Thorner: Gang of Eight amnesty reform demands clarification, part 2
June 21, 2013
In Part 1, a Tribune editorial of Sunday, June 16, was cited that took Senator Mark Kirk to task for putting border security before amnesty. Not surprising is that following the Trib’s shameful admonishment of Senator Kirk, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) launched a week-long radio advertising campaign that similarly criticizes Kirk for voting against allowing the Senate to move ahead on what the SEIU calls “commonsense” immigration reform.
Obvious is that very little research preceded the writing of the Trib’s editorial or facts would have led to other conclusions. As reported in the Washington Times on April 10, 2013:
Apprehensions of illegal immigrants are up 13 percent this year,” testified the chief of the U.,S. Border Patrol, Michael J. Fisher, to a Senate committee. Fisher also testified, “We have seen an increase in attempted entries due in large part because talk about legalizing illegal immigrants is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect. The number of illegals have doubled, maybe even tripled at the border.
Reported on March 19, 2013:
Violence along the southern border had gotten so out of control that both Mexican and American journalists had stopped reporting it out of fear that drug cartels will retaliate against them and their families. This means Americans will be kept in the dark about the crisis along the porous and increasingly dangerous Mexican border.
- A claim was made that Rubio won’t vote for the bill he helped to craft without strong enforcement provisions, yet In a recent Spanish-language Univision broadcast, Rubio remarked: “First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border. Rubio is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
- Rubio was described as the “conservative point man.” This claim rings hollow, since Rubio’s TV ad is a deceptive one, funded by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, a known Obama supporter.
- Cited as one of the benchmarks for granting provisional status leading to citizenship was a requirement to pay all back taxes; however, the bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 18 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by the DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano.
- The so-called 13-year benchmarks were noted as a positive and workable progression of steps to earn citizenship, but one or all of the requirements could be dropped at any time if perceived not to be compassionate. This has already been suggested by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.
Why are so many Republican legislators running scared? It is, in part, because of the optics being advanced by the mainstream media, Democrats, establishment Republicans, and even some conservatives that Republicans must get back in the good graces of the Hispanic or winning back the White House will remain forever beyond their reach.
This sort of rhetoric can be understood when promoted in newspaper editorials and articles by a media which shrills for the Democratic Party, but can similar warnings be taken seriously by Republicans when made by Democrats? During a CNN’s “State of the Union appearance on Sunday, June 16, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J) said: “If Republicans want any real shot at taking back the White House, or to succeed as a party, they must support a pathway to citizenship as part of immigration reform.”
How generous of Senator Menendez to be so willing to hand over Hispanic voters and the White House to the Republican Party with his bit of advice.
Consider these statistics. Among Hispanics who voted in the last election, they composed only 10% of the electorate. Starting with the 1980 election of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan to when President Obama was re-elected in 2012, the Democratic Party has always outstripped the Republican Party in Hispanic vote totals. G.W. Bush in his match up with John Kerry in 2004 was the top Republican candidate vote getter of Hispanics among all Republican candidates. Even so Kerry won 58% to Bush’s 40%. In 2012 Barack Obama captured 71% of the Hispanic vote; Mitt Romney won only 27%.
Armed with the above information, it become obvious which party is likely to win a higher percentage of the millions of new potential voters through enacting amnesty reform.
Republicans have been hoodwinked into believing that Hispanics will come their way if only they are nice to them, not realizing, or denying to themselves, that Democrats will manage to take full credit for granting amnesty to Hispanics, while Republicans will be left licking their wounds that may take years to heal, if ever.
Not as obvious is the fear Republicans have over losing the financial support of large Republican donors and organizations who hold the money bags. Warning Republicans that their campaign money might dry up, the lobbyists and powerful business interests pushing amnesty on the Republican side of the aisle are seeking a cheap, constant supply of cheap labor, caring nothing about the future political implications for the Republican Party or the welfare of this nation.
“Remember the Alamo” brings with it the same warming as “Remember 1986” when amnesty took place but border security fell by the wayside.
Will Republicans legislators be duped once again? S. 477 is not only a bad bill but the stakes are much higher this time around. Instead of the 3 millions illegal aliens in 1986, failure to secure the border since than has increased the number of illegal aliens up to twelve fold!
Part 3 will explore how Congress is trying to fool you on immigration through the faulty CBO report.
Friday, June 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM | Permalink