The Cornyn Amendment Dies
By Erick Posted in Immigration — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For the last several days John Cornyn's amendment to the immigration bill has been assailed by every major media outlet and seriously misrepresented across the board. As Senator Cornyn explained here at RedState
The current immigration bill, without this amendment, makes those convicted of rape, assault, terrorism, and theft potentially eligible for legalization. We have enough trouble policing our own citizenry. Legalizing convicted felons, who have already shown disdain for our justice system, simply exacerbates the problem.
The Senate, this evening, voted down Senator Cornyn's amendment.
Look folks, I'm to the left of a great many of you on immigration. I have leaned toward support of this legislation. But it is blocking amendments like this and showing no willingness to fix the Z-visa issue that keep me from supporting the immigration reform effort.
I do not support the "send them all home and build a Great Wall of America" position that many of my friends have. But I must join them in opposition to this legislation.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | Amnesty Opponents Making Progress in Senate — Comments (22) »
The Cornyn Amendment Dies 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
of the various votes for the different amendments and I was kind of surprised by the outcome of two. When I looked at the Cornyn Amendment and the Bingaman Amendment, they both just made plain, common sense. One keeps felons from being able to move towards legalization, and the other alleviates strain on employers and immigrant workers in not requiring them to return every two years, for the period of a year, to their country of origin. Both went down to defeat, the Bingaman Amendment by a large margin. The only argument I saw against the Bingaman Amendment was offered by Specter and he only rattled off a strange rant on compromise (yet doesn't join with Bingaman in a compromise).
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism." --John C. Calhoun
What was the difference b/w the Cornyn Amendment, which failed, and the Kennedy Amendment, which passed? Malkin called the Kennedy Amendment "watered-down" and "weak," but, then again, she is in the send the home and build a big, big wall camp. Just curious b/c the Kennedy Amendment garnered a substantial number of GOP votes in favor of it.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism." --John C. Calhoun
What Cornyn didn't advertise was that the disqualifying crimes include things such as using false ID in order to work or being deported once and then returning. It was estimated that this would have disqualified 8 million of the 12 million. Knowing that they would get deported if the bill passed and they voluntarily came out of shadows, they would have simply stayed in the shadows. Cornyn's real intent was to gut the bill.
That's why Kennedy had an alternative amendment that PASSED EASILY, and that was very similar to Cornyn except that it removed the ID and previous deportation crimes from the list. It covers rape, assault, terrorism, etc. just as Cornyn would have.
Don't be tricked by these guys. Cornyn is against he bill and all his amendments contain poison pills that he won't tell you about. Then others who oppose the bill (radio hosts, bloggers, etc.) will demagogue those amendments in collusion with him.
Bottom line: Kennedy passed, and so rapists, etc. would be deported.
...and felonies we don't.
Gotcha.
I remember when the Republican Party was the Party of Law and Order, by which I don't mean we had a star of the series of the same name running in our primaries. Ah, well. Que sera.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Again, Cornyn didn't talk about that part of his bill. He claimed it was about rape and murder and street gangs. Those were taken care of by Kennedy's amendment, but all the Malkinesque wackos out there won't tell you that.
If you are against the bill, fine. I agree there are principled arguments against the bill. But don't misrepresent an amendment as an eminently reasonable addition to the bill when in fact provisions of your amendment that you don't even reveal to the public are intended to bring the bill down.
The original point of Erick's post was to say that even pro-immigration moderates should support Cornyn's amendment, but I believe he's only saying that because he doesn't understand what the amendment really does -- because Cornyn intentionally misled him and others.
Care to provide some proof that Cornyn "intentionally misled" anyone? The amendment speaks for itself, and for those who haven't read it, Sen. Cornyn provided a very cogent explanation in his previous posting, including the portions you believe were "misleading." And if that's not enough, Cornyn's web site clarifies some of the misrepresentations that were thrown about in the press and elsewhere. If you read the Cornyn entry (here, if you missed it), you'll note that he discusses more than "rape and murder and street gangs."
But this is all moot now, since the usual suspects voted it down anyway.
If you cannot or will not accept that the writers of this site mean what they write and that they attempt to speak the truth as they know it, read some other site.
Have I made myself clear?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
When I last looked, presenting false identification for employment -- or, and I hate to share this with you, but it actually happens, engaging in identity theft for financial gain(FN1) -- were felonies. I appreciate the correction, as will the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the greater Department of the Treasury, and the law enforcement agencies of the several States.
Guys! Let those folks go! Some guy who admires a failed group of incestuous Germanic kings says what those folks were tried and convicted for isn't a felony.
Sorry!
By the way, what Cornyn wrote -- I'm a sillyhead and looked it up -- was:
As the Senate debates the compromise immigration bill this week, an important question is before my colleagues: Whether or not Congress should permanently bar from the United States and from receiving any immigration benefits, the following categories of individuals: members of terrorist organizations, violent gang members, sex offenders, repeat drunk drivers, and those convicted of felony identity theft.
I've added the emphasis because you seem to keep missing that part.
Now, to share: Having worked in four of the States with the worst problem with illegal immigration, I have bad news for you. Sometimes, those poor darlings whose only crime was to break the law of this country on entering, actually purchase stolen social security numbers to use to gain employment, which would sound like they committed a second crime and a third crime, but thank God, you've corrected us on that. When you go and personally update the United States Code (and that of Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Florida), you might want to make clear that purchasing stolen social security numbers is not a crime, and that using stolen identity information for financial gain isn't, either.
I'm to the right of Erick, but waaaay short of Build a Big Damned Wall, but let me tell you, there have been only two times when I've felt like my Party was really breaking first principles in my entire lifetime, and this is one. We treat men with the dignity to hold them accountable for their crimes, and we don't pretend crime doesn't matter. Except, apparently, when those men constitute cheaper labor for chicken plants, farms, construction, and wherever else our business masters tell us they need these helots.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I had to drop some clients in a pretty sweet case because I found out they'd done more or less precisely this, and the defense lawyers would find out too; and because it's a felony, they could be impeached with it.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
HA! Misleading? Singling out Cornyn for Misleading?
This whole bill is misleading America. Trying to do a slam dunk with minimal debate is misleading. Selling out America with comprehensive amnesty is misleading.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
It was estimated that this would have disqualified 8 million of the 12 million.
Estimated by whom and based on what? I'd be surprised if 8 million of the 12 million illegals (assuming there's only 12 million illegals in this country... another unknown) even were employed at all, much less used fake IDs to find employment. Remember, there are kids in the equation. Quite a few small businesses and individuals don't need to see any ID or SSN because they don't plan on hiring these people on the books at all.
The numbers that faced deportation proceedings and ignored the orders would be minuscule in comparison to the overall population of illegal immigrants. They should be kicked out, and permanently. I have no more sympathy for that crowd than I do for those who rob 7-11s.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Which is exactly what happened to me, and since the abuse occurred in S. Florida, I gotta wonder whether it was one of our illegal friends. Sen. Cornyn explained the reasoning here in his earlier RS post. As Thomas already stated, you can't pick and choose about what laws you think are OK to be broken. A felony is a felony. And frankly, I don't care if it's eight million or eight hundred. Either way, Congress is (again) giving the illegals a free pass on violating the law. Seems to be a theme these days.
The opponents of the bill put up these amendments and tell everyone how common-sense and reasonable they are. How could anyone possibly oppose them?
When you peel the onion back, you find they are poison pill designed to gut the entire bill. Bloggers and talk radio scream bloody murder because they don't support the bill in the first place.
That's exactly how the game is being played -- over and over and over again on a host of amendments. I recognize that there is principled opposition to this bill -- and I think it's a pretty close call myself -- but this dog and pony show being played by a handful of senators and their sycophants on the net and the airwaves is not principled argument. It's dishonest.
Legislators must legislate to feel they accomplished something. The more massive the legislation, the more they feel they accomplished. There is absolutely no need for a bill this big and all-encompassing. Many of the enforcement provisions are rehashes of existing laws that are currently not funded or enforced, so why even include them again? The real smoke and mirrors is all the extra baggage included in this bill to cover the amnesty and guest worker programs.
Personally, I'm sure that Americans in general would embrace an expansion of the current guest worker program and probably even another round of amnesty. However, since we can remeber being lied to about enforcement time and time again, most folks want some proof up front this time.
Enforcement first - then we'll talk.
Is that why the Federal prosecutor in Texas let them 'self-deport' as many as five times so it will not be on their permament record?
How does:
"send them all home and build a Great Wall of America"
not mean simply enforcing the laws as they currently exist?
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
... Are really "send them all home and build a Great Wall of America" types? It seems that most who oppose this bill, as I do, don't want to hang our hat on a bunch of legislative verbage that indicates certain border security things "must" be done, with no real teeth to insure those provisions will be done. Not to mention numerous other problematic clauses.
I really don't know of any prominent opinion maker out there that advocates round them all up and "send them all home..."
Simply put... too many hanging chads on this bill for me.
This country will either deal with the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" welcome mat at our southern border or a few decades down the line it will be too late.
As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
Jack
The World's Ruined
More likely than not there are fewer "deport them all now" people out there than one might believe. They are, however, the most vocal.
I do tend to lean in that direction, but I think there are some here who have been here a very long time, proven their commitment to the country, and raised their families. I'm willing to let them slide.
... as I would also. Assimilation will eventually happen through the process of time (a couple generations) if the ease of slipping over the border is greatly reduced. No need to "round them up"... but that ease of entry is the main problem.
Thanks for your response.
Jack
The World's Ruined
Thats not my position but I'd like to know why its consistently taken off the table.
In Nthompsons thread, he provided data that 200K immigrants were being deported every year.
Is there any reason this number can't be doubled or tripled ?
Once again, I would like reasons why it shouldn't be. There has been enough flim flam about can't.
______________________________
"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
Deporting is a joke. With no border enforcement would could be deporting the same people every year. We aren't gaining any ground.
We should not let out any violent crime illegals and deport them until our border is secure, otherwise it is basically an early release because you know a majority of them will come across the border once again.
I had an employee get nailed for a DUI and it was discovered he had fake paperwork and was deported from Minnesota. To Iowa. No Joke. He was back working across the street 3 days later.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
One of the most persuasive arguments made by Chertoff on behalf of the Bill for the Bush Admin on Hewitt's show a week or so ago was that the Z Visa holders would help reduce the number of illegals that they needed to seek out and follow since they think that a lot of the terorists would not get the visa. This amendment put that rationale on the line and it was rejected.
The admin has no leg left to stand on.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
With that "1 business day background check" that won't and couldn't possibly happen, scam. I don't know how those guys manage to argue that with a straight face. They must bust up laughing as soon as they get off mic.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
S.AMDT.1234
Amends: S.1348 , S.AMDT.1150
Sponsor: Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] (submitted 5/24/2007) (proposed 5/24/2007)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years after passage of this Act, by preventing the earned income tax credit, which is, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest anti-poverty entitlement program of the Federal Government, from being claimed by Y temporary workers or illegal aliens given status by this Act until they adjust to legal permanent resident status.
Sam Brownback voted to reject this amendment. The RINOs who voted with Sam include Hagel, Smith, Collins, Snowe and Specter. Sam votes NO on an amendment to save the American taxpayers up to $24 billion, and he wants to be POTUS. No Way Jose.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
With so many different chefs and ingredients this amnesty stew will taste like crap.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
I'm sure if lived out here in Southern California and saw firsthand how our state is becoming a third world nation you would feel a lot different. I'm glad though that you're against the bill.
Allan Bartlett
NoKidding
The Senate bill is a placeholder. The bill important to the pro-bill crowd for one reason, to get a bill to Pelosi's House. In the House, the goal will be to get a House bill to conference committee. Conference will be controlled by Reid and Pelosi, because the Ds run Congress. The conference will write what it wants, and Bush will sign it. (It is a fiction that conferences reconcile differences. They write what they want.)
So, remember that the Senate bill is written in disappearing ink. Maybe you think it's horrible. Maybe you wish it could be better. It doesn't matter -- disappearing ink, lantern show, it all gets worse from here, always worse and never better. We'll be lucky if the Ds tell our guys where conference is meeting. The Ds have their GOP cover, Bush, and the GOP is going to pay for it.
So, if a bill passes the Senate, the odds go very high for an enacted amnesty, with fabulous political damage to the GOP and irreversible harm to the country.
Bottom line: If you don't want amnesty -- on terms that will be set by a D conference -- then you MUST help get 40 votes against cloture THIS WEEK. NOW.
Full and free debate might sink it. If not, cloture could be imposed later, but time is our friend. Rasmussen has the S bill polling at toothache levels, with Yes falling and No rising. That's why Reid, McCain, and the WH are frantic to get cloture. Help America now. Please.
Besides the fact that they're FELONIES, let's think this through for a moment. Consider the fact that there are people who've been ordered deported yet they defied that order. Others have been ordered to appear (catch and release) but they didn't. Still others let their visas expire but they stayed anyway. And then we have the guys with the multiple SSNs and fake IDs.
Now, most of these folks have already made some kind of contact with ICE or former INS. They've already been "in the system" in one way or another. They basically flipped us off and played by their own rules anyway. Our Senate is asking us to just forget all that and trust that the newly-legal immigrants will suddenly obey the new laws.
A lot of the American people are moderates on this issue - as I count myself - but the more immigration moderates get a load of what is actually in the bill, and the more they get exposed to the sneering contempt of the bill's supporters (including people we are not accustomed to have sneering at us), the more difficult it will be to convince anybody that this is a good idea.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill