
Same result as 1986 ... Anyone see the problem here?
...as I work on the border. We can always use more vehicles and gadgets to get the job done. We certainly can use more fence, too. And personnel. BUT, we need to ENFORCE the laws already on the books, such as REAL work place inspections and identity checks for applicants, not just these ICE dog and pony shows (see recent story out of Portland, OR). This amnesty crap is such a joke anyway. Does anyone think we have the personnel infrastructure to actually process the Z visa applicants when we cannot process the otherwise legal visa applicants? I just wish our open-borders business leaders cared about how sovereignty rather how the bottom line lines their pockets, and I'm otherwise as pro-business as anyone. This is called cost-shifting, folks; instead of paying more for lettuce, my health care skyrockets.