June 8, 2007

What's Next For Immigration?

The "grand compromise" died in an ignominious fashion last night, with supporters of the bill unable to garner even a simple majority to end debate in the Senate. In the end, the bill's overall opponents seized on a poison pill amendment that they knew would fracture the coalition supporting it, even though they themselves didn't really support the thrust of the amendment itself. Does that mean that they managed to kill the bill altogether, or will it arise from its current coma?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) immediately announced that he would pull the bill from consideration and move on to energy legislation. But he left open the possibility that lawmakers could still reach a decision on immigration legislation and called on Bush to do more to help.

"Even though I'm disappointed, I look forward to passing this bill," Reid said after the vote. "There are ways we can do this. There's lots of support for this bill on the outside; the problem was on the inside of this chamber. ...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), citing "the disastrous status quo that we have on immigration in America today," insisted that Democrats could have gotten the bill passed had they allowed Republicans to vote on more amendments. The effort may have collapsed, in part, because of a dispute over as few as two GOP amendments. Reid said that he offered Republicans up to eight more amendments, but Republicans apparently wanted 10 or 12.

Although McConnell acknowledged that some Republicans would never vote for the bill, he rebuked Reid for not trying harder to win over more moderate Republicans. "The key is the rest of us," McConnell said. "We could have finished this bill in a couple of more days."

McConnell added that he hoped Reid would bring the bill up again soon. "I wouldn't wait a whole long time to do it," he warned.

Procedurally, the Senate can revisit the legislation any time they want. However, it seems unlikely that they will try again this session. The members of the coalition took a beating from their constituents over the last three weeks, and for some, the political moment has passed. They do not want to sail back into those waters, at least not without a guarantee of achieving something that would make the journey worth the pain.

Part of the reason for the heated emotions was the process by which the bill came to the Senate. Reid complained about having to have so much time eaten up by amendments, but the bill took an unusual path to the Senate floor. Most of those amendments could have been offered in committee, but the backroom deal that cobbled the legislation together bypassed that process altogether. Quite obviously, enough Senators from both parties had enough problems with the massive overhaul that it shows the benefits of normal legislative process, rather than having something this complicated suddenly show up with only two weeks to parse it.

In the end, that's why Jim DeMint and other Republicans voted to sunset a guest-worker program they support -- because they couldn't stop the process any other way:

Shortly after midnight yesterday, DeMint returned to the floor and, along with three conservative Republican colleagues, voted in favor of the same measure he had opposed, to sunset the program after five years. Not that DeMint has anything against guest workers. He supports the idea. But weakening the guest-worker program would leave the bill in tatters -- and in the twisted logic of the Senate, that served DeMint's greater goal of derailing the legislation.

"If it hurts the bill, I'm for it," DeMint explained matter-of-factly.

The early-morning vote shocked members of the bipartisan coalition who have struggled to pass an immigration bill, one of the most complex and controversial that Congress has tackled in years. Leaders in both parties condemned the GOP switchers for conspiring to sabotage legislation that had taken countless delicate negotiating sessions to craft. And that was exactly the intent. The four new votes were the result of an aggressive last-minute lobbying campaign by the legislation's Democratic and Republican critics.

I doubt they were shocked, and if they were, it speaks to a certain amount of hubris evident from the first moments of this compromise. The coalition demanded a fast-track process to a floor vote and asserted that they would not allow more than a handful of amendments. They originally wanted only a week to debate the bill, but pressure from Republicans got that extended to two weeks.

In contrast, for just a simple budget supplemental for troops under fire, Congress took over 15 weeks to debate and produce a bill. For an overhaul of immigration, Border Patrol, and national-security processes, the Senate could spare only ten legislative days.

Mickey Kaus says that the bill is "just resting", and technically that's true. However, the bill's backers just learned that the Senate, and especially the Republican caucus, will not allow them to stuff a bill down their throats. They also learned that their constituents do not trust Congress to do what it says on border security, and that they have no credibility at all selling "triggers" and normalization in one package.

If they paid attention at all, they would understand that they need to rebuild credibility by tackling the issues in order. Build the security fence they passed last year first, and bolster the Border Patrol. Fix the visa management system that had been mandated for completion two years ago. Once those border-control solutions are in place and working, then debate normalization -- and I think they will find the American public more willing to work with them.

UPDATE: The Fishwrap at the Washington Times has a round-up of reactions from last night.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (25)

Posted by RG | June 8, 2007 7:06 AM

Here's my two cents....

We won the battle but not the war. The war is the sellout of our nation to foreign interests, mainly Mexico but not exclusively. The brutal facts are:

1) Over 75% of Americans want enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.

2) Over 60% of Americans want LEGAL immigration reduced modestly.

3) Over 85% of Americans want English to be our official language.

4) Most Americans want equal treament before the law (currently those with Latino surnames are given carte blanche).

5) The appropriate punishment for illegal immigration is deportation - everything else is just weasel words.

6) There are few if any true labor shortages, most are just propaganda spewed by industries who want to drive down wages and bring in a new servant class to replace the previous servant class who would become citizens if they have their way in the "comprehensive immigration reform" nonsense.

7) Very little can be accomplished until the corrupt narco-nation of Mexico is pressured into significantly reforming it's inept economic/political system.

Bush, McCain, Kennedy, Chertoff, Gonzales want to turn this nation into nothing but a shell of it's former self - an economic "region", not a sovereign, independent nation.

This is not what our forefathers fought and bled for.

Posted by Keemo | June 8, 2007 7:56 AM

Boy, has this bill brought many things out into the open for all to see. Michael Savage was dead on target regarding G.W. Bush (as painful as that is for me to admit). John McCain is a "really bad" politician and would be an even bigger disaster as President. Lindsey Graham it the shining example of the "ugly lawyer", selfish, self-serving, elitist, destroyer of all things good...

A new term has come out of this debate; at least new to me "Internationalist"... We had better learn more about this term and it's true meaning as it relates to our leaders vision for OUR country. Politicians meeting behind closed doors, then attempting to make laws without involvement from the citizens; this is also a reality of this bill. The term "above the law" is not a new term, but it does apply to this debate in many ways.

We had better keep a close eye on this group of politicians, lead by Bush, McCain, and Kennedy... I have a feeling that much more is to be revealed before this thing gets put to bed...

Posted by Gary Gross | June 8, 2007 8:00 AM

As I said here, this wasn't reform legislation. It was a collection of poison pills that did nothing to improve border enforcement.

For me, the beginning of the end was when John Cornyn said that USCIS wouldn't be able to process all the Z-visas in a Sunday op-ed.

Read all my posts on why this monstrosity failed.

Posted by harleycon5 | June 8, 2007 8:35 AM

RG is right, we have a long way to go to beat these people. I don't really think we will be clear of danger until President Bush leaves office, and we remove the "Gang of Libs" which include John McCain and his lil toadie Lindsey Graham. I think considering the strong feelings on this issue that several of the Republican candidates will take this issue and run with it, namely Guliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson.

This actually gives the Republicans an edge in the Presidential election, since all the Democrats are pro Amnesty, but quite a few Democrats and Independents are not.

Apparently after the Bill failed, McCain was speechless. Perhaps in that brief moment he understood that he was done. Done in his fight for illegal Amnesty, done as a candidate for President (the base truly deplores him at this point), and possibly done in the Senate. I cannot talk for the voters in his state, but I would vote against him in any election at this point.

The fight continues....

Posted by digitalintrigue | June 8, 2007 8:38 AM

This battle victory for conservatism (sorry Bush, sorry McCain, Graham; thank you DeMint, Coburn, Sessions.) But we still have to win the war.

Posted by Keemo | June 8, 2007 8:45 AM

BTW: Thank you CE for all that you do; for providing this forum for us; for your honesty and integrity...

Posted by brooklyn | June 8, 2007 8:50 AM


where is the thanks for the Republicans who defeated Reid and Company's effort to force something down our throat?

where is the thanks for the GOP Members who fought for debate and amendments to encourage sound policy?

so many keep pushing baseless vitriol, some telling us of their delusion that they believe there is no difference in the two political Parties, yet this continues to be proven baseless.

some best wake up, from the self destructive madness, and learn to advocate without destroying everything else.

2008 is around the corner.

and the enabling of a Hillary and Company victory is quite concerning.

the vilification of this fine President is truly regretful as well.

the mighty ANCHORESS has the truth here:

Posted by betsybounds | June 8, 2007 9:31 AM

Um, I think it takes more than a simple majority to end debate (a filibuster) on a bill--i.e., to invoke cloture. I think it takes 60 votes. This may be picking a nit, but nevertheless, it changes the terms of the debate a bit.

Posted by richard mcenroe | June 8, 2007 9:37 AM

Brooklyn -- Jeff Sessions and Jim deMint have been canonized over at Ace of Spades. Hilarious and thunderously vulgar.

Posted by RoyE | June 8, 2007 9:45 AM

This battle is won. The war continues.

Hopefully, this outrageous attempt to steamroll the will of the Ameircan people will be an educational experience for some.

But the RNC still isn't getting a penny from me until I see a major attitude adjustment.
We are not serfs. America is not a serfdom

Posted by maverick muse | June 8, 2007 9:48 AM


Comprehensive immigration reform packages are pandora's box.

Rather than repeat the formula for failure that perpetually augments our illegal population, reform should rescind those laws that created today's huge illegal alien population influx. Repeal is a legitimate legislative procedure.

Reid, Bush and others bitch that critics won't be satisfied ever, no matter what policy is legislated. Their simplistic sour grapes judgment fails to address their own inherent faults that WE AMERICAN CITIZENS will never again condone. There is absolutely no legitimate place for illegal alien amnesty.

Comprehensive efforts are inherently doomed, whether passed or not. If passed, the boondoggle elements terminate the rule of law, dooming the entire society. Individual itemization would clearly allow each topic its own opportunity to pass or fail according to close public scrutiny of its virtue and vice. In law, deal CLEARLY with one aspect at a time. Kennedy and insulated friends regularly swallow the camel while straining at the knat.

Our legislators should approach each individual immigration problematic topic with open and exact analysis that MUST 1) refute amnesty for illegals (give them the boot and make them wait in line--absolutely no advantage for having criminally resided in our midsts; 2) prove effective given absolute enforcement; enforce laws for having already pillaged our system by cheating at entry; 3) prove financing logistics requiring CITIZEN approval. It is the TAXPAYER who finances legislation that lobbyists and insulated Big Brothers impose.

#1 Build the fence already approved.

To be effective, COMPLETE THE FENCE. Make the fence impenetrable. Increase border patrol agents authorized with a wide latitude of discretion to overtly protect our borders with lethal force against ALL those who cross illegally. Why play Mr. Nice Guy to disguised terrorists and to overt drug dealers and to slave trader coyotes?

Asking pretty please made the mess we are in now, playing catch and release to the huge DETRIMENT of US national security and US citizen rights. Illegal entry into the USA must have no desirable consequences, and absolutely undesirable results for the illegal alien. US citizenship must be reserved for those who absolutely follow legal procedure. US citizenship must never be the reward for criminal behavior to those illegal aliens who vault themselves above the law and above the US citizen. Over 20% of criminals doing time in California are illegal aliens, not including those "impounded" in the catch and release system.

Why play Mr. Nice Guy to repeat offenders? Put them on the chain gang prison work detail for compensation. Don't allow them to be hired in the private sector, awarding their illegal entry with an American citizen's job. Don't just export them without exacting from them the financing that their illegal entry imposed upon our taxpaying citizens. Place them in a never acceptable registry for citizenship.


Posted by gringoman | June 8, 2007 9:51 AM

As for "this fine President" of the national crisis in illegal immigration, two previous posts at gringoman.com (with vivid art work), are still fresh and relevant as ever, and add to the 'Conversation': OUR FIRST MEXICAN PRESIDENT and IS GEORGE BUSH OVER?

As for the increasingly embarrassing John McCain, who I used to like and admire, we are witnessing the political implosion of America's most celebrated POW. What was clear weeks ago is now flash-point obvious. He used to be an American, then became a Washingtonian and a border sell-out. Johnny boy, no White House for you, now or ever, with or without the bleeping temper.

Gratifying, yet sad. Or sad, yet gratifying.

Posted by Roy E | June 8, 2007 10:02 AM

Kudos to Democrat Byron Dorgan for pointing out that we already have the laws we need to secure the border and that enforcement is being held hostage to special intertests.

Refusal to enforce existing the law until some other concession is made shouls be impeachable. I say that quite calmly and fully sober, sans hysteria. There is no excuse for not enforcing the border.

Sen. Dorgan showed a lot more character and courage than many Republicans on this travesty of a bill, so please do give credit where credit is due. (along with Sessions, DeMint, and Cornyn!)

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | June 8, 2007 10:02 AM


If they paid attention at all, they would understand that they need to rebuild credibility by tackling the issues in order. Build the security fence they passed last year first, and bolster the Border Patrol. Fix the visa management system that had been mandated for completion two years ago...

And whose responsibility is that, really? Congress got that ball rolling last session and Bush virtually stopped it. His administration wanted to give a more sympathetic Congress another bite at the amnesty apple. While I fault the Senate for a disingenuous bill and their inadequate oversight, I fault Bush for abdicating his Constitutional responsibilities. To me, as bad as the Senate has behaved, Bush has behaved worse.

The "grand compromise" represents everything wrong with our government and has led to a cynicism to a degree I've never seen before. Consider:

  • The secretive way in which this vitally important and all-encompassing legislation was constructed.

  • The speed with which its authors pressed for passage to deny legal American citizens' scrutiny.

  • The layers of loopholes designed to effectively deconstruct the advertised intent of the bill when implemented, i.e. to sell the public on a bill that would not accomplish that which the supporters said it would... to mislead by design.

  • A now obvious revelation that legislators routinely either fail to or refuse to read the legislation they write and will pass its binding content before all has been put to paper.

  • A known revelation re-exhibited that the wording of legislation is designed with obfuscation in mind - an obfuscation that allows both sides of the aisle to claim that a bill does what its particular constituency desires and opening the legal can of worms for the Judicial branch to resolve. IOW contentious law is designed to be kicked to the courts to be resolved there at some indeterminate point well into the future.

  • The fact that legislation would have trumped previous legislation just created mere months ago that had already addressed several issues - a perhaps designed tactic to undo the will of the people.

  • Exhibition of huge bureaucracies that remain dysfunctional and cannot perform their stated and expected mission, e.g. Homeland Security and security/background checks, ICE ignoring "no-fly" lists (see passenger and tuberculosis), SS and the disregard to the unfunded mandate about to be catastrophically increased, etc.

  • A Congress heavily invested in special interest advocacy to the extent that select groups maintain their lobbying stranglehold to the detriment of the every day citizens who struggle just to survive and cannot routinely present a consequential, contrarian position due to lack of access.

  • Legislative votes indicative not of conviction but of exceedingly measured and whipped counts meant to preserve incumbency.

  • An Executive that will not enforce laws which it finds distasteful or against its mission, e.g. workforce enforcement, border security, catch-and-re-re-re-release, etc.

  • A Legislative that will not oversee the implementation of current law and serve as its check on the Executive.

  • An Executive that will smear its constituents who dare to question its policy despite truly legitimate concerns and not just manifest politicking.

This is an off-the-top-of-the-head list without even addressing 1) the endless specifics to this particular POS legislation and 2) the philosophical merits of what should/should not be done to maintain our national underpinnings of law, order, sovereignty, composition, freedom, etc. Process alone was abhorrent without regard to specific text or national sentiment.

In other words, we have seen exhibit A of a nation of men in action instead of a nation of laws. Thankfully, and kudos to Mr./Mrs Average Joe, enough people became incensed enough to stop this bill... this time. Diligence on our part is vital to check the diligence on the elected classes' part.

Make no mistake, amnesty advocacy isn't dead but rather in retreat just waiting for the right political dynamic to evolve to try again. Recall this President supporting a Senate version very much like this one during the last session only to get defeated by an agitated public then. His response? The day after a new Congress is seated, he proclaimed as his first order of business to resurrect "comprehensive reform" while dragging his feet on the work from the last Congress to actually do reform.

On the upside a silent majority found its voice. Let's hope it leads to rightful action.

Posted by tgharris | June 8, 2007 11:03 AM

Where's all this support "on the outside" that Harry Reid was talking about? It apparently ain't in the United States of America.


Posted by ralph127 | June 8, 2007 11:05 AM

I heard on Laura Ingraham’s show that Chuck Hargel faces a serious primary contender because of his support for this amnesty bill. The political process at work yet who wins if Hagel does a Lieberman?

If a conservative unseats Hagel in the primary will Hagel run as an independent and win with Democrat votes? And can a divided GOP carry Nebraska for the presidency? Will a totally pissed off and pissed on conservative base even bother to vote? Hagel is also mentioned as a running mate for Bloomberg’s independent bid for the presidency.

And who wins if Bloomberg runs for president as an independent? The GOP base has been sundered by Bush’s lust to make nice to preferred minorities. The GOP contender only has to lose a small percentage of the disaffect base for Herr Hillary to win with a plurality of the vote. There is no natural law that promises that conditions today will not get worse tomorrow. And Clintons in the White House, even with zippers zipped up, ensures tomorrow will be much worse.

The American hating Left is in ascension thanks in a large part to Reagan’s sellout of national sovereignty in 1986. The 1986 amnesty turned California into a lock for the American hating left. If Reagan sold out national sovereignty in 1986 rather than be accused of being mean to preferred minorities why should we expect more courage from our rulers today now that millions more preferred minorities have the franchise?

The perversely permissive attitude toward illegal aliens permits jihadist to operate amongst us with impunity. Six years after 9/11 it is criminal that there is one illegal alien left in America. We cannot provide for the common defense unless and until we force our rulers to purge our nation of aliens here illegally, even if they are hard working preferred minorities. Do we as a people have the will to do what must be done to provide for the common defense? The 08 elections will go a long way in answering this truly life and death question.

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?

Posted by Bill Faith | June 8, 2007 11:36 AM

¡¡La shamnistía es muerta!! ¿O es?  Never trust a Dimocrat politician to keep his word about anything. Dirty Harry promised earlier in the week to table the bill for the rest of the year if it didn't pass this week. So much for Dirty Harry's promises.

Posted by Nate | June 8, 2007 11:51 AM


You hit that on the head. I found myself nodding in agreement at every one of your bullet points. Especially this last one.

"On the upside a silent majority found its voice. Let's hope it leads to rightful action."

Exactly. There is some good news here. As despicable as many of our Senators are, the will of the people can still (just barely) prevail, and some politicians (Jeff Sessions) really are trying to live up to their oaths of office. Furthermore, now that what We the People want is crystal clear, I hope they do revisit this soon. In fact I think we should all be demanding that they do. The public wants it, and the momentum is in the right direction. (Just now on C-SPAN I heard them ask the question "Do you think congress should revisit immigration reform?" What timing.)

Consider this. Even Senator Feinstein, in the comment period that followed the death of the bill, was talking about dropping the "comprehensive" approach, and tackling the immigration issue in smaller pieces. What a novel idea! If they took this up again right now we might actually get something useful out of it. So, today I'm going to write my Senators and demand that they take the issue back up with an enforcement first approach, and in the light of day for a change. I'm also going to send thanks and encouragement to Jeff Sessions and his staff for their stellar work in defeating that awful bill. I urge you all to do the same.

Posted by Tiara Etheridge | June 8, 2007 12:13 PM

Your blog made me think twice about mine, accessible at http://blogs.ardmoreite.com/blog. I ranted on about the benefits of mass amnesty for illegal immigrations through state/federal tax withheld from legitimate checks, but the truth is our laws do need to be more enforced than they currently are. Although I think a large security fense at the border is futile, I agree that our visa management system needs to be fixed.

Posted by Rob Berle | June 8, 2007 12:14 PM

The Wash Times reports that "Foreign nationals make up nearly 90 percent ... of the persons arrested in connection with crimes against children, including pornographers and molesters, under Homeland Security's four year old Operation Predator." page three--6-8-07. The full truth about immigration is very dark indeed and needs venting in blogs if not in the corporate media empires.

Posted by pa | June 8, 2007 12:34 PM

Agree with all the above commenters, especially AnonymousDrivel and maverick muse. I would like to see someone finally examine the two true underlying issues in the illegal immigration problem:

1. Why businesses are so insistent on the need for guest workers (or serfs or illegals or what have you): Government overregulation makes it difficult for businesses to function effectively, efficiently, and profitably. They wouldn't be so determined to employ illegals who are not subject to labor laws if those laws weren't so onerous, intrusive, costly, and likely unconstitutional. So they avoid having to comply (which gives them a strong competitive advantage over companies that are law-abiding) by hiring people who are outside the law. It apparently hasn't occurred to any politician that legalizing the current crop of illegals will simply not solve the problem. Once those people are legal and therefore entitled to all the same benefits and protections of American workers, the businesses that now hire them will simply look for new illegals who will be willing to work outside the requirements of the law. So we can expect more millions of illegals to quickly flood into America to serve the needs of non-law-abiding businesses. If businesses were willing to comply with labor laws, they could hire Americans and legal immigrants right now. But they aren't, so they won't. And they won't suddenly begin complying with the law just because of any so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Bottom line: No immigration law can provide a remedy for the real reason for widespread employment (and abuse) of illegals.

We would be better served by a Congress and a President that worked to repeal or rein in laws and regulations that have gone way beyond their fundamental objectives (to improve working conditions and fairness) and grown wildly out of control, making it difficult for American businesses to function.

2. Why so many millions of Mexicans are desperate to leave their homeland: This site and others have often discussed this issue, explaining that Mexico has no incentive to institute reform as long as they have the USA as a safety valve. They are solving their problems by dumping them on us; Mexico can therefore ignore poverty, poor education, bad housing, bad economic decisions, bad business environment, and all the other barriers to success by sending their people here, where we provide jobs, free healthcare, free schooling, and an enormous income for Mexico in the form of money the illegals send home -- taking billions of dollars out of our economy and creating Mexico's second biggest source of income. Aside from the problems illegal immigration creates for us, I am surprised at the utter lack of our interest in improving Mexico from within. Aren't we supposed to be fighting for economic freedom and success around the world? Seems like helping a neighbor (and a neighbor who is rapidly leeching us to death) would be as important as our efforts to bring democracy and economic freedom to the MidEast.

We would be better served by a Congress and a President that would pressure Mexico to improve conditions for their people. There is no reason for Mexico to be a poverty-stricken country -- other than corruption and a lack of political will (problems that exist on both sides of the border for this issue). We should use the same techniques that led to true welfare reform in this country: don't foster a dependent attitude, and require people to take control of their own lives. It works for individuals and should work for countries, too.

Solving a problem requires a solution that actually addresses the underlying causes. So far, we only have politicians who are willing to do cosmetic work on symptoms of the problem. A physician who only worked on symptoms without identifying and treating the underlying cause would have a lot of dead patients on his hands (e.g., aspirin for that headache, which is really due to a malignant brain tumor that could be cured with surgery). If our politicians were doctors, they would have been tried and convicted for gross malpractice, if not negligent homicide, long ago.

So, for as long as we have some voice in this debate (and that time is right NOW), I would urge you to (1) demand that our politicians focus on reform of business overregulation and (2) demand that our politicians pressure Mexico to clean up its own mess. Without addressing these two underlying problems, immigration laws will never ever succeed in solving the problem.

Posted by richard mcenroe | June 8, 2007 3:10 PM

There's no 'next'; there's an 'already.' Enforce the laws already on the books. Build the wall. Beef up the border patrol. And if that means commissioning a couple of light infantry divisions, do it. And freeze all federal funding to any state or city playing the "sanctuary" game. They don't have the jurisdiction.

Posted by Keemo | June 8, 2007 6:39 PM

Fabulous thread!! AD & maverick muse hit it out of the park... Good stuff pa....

Posted by jaeger51 | June 8, 2007 9:42 PM

Good to hear Keemo bring up Michael Savage...right now, he's the man. Highly recommend listening to him, he has a very good viewpoint and grasp. Give him a couple weeks cause at first he may seem a bit rude and angry but once you get him you won't be able to listen to any of the others.

Posted by firedup | June 8, 2007 11:55 PM

To AD: You are recalling S.2611, passed by the Senate one year ago and sent to the House. Meanwhile, the House had passed HR4437, an enforcement-only bill.

Both S. 2611 and the recently demised S.1348 are modelled on the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Ted Kennedy's staff authored all three; TK is always one of the sponsors, and the other sponsors change.

In the 109th, S.2611 was the Senate's answer to HR4437. It was brought to a House conference committee last summer for the purpose of combining the two into a compromise, and of course died of stagnation. The two pieces of legislation were nearly polar opposites.

Lost in the shuffle is the law passed last fall to build a border fence, which has not been enacted... obviously sandbagged by the administration. So, why waste so much time and energy on legislation anyway? We have an outlaw administration, plain and simple, that time and again overrides due process.

We citizens need to become much more knowledgeable in the way that Congress works. Be aware that there are several powerful Latino lobbies within this country, and be aware that Mexico sends THEIR legislators to lobby our legislators on a regular basis.

It is all deal-making and we don't have the leverage that the powerful lobbies have. In the meantime, all the attention directed to legislation has distracted us from the FACT that the open border leaks unabated and visa-overstaying illegals enjoy the fruits of OUR labors.

View all in the context of international socialism. It's no secret. Look around the 'net, at the Council on Foreign Relations and similar endeavors.