Thorner: Senator Kirk must vote ‘no’ on motion to proceed on S. 744

June 10, 2013

 

 

 

6a00e54ee06170883401901c8641c3970b-75wi

The first vote on the Schumer-Rubio-Obama amnesty proposal, S. 744, will likely take place on Tuesday, June 11. President Obama is pushing to have immigration reform passed and signed into law by the end of the summer.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed closure on Thursday, June 6. Prior to Reid’s closure action, the fate of S. 744 was uncertain. One day Senator Reid said the bill would easily pass through the Senate. On another day Sen. Marco Rubio claimed the bill didn’t have the votes. There was even skepticism in the mainstream media over the fate S. 744.

On Friday, June 7, Rubio changed his tune. Having revealed earlier in the week that he would vote against his own bill if the border security provisions weren’t strengthened, Senator Rubio now asserted that the 60 votes required to set up a motion to proceed with S. 744 for debate on the Senate floor would be spoken for in time for Senator Reid’s scheduled Tuesday, June 11th vote (S. 744  has been pegged as the first hurdle toward passing an immigration reform measure).

Senator Rubio’s contradictory lukewarm response to one of acceptance for S. 744 within a week’s time demands further clarification.  Responding to Rubio’s own call for stronger security, Senator John Cornyn of Texas did try to beef up the border security provisions of S. 744 with an amendment.  As in the past when other attempts were made to strengthen security, Cornyn’s amendment  went no where and was instead treated by Gang of Eight members as a poison bullet that could derail S. 744.  Regarding Gang of Eight member, Senator Rubio, any earlier concerns expressed over the bill’s border security provisions seemed to go by the wayside with the rejection of Cornyn’s amendment.

Attempting to explain his on and off again prospects for S. 744, Rubio had this to say in an interview with Univision on Friday, June 7th:

Well, they are not there today, but I think they will be.  That is, the vast majority of  my colleagues, for example, many colleagues who just four or five years ago were not in favor of granting legal status to the people who were here illegally, who were not in favor of creating a path to citizenship, today are open to it.

 S. 744 is bad on so many fronts. As it stands now,  border security provisions are weak; amnesty would be granted to most illegal aliens even before the enactment of enforcement measures (contrary to Rubio’s so-called amnesty reform TV ad with its false promises made to entrap conservatives); and  work permits would be issued for 33 million foreign citizens over the first decade, meaning less jobs for qualified Americans.

Most worrisome is that total discretion over enforcement of S. 744 is the prerogative of the administration. Trust, or the lack of it, is becoming more apparent every day in an administration that engages in secrecy, obstruction, obfuscation, and coverups.  At any time in the future the administration could forgo the steps that illegals aliens must complete over a 13-year time period as being unfair, even if reality indicates that the required mandates would be impossible to enforce given the scope of applying them to 12 million plus individuals.

FAIR has set forth forty reasons to oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill as a way to help educate the American people and lawmakers. Reading all forty will prove to be an illuminating experience. They tell of a bill that rewards law-breaking and encourages more illegal immigration, while failing to secure the border or strengthen national security.  The 40 reasons should give you cause of concern, even raising your hackles, especially if you were ready to embrace a bill portrayed as a must-pass by the Republican establishment to win over Hispanic voters.
Senator Rubio, as a Gang of Eight member, would do well to review two of FAIR’s reasons regarding security measures.

1. S. 744 does not require any additional border fencing or completion of current border fence requirement.  lnstead, it requires DHS to submit to Congress a fencing “strategy,” in which DHS recommends what additional fencing is needed along the U.S.-Mexican border, if any.

2.  S. 744 does not require any border security measures be taken on the northern border or along the coasts where more illegals aliens are arriving to avoid border patrol agents and drug cartels.  Instead, it only requires that DHS prepare a border security strategy for the U.S.-Mexico border.

The 1986 amnesty bill gave everybody work permits and legal residency first.  Promised border security measures never materialized, which had been heralded as the end all to future waves of illegal aliens crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

The failure to secure the border in 1986 has become a major point of contention surrounding S. 744, especially among conservative Republicans.  As S. 744 is set up in the same way as the 1986 amnesty, S. 744 represents triple the blanket amnesty of ’86 and will insure that down the road additional millions of illegal aliens will slip across the southern border to eventually lobby for their own amnesty.

Fully implemented, S. 744 creates a “slush fund” for nonprofit organizations to help illegal aliens navigate the amnesty process.  Because chain migration is allowed to continue, it will lead to a large number of low-skilled, less educated immigrants as family members are given extra weight in merit-based immigration programs to bring relatives in on what amounts to their own coat tails.

Perhaps the greatest concern arising out of S. 744 is its cost to taxpayers.  At a time when this nation is already saddled with an almost incomprehensible debt, a Heritage Foundation Report of May 2013 indicates that S.744 will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion in federal spending alone over the course of 50 years.

It’s time to break the cycle. Call Senator Mark Kirk, urging him to vote NO against the motion to bring S. 744 to the floor of the Senate for debate on Tues., June  11. Only forty-one “no” votes are needed to kill the bill.   Offices:  Washington, D.C – 888-978-3134       Chicago – 312-886-3506        Springfield – 217-492-5089

Sunday, June 09, 2013 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s