June 15, 2007

Is There An Immigration Deal?

On today's CQ Radio show, I interviewed Senator John Ensign, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and asked him about the immigration bill. Ensign -- who voted twice against cloture on June 7th to kill the bill -- said that he believes a comprehensive approach is necessary to solve the problem. He also emphasized that America has to do something about the status quo, because it is simply so bad that we should not tolerate it any further.

However, he disputed the notion that an agreement has been reached to resurrect the bill. Ensign said that rumors of agreements keep swirling on Capitol Hill, but that the terms change every time they get close to a deal. He also pledged to torpedo any bill that did not have actual funds for border security and that allowed illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits that they fraudulently acquired.

I'll have a transcript up of the relevant portions soon. Keep checking back, and be sure to download the show for your own perusal.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript for the relevant portion, which comes at 39 minutes into the show:

EM: Now we've heard that there's a deal, it was in the papers this morning, that there's a deal on the immigration bill to revive it next week, and that each side is going to get eleven amendments. I think there's going to be a couple of weeks worth of debate, maybe a final vote -- if it gets cloture -- a final vote before the Fourth of July. Is that, is that -- do I have that about right?

JE: That is what people are talking about. We're a long way away from that deal getting done, because every time you hear that a deal's being done, it blows up, so ... We have to make sure we see the list of amendments first that are approved. You know, they can't just be phony amendments. I talked with Lindsey Graham, one of the big supporters of the bill yesterday, and he told me that he is not going to -- that he will withdraw his support of the bill unless we have the money for interior enforcement ...

There's more in the interview. The news of the resurrection of the immigration bill may have been a little premature. Be sure to listen to the show by downloading the podcast here.

UPDATE II: Private Joe says I'm supportive of this compromise. Uh, no, I'm not. I don't have a problem with a theoretical comprehensive strategy to resolve all of the problems with immigration, and conceptually, a bill that guaranteed border security and visa reform before enacting any kind of normalization or guest-worker program would seem like a fair trade. The reason why I asked the questions I did was to get the answers I did -- which had Ensign confirming that this bill doesn't do the above.

I also asked why Congress can't just do border security and visa reform first, and then once complete, come back to normalization and guest worker programs. Ensign didn't quite answer that one, and as in my other interviews, no one really has an answer for it. That's made me more insistent on this approach first rather than the comprehensive approach.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (38)

Posted by Carol Herman | June 15, 2007 3:20 PM

Even in Vegas there's no one who would bet good money on this turkey.

Reid's put it to the vote. He got 40. Then he got 45.

Today, Mark Steyn, commenting on how sad it is to hear Trent Lott speak, said Trent Lott even failed the "emir who thinks he's sitting in Incumba-stan" shit.

You don't think these guys know?

You don't think they're full of confidence in private, do ya?

It's just a way to turn the tables on the Net. And, it's an attempt by the clueless old media to try and grab back their story.

Well, there's more than one "incompetent" in this mix, ya know?

I'll bet the congress critters can't wait to bail. They're looking at their home ports, now. And, do you know what worries them, here? NO MONEY. NO MONEY. It's not just pinch's problem, anymore.

Where did all the people go? Huh?

Anyway, when I was young I knew Rock Hudson was homosexual. So I got an early start in not believing the hype. You could do the same, here.

Nothing but hype.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | June 15, 2007 3:30 PM

No credibility. I cannot believe what you say when I see what you do.

Posted by Bill Faith | June 15, 2007 3:33 PM

He also emphasized that America has to do something about the status quo, because it is simply so bad that we should not tolerate it any further.

Yep, something needs to change. Like maybe enforcing the laws that are already on the books? Like maybe electing a President next year who actually cares about the people who helped get him elected? The last time I was as disgusted with this country as I am right now was right after the election last winter.

I added a link to my 2006.06.15 "No Illegal Left Behind" Roundup.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | June 15, 2007 4:12 PM

"I talked with Lindsey Graham, one of the big supporters of the bill yesterday, and he told me that he is not going to -- that he will withdraw his support of the bill unless we have the money for interior enforcement ..."

Stop right there. Measured words indeed suggesting the deal is to throw money at the problem as is the case for every bill. Congress loves that salve. We have enforcement money now. What's the Senate doing to insist that the Executive fulfill its Constitutional responsibility? Suggest politely via the back of a napkin that Bush might want to look into the matter? And then roll up those C-notes and smoke 'em?

So, reading between the lines, is this more than a hint that money is key as opposed to all of the other things that remain the real priority in the public's minds? Sounds like it's the very deal we've been hearing about; namely, a few extra billion dollars borrowed from possibly collected application fines to dole out for whatever (and not for extra fencing, no supplemental detainment center beds to complement the Secure Fence Act, no expedited computer expenditures and training for staff, no extra processing staff, etc.). Yes, money is necessary and vital to finance the process - obviously. I had assumed that raising money was a House function, but I'm admittedly ignorant on exactly how the designed collection of legislation money via borrowed fines ties in to House responsibilities. Whatever the case, voters are clamoring for specifics on the application of that money to fund the old promises, not to ignore the old ones and make up a bunch of new ones that a) are redundant to current law, b) are superseding current law, or c) are to be more ignored law.

Besides, Lindsey Graham? Like Angry Dumbo said, no credibility. I might as well talk to my plants.

I hope I have time to hear the podcast. Thanks for posting it all, Ed.

Posted by TheGrandMufti | June 15, 2007 4:23 PM

Bush "lied" to the left about the war.

Now he lies to his base about border enforcement.

I'm beginning to understand why some people have BDS.

Posted by rick arnone | June 15, 2007 4:28 PM

Why should it matter how much money they allocate for border security. This government hasn't built the fence already authorized by law. I would insist on demonstrated good faith on border security before any amnesty or path to citizenship is voted on.

Posted by Actual | June 15, 2007 4:38 PM

Sen. Ensign said "he believes a comprehensive approach is necessary to solve the problem."

Can anyone explain to me or direct me to site that explains why a comprehensive approach is necessary?

Posted by Joe Doe | June 15, 2007 4:45 PM

It is clear that there are no intentions for any kind of enforcement - the ganga will repeat the billion dollar mantra, people will forget that government can spend trillions getting nothing in return (I know that sounds unlikely, but this is what they are good at).

Hence, money will be allocated, spent, and in return 100 millions mexicans will become part of the new - what shall we call it - Merica. Bush will have his legacy; as Clinton is remember for redefining sex (honestly, that is what I remember him best for) - so Bush will be remembered for redefining amnesty. In retrospective, Clinton will look a very apt president ... with some lapses of course, but nevertheless, one that sometimes defended the Americans. Bush - the defender of the Palestinians, ROP, Mexicans, and Saudis (remember the port's deal) - plus in free time, his family ganga (just remember his famous judicial nomination, wow even now I cannot help it ...).

It seems to me that the Captain is quite fine with the "comprehensive" - at least from the direction of his questions / comments - not quite plainly stated, but somehow tacitly acknowledged in the background. I for one cannot phantom how one can agree with the principle of packaging a crime with an enforment promise while justifying is the only way.

Back in communist times, they used to sell western translated books packaged with Stalin's works - you could not buy them separate. Then, that was a better option - was excercised at free will - this one is exercised at the ganga's will.

Posted by Nick | June 15, 2007 4:49 PM

i've heard that Walmart is lobbying in favor of this bill. is there any word out there that this is true??

Posted by Ron C | June 15, 2007 5:05 PM

"The news of the resurrection of the immigration bill may have been a little premature." - Ed

Hardly, Ed. The deal is more than done, it is a fate sealed with the threats, power and muscle of political corruption beyond anything the American public could conceive.

Flatly, this bill (actually a completely unwritten form of it) will be driven through the Senate, the House and into Committee, virtually without question.

The public has slept far too long to be able to stop this in conventional terms. The only way it might be stopped would be millions showing up in DC with ropes and guns.

Posted by quickjustice | June 15, 2007 5:44 PM

Peggy Noonan has a post on this topic with which I agree: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010210

Posted by hnav | June 15, 2007 5:53 PM

isn't the simple reason you have to have a comprehensive plan, (why one cannot simply get all the border security and visa reform we desire first), is because a lot of the liberal democrats will not vote for it on it's own?

certain a number of moderates sitting on the fences won't approve of a pure Border-Visa fix either.

the failure of some to see other interests on this issue is really concerning.

as if we all think alike in this fine free nation.

there are so many American interest groups, who are pulling for their own desire.

the Republicans tried to improve the Border alone, rejecting the other comprehensive plan prior to the election of 2006, and were not rewarded for it.

besides, the ACLU and other liberal groups have found ways in the Legal System to stop deportation and rejected entries.

a sound comprehensive plan, which improves a guest worker plan could be very helpful.

one of the most amusing aspects, is the regulations someone needs to legally hire a foreign visitor, which was made far too bizarre by liberals, forcing the employer to jump through many hoops, which probably was intended to force them to remain with union labor.

perhaps, why so many Democrats oppose a guest worker program.

so the employers often opt to go with an illegal to save money and immense legal responsibility.

it needs sincere fixing...

but hyperbole, threats, and vitriol is not healthy.

as if we cannot take on this issue with class and strength.

Posted by T Taylor | June 15, 2007 6:07 PM

This immigration bill is the reason our forefathers included the second ammendment in the Bill of Rights. Can anyone say "March on Washington"? I'm in, name the date and time.

Posted by sherlock | June 15, 2007 6:09 PM

1. US Senate
2. Harry Reid
3. John McCain

Some disassembly required.

Posted by harleycon5 | June 15, 2007 6:22 PM

What is apparent is that we the people have an obligation to stop this movement in Washington. It is quite literally govt taking a stand against the US citizens and saying "screw you, we rule" Tyranny? Perhaps not, but close.

The reason the politicians are pushing the gas pedal to the floor is that they think that 20 million new voters will stop us once and for all.

Just consider Trent Lott, who said today that "Talk radio runs the country, and we have to do something about it". Oh, really? Who supported you when the media was hammering you about a simple statement at a birthday party? It sure wasn't President Bush, Senator. I tried to email the Senator but it seemed his website is currentlly.....unavailable;)

The truth is that we are fighting a pivotal fight for our civilization, just as the Demosthenes fought to make the Greeks fight Macedonia. In his case, he failed. We cannot.

Call, write, talk to your friends and family and get them to do the same. Remember, just as Ronald Reagan believed, IT CAN be done.

Posted by Jim C | June 15, 2007 6:31 PM

As right wing news said yesterday; the grand bagainers will strip anything with teeth in committee.

Posted by RBMN | June 15, 2007 6:52 PM

Re: quickjustice at June 15, 2007 5:44 PM

Noonan overestimates what a President can do when the other party controls the House and Senate. On immigration, Democrats want just one part--the legalization part. Republicans want the other part--the border part. And the President wants to identify who's here, which requires both parts. And both the parts are equally important for our security. The President is trying to do something about security. That involves a lot more than just making life difficult in the future for trespassing Mexicans. Closing the barn door AND finding out who's hiding in the hayloft already are both important. I'm hoping this severe bout of IDS will pass, so practical people can actually do something useful.

Posted by Joe Doe | June 15, 2007 7:03 PM


I truly enjoy your writings, and sometimes I understand that one has to keep his opinions close to his heart when in your position – I would had appreciated even a logical reasoning as why a “comprehensive” is required. Maybe it is just me (sometimes I doubt myself) – but I can hardly think of a more insane suggestion than to have the US Senate AND the (assumed) republican president arguing (rather imposing, actually) that:

1. we (the elected) may implement some border restriction sometimes in the future ONLY IF the populace would agree to let in some tens on millions of uneducated people (we are not sure how many tens, nor will we ever actually know) AND some couple million of foreign-trained engineers and computer scientists (these we will count OK) AND by the way, we already finished migrating the manufacturing industry so please accept that there is absolutely no other way

2. you, the racist electorate, will have to pay for it, it is just a couple percent of our GDP (not that we are good in math, but like the Irak war, we will keep on asking for more and more our children working in the Senate when we will retire) - so really not much to worry about – but if you do not like it, the alternative is even worse as we will do nothing to secure the border

I thought that this is the central principle that mafia operates on (yet I have a way better opinion on the organized mafia than on the government – it is a much more honest operation, and is based on morals that government will never have).

Any sane standing citizen should be demonstrating on streets considering the enormity of the proposal (especially in its effects) and the way the Captain’ headings were organized through the last weeks I somehow did not believe that he is indeed are aware of the terminally grave implications of this final piece of legislation. The fact that Bush and the craps on the hill do not get it is just normal – they did not get the Irak development either (I fully supported the move at the time as I though that the leadership would know things that we the uninformed are not supposed to – as it turned out, the leadership is more clueless than the bloggers and the populace at large, and official media has access to more “secrets” than the president, CIA, FBI and all others have together).

I do not know about the ROP that this president pumps on our throats – he might be even right, despite that all the facts so far would contradict it. He might have an “inside” Saudi track that we do not have. In the end, as long as it does not change the American social matrix, ROP has no chance of prevailing – if long as it is kept outside the border. As the Palestine shows, just give them arms and build a wall, they will just kill each other – so much for the ROP.

Yet, the LEGACY that this president pushing so hard for will bring such mess into the US that simply there will be no need for a border. Of course that once they are legalized, the farms will need cheaper labor and they will get it fresh again … you would not want to pay more for your salad (what a bogus idea, but who can challenge it). The IT shops will get more and more H1Bs – you would not want Oracle to move to India, would you (sure, they never say that only Larry operates here, plus marketing and sales – the rest is pretty much an Indian operation already – but it works quite well as a slogan). So the last hope of this universe, America itself, is going to be sold out by a commonality that cannot even articulate a pre-written speech (nobody can convince me that he has a functional brain at this point).

Because of this, Captain, I think that the immigration amnesty should be at the top of your blog and probably the rest should be somewhere on the bottom – as it affects the very survival of the last bastion of freedom. I lived the communism and I see all the hallmarks of the time to come.

People wake up, if you agree that the felons should be given amnesty then you are not democrats, you are not republicans, you are not even Spaniards trying to protect your own people – you are just idiots like the one that would sell the rope to which they too will be hanged. Yes, you will get your salad with a dollar apiece – but you will have lost the national identity that made America stand out through centuries. You will become just another Spanish-speaking Eurabia.

Posted by Gary Gross | June 15, 2007 7:24 PM

As I posted here, the American people will reject immigration 'reform' because they don't trust George Bush, Ted Kennedy or Lindsey Graham anymore.

I further predict that this issue is just one 'symptom' of the voters' distrust. I think that politicians that answer voters' questions squarely will be rewarded; those that give evasive answers will take a beating in 2008.

Posted by Lisa Smart | June 15, 2007 7:41 PM

With all the money sent to Iraq we could have built the Berlin Wall 100 times over between Mexico and the US. Then we could have installed heat sensing missiles to blow up all the immigrants sneaking across to cause trouble.

For the immigrants already here we can round em all up and tag them with microchips that blow up next time they cross! They are taking our jobs, I know all my friends are eager to go out and pick strawberries and other tasty fruit especially the janitor jobs cleaning toilets n such.

God Bless America!

Posted by John Doe | June 15, 2007 8:32 PM

This is pathetic. Ensign's "conditions" are the bone Bush already tossed, money without results, just more border promises made to be broken; and no Social Security fraud. Gee, tough guy, will insist that stealing remain illegal.
... And all with advance mass amnesty for 12-20M illegals. Of course he can't answer why enforcement won't come first, before amnesty. Answer, the Beltway GOP doesn't want a border. Same reason he can't explain why Washington won't build a fence. Answer, fences work, and Washington doesn't want a border.
Very important, I think Ensign runs fund-raising for the Senate GOP, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Suggest you call them and suggest he wake up, vote for cloture, demand a REAL bill instead of a fraud on working America and middle class America ... or do the next election cycle with whatever money he can raise from his Beltway buddies Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton.
Senator, note. The House just passed Tancredo's ban on sanctuary cities with 50 D votes. The tsunami is landing. Wake up, dude. Get off the boat.

Posted by John | June 15, 2007 8:39 PM

Harry Reid Nevada State Senator wants immigration reform because all the big money casinos hire mostly illegal aliens. Pay them a poverty wage and the stupid Americans will follow. Illegal aliens cost Billions of Dollars to the American economy but make big business richer. My wife and I make almost $100,000 a year and can not afford housing in Las Vegas. The illegal aliens come here in droves. They work in casinos, construction, restaurants. They commit crimes with no regard for the law. They have more rights than the American citizen because you can not ask them their Nationality. What kind of crap is that! They can not get a drivers license, auto insurance, or license plates, so they do it illegally. They get free medical care, free education, pay no taxes, run down the neighorhood into slums. Why, because they don't care. They're not American citizens. Do you really think they are going to pay a fine. Get real stupid. Want proof, just look at California and the millions of illegals ruining a beautiful State. Remember, they don't want to learn English YOU need to learn spanish. SAY NO TO THE IMMIGRATION BILL... IT WILL NOT WORK!!!
It benefits the rich only. Cowardly Politicians.

Posted by Ron C | June 15, 2007 8:58 PM

Re. Peggy Noonan - (quickjustice)

This nation is wide open to criminals - and we should talk love? - when our national identity and very existence is at stake?

I love Peggy - she's a great American with the highest ideals, but to be frank, to me she sounds like a liberal in that article. Yes, I can remember the days of warm feelings toward legal immigrants - but those days have long since come and gone -as too many Americans watched this nation turn into a Balkanized third-world conglomeration of American hating foreigners that would just as soon cut an 'Anglo's' throat as look at him or her - and did far too little about it.

A couple of days ago a video camera caught a 'Latino' viciously murdering a man, simply because he was an 'Anglo.' Mexican gang-bangers walk around in Los Angeles, openly carrying handguns, firing handguns in the air, at their enemy gang members and their cars... and little to nothing is done about it - deliberately. To get to be a member of one of these gangs aspirants must commit a murder just such as this - to 'show their metal.'

Los Angeles is a sanctuary city - with a mayor that has been vocally supportive of virulent Latino groups, wide open borders and massive handouts of taxpayer cash to any and all that can make it to Los Angeles from anywhere south of our southern border.

Major print and broadcast media are all for much more of the same policies that have brought us to the mess we face today - MUCH more. AND believe me - we're going to GET MUCH MUCH MORE - if any form of amnesty is given to the 20-30 million criminal aliens already camped-out in virtually every city across this nation.

The Trilateral Commission is about to achieve what it's members have been working for since David Rockefeller formed it in 1973 - the sublimation (nay, the elimination of the United States) of the US into a 'Union' of socialist nations.

T Taylor above points to about the only thing that ~might~ stop their plans (for a while) - Americans marching on DC with loaded guns.

Posted by Nancy | June 15, 2007 9:11 PM

I'm with the poster who declared a "March on Washington, tell me the date and time". Everyone else gets to march, gets publicity, makes a public statement. Can we do less, who are fighting for our very country?
We, the average American, have no voice anymore. Our elected officials pander to the special interests and we have no way to be heard in public.
Enforce existing immigration laws is such an easy answer.
Can we stop this bill? How?

Posted by s sommer | June 15, 2007 9:55 PM

I am soooo annoyed that ONLY conservative Republicans are getting credit for having the brains to freak out against this stupid immigration sell-out bill! As an independent, pro-life, pro-gay marriage. tree-hugging, love to vacation in France VOTER, I am now being called a "racist" on a regular basis for discrediting this bill with everybody who will listen. It is not just a conservative issue, wanting to preserve the rule of law, protect our blue collar jobs, protect our taxpayers from exploitation by illegals through their use of schools, emergency rooms, overcrowding our jails, and undercutting our workers on price, not to mention ID theft & drug dealing skyrocketing "thanks" to these belligerent and demanding intruders! DARE to march in our streets and demand RIGHTS
Dare to insist we provide free translators... THIS IS NUTS.

Posted by Mike Bonacio | June 15, 2007 10:34 PM

Absolutely the worst President in my lifetime. And I voted for him twice... Go figure.

Posted by Chuck | June 15, 2007 10:35 PM

It's simple secure the border first! Why can't they get it?

Posted by Bill Freitas | June 15, 2007 11:06 PM

If you want to see what the United States will look like if this immigration bill passes, just come out west to my, used to be nice town of Santa Maria, CA. It looks more like a border town and labor emcampment now.
Our population is officially 95,000, but in reality it's more closer to 130,000 because of the huge illegal immigrant problem we have.
They are draining our resources, presenting a huge burden on our infrastructure, social services, schools, medical services, housing, forcing their culture down our throats, employers are requiring spanish speaking workers because the illegals are not learning English.
The illegals have taken jobs in landscaping, construction (all trades), retail, automotive repair/servicing.

Through Bank of America, and other financial institutions they send millions of dollars home instead of spending it locally.

This is a huge problem for all to be very concerned about. We will become the Disunited Welfare States of the Western Hemisphere...and the cost to us Americans will be HUGE....and more than just the monetary cost.....our wonderful Nation as we knew it before the '86 Immigration Fiasco.

They need to go back home to fix their problems there, not create more here.

Regulated work permits only, no citizenship.

Thanks for letting me vent, and letting you all know what is really going on out here.


Posted by Bachbone | June 16, 2007 12:05 AM

I know nothing about Sen. Ensign, but the mere fact that he holds a GOP leadership position makes me wary of his take on this bill. When others who hold similar leadership positions in the party have consciously played fast and loose with the truth, Ensign will have to earn his stripes for honesty as far as I'm concerned.

Lisa, if you think illegals are only doing menial jobs like picking strawberries and cleaning toilets, you are sadly mistaken. After Swift was raided and illegals hauled away, many Americans lined up hoping to get those jobs. The trades, including construction trades, hire lots of illegals. Those jobs don't pay minimum wage. Of course, employers who hire the illegals should be arrested, fined and jailed. There are laws aready on the books to do just that, but they are not being enforced any more seriously than border control. The few much publicized raids are eye and mind candy solely to make us think something serious is being done.

I'm adopting the Missouri motto. "Show Me" and I'll believe you once the enforcement has been in effect awhile. Till then, I don't trust a thing anyone inside the Beltway says. They would stomp their own grandmothers to get re-elected.

Posted by John Doe | June 16, 2007 7:20 AM

A postscript to mine above, on Ensign/NRSC:
Please note well that Ensign and his amnesty collaborator Grahamnesty "insist" that the eyewash money be in the amnesty bill, and not in a proper appropriations bill. There is more here than meets the eye.
1. What meets the eye is an insulting Washington attempt to pass off "money" as "results." A result is a border that isn't a joke, not the Senate proving that it knows how to vote for money.
2. What isn't meeting the eye?
The Ensign amnesty plan appears to EXCLUDE a regular, lawful appropriations bill for the eyewash money. Hmm. Instead, Ensign demands that a regular bill (amnesty) be used to appropriate money. Why is this? Because if they follow the regular, ancient way of spending our money (appropriations bill), it gives the Stout Hearts in the Senate a SECOND bill to debate, amend, and defeat or slow down. And then it all falls apart, because Senators may not have the gall to force-march this vote once. Two votes, two messes, two amnesty clotures? Out of the question.
The cover for this little piece of the great ruse? "We have to show this bill is serious." But the sop money is just a promise of future action, and, therefore, meaningless, another promise made to be broken. And the whole bill will be "fixed" in a future Reid-Pelosi controlled conference committee, anyway. (Don't like the Senate bill? Stand by for the "improved, final" version from Reid and Pelosi's stacked-deck conference committee.)
The present Senate reality? Senators are getting scared, probably real scared. Every added day makes it harder to hold them in force-march. The amnesty crowd will be lucky to jam down cloture once, on one ugly and wildly unpopular bill; proper appropriations action is being cast aside to make everything happen in one awful, terrifying vote, if even that can be made to happen.
Bottom line, there is a deal, but it is held together with chewing gum and baling twine. The new ruse can't stand proper debate, just like the old one couldn't stand proper debate and open, non-rigged "show" amendments. Sessions & Co will have numerous amendments that will bring this down. THAT'S WHY THE LEADERSHIP WON'T LET THE AMENDMENTS BE OFFERED. It's also why a proper appropriations process can't be used ... smoke and mirrors, gum amd baling wire, bob and weave. This travesty is trying to collapse. Speak up, America! If you do, it will collapse.

Posted by Scott | June 16, 2007 7:26 AM

Why not border security first? Here's a hint - DEMOCRATS. What everyone within the process understands, but will not say, is that the Democrats are principally opposed to actually securing the border. They see this influx of "undocumented Americans" as their ticket to a permanent majority. HNAV has it right. This is hard to figure???

Posted by Ames Tiedeman | June 16, 2007 8:02 AM

My letter to a New York Money manager:

Mr. Lutz:

You said this:

"What you're getting is a contribution of hundreds of millions of lower-cost workers coming into our economy. It's very positive for all economic activity," Lutts said.
Hundreds of millions? What's next? Are we going to imprt 500 million poor folk from The Peole's Republic of China? Thank God the number is not hundreds of millions. If this is your dream then move to impoverished India please.
And....It is very positive for all economic activity? Really?
What illegal immigrant with a 6th grade education will do the following?:
1. Work in engineering for Intel?
2. Pay insurance premiums to AIG?
3. Buy a Cadillac from G.M?
4. Buy a $500,000 home from Toll Brothers
5. Spend $300 a month on shoes?
6. Wear Rolex and Fendi?
7. Eat KOBE steak?
8. Buy a new boat from Sea Ray?
9. Fly to New York on Jet Blue to go to the Opera?
10. Spend $10,000 on Christmas gifts?
11. Go to Medical School
12. Stay at the Hilton, Las Vegas
Exactly what industries will benefit from these million of uneducated illegals?
The answer: NONE. A nation does not become great by reducing the wages of its consumers. A nation does not become great by taking in 12 million functionally illiterate people from a foreign culture.
Wake up...Your thinking stinks!
Ames Frederick Tiedeman
Austin, Texas

Who will fight our next "Real War" by Ames Tiedeman

The Mexicans are coming the Mexicans are coming! One if by land, two if by tunnel!
How far off is Mexican terrorism in Southern California? Did you know that groups like the Brown Baret's and La Raza are comparing themselves to the Palestinians? 85% of all Mexicans believe their land was stolen from them and the Gringo is occupying this sacred land.
I believe we are less than two decades away from ETA of Spain like terrorism in the USA. The Mexicans are going to want the land back as their numbers continue to grow. Assimilation has not and will not happen. It is only a matter of time until we live in total hell. I can see buses being blown up and people killed in random acts of violence perpetrated by Mexican Separatist. Study ETA in Spain. It is coming to America.
Who will fight these bastards when this hell in unleashed on the naive Americans? Will you send your son or daughter to fight and die in California? Will you allow the Federal Government to get your child killed in a war you knew was coming and tried desperately to stop over 20 years before? I have warned about all of this since I was in high School in the 1980's. I have done my duty to warn my government and politicians. No one listened hard enough. The Government was not always this pathetic and lazy. When Stephen F. Austin needed help in the Republic of Texas the government sent troops. Texas was not even a state yet! Today our government watches the economy, culture and civilization we call America die on the vine. Our government is no longer run by men of moral conviction and wisdom. It is run by thieves who do not care about country, but just short term money. Our government is a greater enemy than the U.N. Bush is doing more damage to our culture than Sadaam Hussein could have ever inflicted. God help America!

Posted by John Doe | June 16, 2007 11:08 AM

Re, Scott's post: the Ds are the border problem

Absolutely, the Ds are the block to securing the border. But Bush is helping them keep it open, which is why we have the present mess, out there in America, and in the Beltway. Some GOPs in Congress are soft or favor no-border, but it's mainly Ds, leagued with Bush.

So, knowing the problem, how do we solve it?

We make the border a defining R/D issue, and we win. Look at any poll. Then the D anti-border front will collapse, and the nation will move on. Then will come into reach an immigration policy that isn't based on US border decisions that require pre-approval by Mexico City.

To make it a defining issue, of course, we CANNOT have travesty policy like Bush-Kennedy amnesty. If Bush had enforced the border, we wouldn't have the shamnesty deal in the Senate. Instead, we would have a working border, a manageable problem, and the political high ground.

But we don't, because Bush is anti-border, that's all.

Posted by Keemo | June 17, 2007 8:42 AM

Bill Freitas,

Exactly right Bill; I have watched the same events take place both here where I live (lived, as I just moved out of state) in Palos Verdes, & in my parents community in Yucaipa. California, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, & Texas have been populated with illegal Mexicans at alarming rates over the past 10-15 years; most certainly Clinton & Bush allowed an accelerated pace to this invasion.

It's obviously left to us "the people" to stop this invasion; neither of the two political parties will do anything to stop the invasion; they both have put political pandering abead of country. Shame on all of them! I have very little trust left for my government at this time.

Posted by Keemo | June 17, 2007 8:53 AM

While on the subject of mistrust, how about the recent statement by Trent Lott "talk radio runs this country & something must be done about it"...

As long as talk radio "Rush Limbaugh" was deemed "carrying the water for Republican politicians" all was fine; now that Rush and virtually all of Conservative talk radio has called Republicans out on the shamnesty bill, all of a sudden talk radio must be silenced...

SCARY, scary, scary stuff folks....

Posted by PJM | June 18, 2007 12:07 AM

The current Senate bill makes a few moves in the above direction, but they are only a garnish around the main entree of amnesty. The author of our current immigration misery is Senator Ted Kennedy, who pushed through the 1965 immigration bill that initiated waves of chain migration and incited illegal immigration. In 1986, Senator Kennedy helped author that year's amnesty program, while knocking the legs from under employer enforcement, actually making it a crime for employer's to question legalization status of employees except under restricted conditions. The one-two combo of amnesty plus a system designed to be unenforceable led to massive fraud in amnesty applications and fraud in employment documentation, and encouraged massive further illegal immigration. We went from two million illegal immigrants then to over twelve million today. The amnesty didn't curb illegal immigration, it multiplied it.

Having Senator Ted Kennedy author this bill is like asking an incompetent doctor who botched an operation to conduct the surgery to fix his own mistakes. In 1986, Senator Kennedy said "We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this." Today, he brings forward the 1986-redo bill, only bigger. Kennedy has joined with La Raza and cheap labor lobbies to ensure that American immigration stays as out-of-control as possible, and the result is predictably bad.

The bill continues to gut enforcement, not even funding border guards that were authorized years ago; it fails to properly put in play employer sanctions and make sure they are working before the 'amnesty' happens; they play shell games with border security, asking for only a portion of the much-needed fence to keep out human-trafficking and drug smuggling, a fence put into law last year but which has not been fully funded, with only a few miles of 700 miles built so far; it guts "English only" assimilation while claiming to support it; so-called triggers are undermined by language which allows them to be easily waived; a better way to handle legal immigration, a point system, is deferred for 8 years, sure to be abolished and undermined again before it becomes real. Even worse are provisions that allow even criminal aliens who have multiple convictions to become legal citizens. This list of abuses and errors in this bill goes on.

Perhaps this is why the bill was rushed to the Senate floor without getting vetted first by a committee hearing.

Those same forces who are against solving our real immigration problems have written this Senate bill. This bill ensures that more waves of illegal immigrants will continue to arrive, assured that deportation will never happen and another amnesty some day likely will. Cheap labor employers are happy to have cheap non-union labor; the Kennedy Democrats are happy to have new welfare-state clients and potential voters; and the 'immigrant rights' groups are happy to flex political muscle and grow their ranks and power. The rest of us - American-born citizens, legal immigrants, taxpayers - are the suckers who will pick up the tab and shoulder the burden.

But rest assured. This bill is built to fail; it will fail to control the border, it will fail to enforce immigration law, and it will fail to eliminate the massive numbers of illegal immigrants in our midst. More will come to await the next amnesty. The crises this bill creates will be far greater than anything it solves, and the immigration crisis will surely continue to be with us if we make the mistake of making this law.

As such, we can be sure that another grand compromise will be hammered out to 'fix' the problems this bill creates. I just hope Senator Kennedy won't be around to write the next bill when that happens. Three strikes and you're out, Senator.

Posted by Ames Tiedeman | June 23, 2007 1:19 PM


We must shut down this new attmept to hammer his AMNESTY down our throats! Saddle up for round two!

Posted by Ames Tiedeman | June 23, 2007 1:22 PM

I have 500 letters and 2,000 e-mails ready to go!