In coverage of GOP announcement, print media ignored felony provisions in House immigration bill
SUMMARY: In their coverage of the postponement of congressional negotiations on immigration reform, several major print media outlets failed to note that legislation passed by House Republicans would designate as felons the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.
In their coverage of House GOP leaders' decision to postpone congressional negotiations on immigration reform, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press all described the legislation passed by House Republicans in general terms, noting that the measure focused on "border security" or "border enforcement." But these reports failed to note that the House bill would designate as felons the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.
On December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act by a vote of 239-182, with 203 Republicans voting in favor. The bill, sponsored by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI), made it a criminal offense to be in the United States illegally or to aid illegal immigrants and mandated the construction of a 700-mile-long fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Sensenbrenner later disclosed that House Republicans had "worked very closely with White House in the fall in putting together the border security bill that the House passed," and added that "it was the White House that had requested two controversial felony provisions in the bill the House passed last winter." The House approach provoked widespread opposition from pro-immigrant groups, which in March and April held large protests nationwide. The bill's felony provisions drew particular criticism, and many House Republicans attempted to distance themselves from the measure. At one point, the Republican National Committee even ran radio ads in several southwestern states attempting to falsely blame Democrats for the language making illegal presence in the U.S. a felony.
On May 25, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 with bipartisan support and Bush's blessing. The bill offered the possibility of citizenship to most illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Specifically, it divided the undocumented immigrant population into three categories. Those in the United States for five years or more would be allowed to remain in the country and begin working toward citizenship, assuming they met certain conditions. Those in the United States between two and five years would be required to return to a port of entry where they would be granted temporary worker visas and could become eligible for eventual citizenship. Illegal immigrants in the country less than two years would be required to return home. Further, the Senate bill instituted a guest-worker program and boosted the number of Border Patrol agents.
Bush's backing of the Senate's "comprehensive" legislation drew the ire of House Republicans, due to the White House's earlier support for their more punitive approach. For instance, Sensenbrenner accused Bush of "turn[ing] his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House."
On June 20, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and other House Republican leaders unveiled their plan to hold nationwide hearings on immigration reform during July and August. The announcement made it highly unlikely that negotiations over the differing House and Senate immigration bills would take place in the coming months with a vote on the final legislation in the fall.
In a June 21 article on this development, New York Times reporter Carl Hulse reported that House Republicans "passed a party-line bill late last year that focused solely on border enforcement" and that they "consider the Senate bill amnesty for those who have entered the country illegally." A June 21 Los Angeles Times article by staff writer Nicole Gaouette similarly reported that the "Republican-controlled House passed border security legislation last year, largely along party lines" and noted House conservatives' argument that the Senate bill amounts to "amnesty." A June 20 article by Associated Press staff writer David Espo cited "the distance between the House and Senate approaches to immigration" and reported that House conservatives "had only debated enforcement measures."
But absent from all of these reports was any mention of the controversial felony provisions included in the House bill. Media Matters for America previously noted articles published in April by the AP and the Times that similarly ignored House Republicans' support for criminal penalties.
tough enforcement policies it is indeed peculiar that the felony provision is being omitted. Almost as odd as Media Matters labeling the felony provisions as "controversial." I think the media is omitting mention of it because it knows Americans would support the House's immigration bill strongly if they knew the government was serious about cracking down on these criminals.
We have the "felony provision" being one of several differences between the two measures already passed in each of the two chambers, namely, the House's "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act", and the Senate's "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006"...
And in a responsible Congress, the next step is to appoint conferees from each chamber, and for them to meet in conference, and work out a compromise between the differing measures; any compromise measure that might result, would then be submitted to each chamber for it's consideration; and should no compromise measure be agreed upon, the two different measures lie dead in their respective waters...
It's what all responsible Congresses have done in the past with regard to such differences: Conference, Compromise, or leave the matter dead in the water.
But we have now a very hot political season, and a very threatened majority in both chambers (more threatened in the House); and politics being what that crafty majority considers their business (I'd have thought it to be crafting legislation, and compromising where necessary); and the threat to that majority of losing their control of Congress, being not just accompanied by the hot political issues of Iraq and Congressional Ethics (and all things Intelligence, most notably the Senate Committee)...
That threat being not just accompanied by those hot political issues, but being caused by them...
We have the House engaged in hot season politics; they intentionally refuse to confer and compromise on the matter; it's an issue much more valuable if left unresolved...
It serves not only as a convenient trump card, to be played upon (and distract from) those more threatening issues (Iraq, etc.), it serves also to rally the ever-shrinking base, with cries of:
"Their storming our borders! The Illegals our storming our borders! To arms, Minutemen! To arms! Lock and Load and man your posts; it's a serious threat; shoot to kill when you see the whites of their eyes...
...and as for those idiot knee-jerk Democrats who will take this political issue of nonsense, and run with it (and in the process run away from the more threatening issues), well, shoot those idiots too, those Democrats!...
...because of course, they're on the side of Illegals."
As if any sensible person at all, in a law-abiding nation, takes the side of Illegals; as if any sane Lawmaker would do that.
So we have the ridiculous stated intention of the House leadership, to not only (intentionally) refuse to confer and compromise on the differing measures of the two chambers, but to make for a schedule of summer hearings on the matter...
[Isn't that a bit queer? To hold hearings on a measure already passed? I mean, isn't a conference in order at this stage?]
...and not only summer hearings, but traveling hearings at that.
As the House plans to take this show on the road, from town to town, like a traveling circus; complete with carnival barkers and other con-men, to distract you away from what you know to be important this hot political season; to distract you from Iraq, etc., with cries of...
"See them storming the borders! See the Illegals!...
...and see the idiot Democrats (who might otherwise take the House, based upon the hot issues of Iraq, etc.)...
...see those idiots taking the side of Illegals...
Shoot them too, Minutemen! Shoot those idiots too, those Democrats...
Shoot them right between the eyes."
Doing what Jesus would do is considered evil by repukes, after all the next person you give a quarter on the street to, as jesus would encourage us all to do, he may be an ILLEGAL, and that would make YOU a felon.
See ya MORAN :)
these people, despite the fact that many of them are decent, honest people who are only trying to better themselves, are indeed lawbreakers. that is just a fact. to call them undocumented workers or some other politically correct term is nonsense. we need real enforcement of our borders first, before any talk of a guest worker program or amnesty, which is what is being proposed in the senate. that being said, the real problem is the employers who hire these illegals. we need to crackdown on them, arrest them as they are fueling this issue. for if those crossing the border illegally knew there would be no jobs for them, the tide would drastically slow down. sadly, except for a few house republicans, neither party has the political will, including the failed bush.
let's be clear these people, despite the fact that many of them are decent, honest people who are only trying to better themselves, are indeed lawbreakers. - from RIGHT ON
The point is that many people aren't aware of the FELONY provisions of the House bill. As MMFA points out, even Senate republicans shied away from those provisions, even though the White House wanted them. That would seem to me to indicate that they are controversial.
For most people, categorizing a crime as a felony suggests a higher degree of harm done. The mere fact of being in the country without documentation falls short of that level of harm in most people's minds. Few also would consider assisting those undocumented workers to be so heinous as to qualify as a felony.
The House bill simply goes too far.
The felony issue is just mor rhetoric. I don't believe for a second the felony provision stands a chance. It's posturing, "look at me I'm tough on illegal immigration!" It's about as realistic as rounding all the illegals up and sending them back. We don't have the law enforcement capibility and putting the felon label on altruistic intentions is ridiculous.
I agree. If we supposedly didn't have the resources to enforce the misdemeanor how do they think we will have the resources to accomodate felony punishment. The misdemeanor charges are sufficient I think if they perhaps allocate resources to enforce it. Seems the whole felony thing is as you said "rhetoric".
I hate to sound like a broken record but this issue need not be divisive.
I heard...I think it was Lou Dobbs...point out that the total fines given to businesses who are caught highering illegals is less then what the fine for saying the "F" word once on air. That is pretty sad if that is accurate. He had the numbers but I can't recall them off the top of my head. I tend to lean farther away from the left on the immigration issue then is the norm for me. I am not sure about the upgrade to felony though because I think, if enforced, the misdemeanor charge would be sufficient to deport if we didn't engage in "catch and release." What would be the point of the upgrade if they continue to not enforce the law.
it may be rhetoric, pure and simple, typical politician. the point is we need to clamp down on our borders and this dog and pony show congress is doing is pathetic. they have no interest in securing our borders, bush is a failure on this. he wants cheap labor, that's a fact. he can travel to the border and do a photo op with a border agent and it's meaningless. unless enforcement is real and done first and foremost, everything else should be off the table.
I can't believe in a post 9/11 world we have yet to seriously address the issue. See, Right On and myself are usually 180 degrees apart on most issues, this one we can agree on. It's too bad that politicians can't see that.
it's amazing that the divisiveness on this issue is between most americans and the men and women we elect to represent us. that is sad indeed.
I don't think any new laws are required on this issue at all, and I also agree with other posters that the felony provision is simply political posturing.
I mean, what exactly would we do with these 11 million or more felons? Send them to US prisons, further over-crowding them? Have our courts clogged with illegal immigration case after illegal immingration case? Are we again going to release violent criminals like rapists and murderers early because our prisons cannot accomodate all of these people?
I think we simply need to ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. As long as there are many companies willing to hire illegals, it's foolish to think anything can be done to reduce illegal immigration. Charging people as felons who simply want a better life for themselves and their families is wrong and misguided.
The only way we will ever reduce illegal immigration is really going after the companies hiring illegals. The IRS knows EXACTLY which companies are employing people using fake Social Security numbers, yet they choose to do nothing about it.
Until you do something about the DEMAND for illegals, trying to only control the supply of illegal immigrants is pointless.
But we can see you don't give a crap unless you can stroke your purile bigotry while mumbling in your unabomber-style shack.
I agree with you!
I'd also add that we shouldn't be supporting the Mexican government's ridiculous policies. The Congress and White House don't even broach the topic. We chould cut off any and all aid to Mexico until they begin dealing with their side of the border. One of the many sad and unfortunate things about this debate is that most liberals, moderates and conservatives can agree on many points. This truly could be a unifying issue but is instead being used as a political wedge. A lot of rhetoric and no solutions from our representatives. Bush has had every oppurtunity to close down the borders and would have had bipartisan support. And Right On I am glad you haven't fallen for the "liberals wnat amnesty" argument. I get the literature, listen to the radio shows and can honestly say that is not the consensus liberal opinion. I'm also glad to see you recognize it is not the illegals that are evil doers here, it's the corporations that want the cheap labor.
but then again dumbaya has broken every other treaty, so why he should back off from this one, who knows...
Bing, not to pick on you directly, but it does indeed appear to me that liberals do want amnesty and they in general just don't get why other folks seem to think that might be a bit of a problem. Even on this site, which in general tries to maintain a bit more of a civil tone, anyone who dares to say that illegal immigration is wrong and must be stoppped immediately is branded a rascist xenophobic knee-jerker.
Am I wrong? I'd love to be so.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS WRONG. Let's see is any body calls me a racist xenophobic knee-jerker for daring to say that. No liberal or democrat on this board is going to call me one because the vast majority agree with the statement.
Do liberals want amnesty? Lots do. So do lots of Republicans One of which was Ronald Reagan who actually gave amnesty.
Keep in mind though that being in the US illegaly is not a felony and is not even a misdemeanor.
It slipped in before your reply, but it supports my point:
But we can see you don't give a crap unless you can stroke your purile bigotry while mumbling in your unabomber-style shack.
Please that was a comment by Zero. We can't be responsible for posters who just want to spout off. Generally speaking the majority of us just want real debate. But there are those on both sides who would prefer to continue to incite hate. Count them as the exceptions not the rule. There have been comments made such as the "browning of America" that I think invites the bigotry question but that seems an appropriate response to a comment like that don't you think?
I appreciate that. I too have strong feelings on this so I can understand Zero's zealousness, even if he's channeling it poorly.
The real problem, and one I think MMFA missed with this posting, is not that media failed to mention the felony provisions, but that the House is punting on an issue that the citizenry really want some action on, and it sure would be nice if the politicians would declare their positions before November so that the voters might have something to vote on.
Why is this urgent? In Harris County in 2005, the taxpayers (not the Fed) spent $100 million providing medical care to illegal immigrants, up 77% in just three years (www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3977695.html). It is estimated that 4000 illegal immigrants arrive in Houston every month. Anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of the Texas prision population are illegal aliens.
And, due to the Democratic Party waffling/pandering on this issue, the Party is wasting its best opportunity to give people who would normally vote Republican an excuse to vote against the President's guest worker/amnesty/open borders position and thereby restore some balance to the current political situation. But instead, the amnesty crowd is turning off any potential swing voters. Sorry, but that was my bit of venting for the day.
I agree with your concerns. I think part of the problem is the two issues (border security and what to do with those already here) should be seperated out. But I think part of the problem some feel is if they don't piggy back them then the question of what to do with those already here will never be addressed. I am not a fan of amnesty because I too agree we should not reward someone for breaking our laws. But I also am not ready to discount it as an answer becuase I don't see how it would be feasable to attempt such a large scale deportation. I am for increasing the security on the border and enforcing the laws we already have on the books. I also think we have to target the businesses who are hiring them. We need to hit them hard in their pocketbooks. The problem is neither side is willing to go against the very people who give them such nice campaign contributions and give them the means to win a campaign. I think both sides will throw up road blocks so neither side has to take a risk so close to election.
Casey, you seem like a knowledge hungry person who likes to check facts and I think that's great. I'd like to know who is promoting amnesty for illegal aliens exactly. I know my senators don't. One a Republican and one a Democrat. None of my Congresspeople do. As I said before I read Harper's, Mother Jones, the NAtion etc. and haven't seen anything there. I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and haven't seen them say it or anything remotely close to it. I consider myself a middle of the road liberal Democrat, I don't feel that way. Who is it that is giving you the impression that any one is advocating amnesty?
Many, myself included, think the guest worker programs or whatever they are calling it now is basically amnesty. So sometimes when people are saying amnesty they are referring to Bush's proposed guest worker program. As I said earlier I am extremely ambivilant as to this type of program. On one hand I think it rewards them for breaking our laws. But I hear no other realistic plan to deal with those already here.
From the Bill Summary: "Immigrant Accountability Act of 2006 - Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien (and the spouse and children of such alien) who has been in the United States for five years and employed (with exceptions) for specified periods of time."
In plainspeak, this says "been here illegally for five years, you and your family get amnesty"
What does the alien have to do to qualify? That's pretty important, and doesn't mean amnesty. There are incredible hoops they have to jump through and then go to the end of the immigration line. And that's not a liberal who said it. Do better.
From the Democratic Senate website, Mr Reid says today
"Not the way the House did it, by making felons out of immigrants. Not by making criminals out of humanitarian workers who operate soup kitchens for immigrants or the clergy who offer them religious counseling. But the way the Senate did it, by beefing up security on our borders, enforcing employer sanctions and giving undocumented immigrants who are here a way to get right with the law."
Giving illegal immigrants who are here a way to get right with the law IS amnesty.
Now, before the torrents begin, let me state my position so you can shoot me for what I say, not for what you might think I'm saying.
My preferred action on the illegal immigration problem: (1) Fine the employers enough so it hurts and they stop hiring outside the law, (2) Close the border in whatever way makes sense so that the problem doesn't get worse, (3) Deport non-citizens who break the law (whether valid visa or not) as a matter of routine not as part of any sort of illegal roundup, and (4) Explain to Mexico that we will no longer be the safety valve for their failed policies. Then we evaluate exactly what we want to do with those who are here illegally but are otherwise law-abiding. Once the jobs dry up and they know we're serious about border securty, the majority may self-deport or decide it's not worth it to come in the first place.
Guest worker programs, tough subject, but it kinda smacks of something un-American. I'm not sure that our society can be predicated upon a significant population of people being here who have no voice or stake in what happens. Our Constitution was certainly not written with that type of populace in mind. Why should a guest worker care about America? Saudi Arabia is about half guest workers. Is that the future we envision for our country? Or is a guest worker program simply solving businesses problems of the jobs they can't outsource, so they'll just insource the labor? Maybe the jobs that remain need to be at a higher wage so that Americans "will" do them? Besides, the guest worker parts of the drafted bills (see KB Hutchinson's proposal) have the government determining output and allocating labor; when you read the details, it sounds a bit like old Stalinist Russia.
Also, according to the La Migra website today, there are 8 million legal immigrants here who are eligible to become citizens but have never bothered. Makes you wonder if they really are interested in becoming Americans or not. I don' t think they are. Most poorer folks don't have the luxury of worrying about politics.
Thank you for the examples, and I see your point. Technically you are correct in the sense that amnesty means past sins forgiven. Very true. You gave an excellent description of your opinion and I agree with most of it. However, amnesty means you pay no price. The aliens do; in fines, in servitude to an employer for a set number of years and then you go through the process of getting on a long list before your shot at citizenship. So that's not really amnesty. And Harry Reid said nothing that advocated amnesty also he is no liberal, not even close. And consider this just because your eligible to become citizens doesn't mean you'll become one. It's a rigorous process and often times fear of being denied and deported isn't worth the risk of applying. That being said, there are plenty of Mexicans who have no desire to become American and flaunt it. They gladly send the checks home and visit frequently Should make it easy to get rid of them. But sadly a lot of them are the legals; go figure.
the Vote in all the Border States will be strongly anti-Amnesty, and this issue will effect the Vote in most States. I don't believe the Polls that say most Americans are in favor of "Amnesty." The Dems will lose a lot of the Independent Swing Voters with their present Immigration Stance. Illegal Immigration is by definition, ILLEGAL!
There is a misperception perpetuated by right wing pundits that the left wants amnesty. Maybe because of Ted Kennedy, Or maybe because they want to continue to demonize the left. Maybe on other blogs there is some talk of amnesty, but not in the liberal circles I run in. AM 760 in Denver has a mornign guy, Jay Marvin, he is constantly fending this off. The closest thing to amnesty I've heard of is the McCain/Kennedy deal which is just as un-doable as the Stensenbrenner(sp?) bill. The McKennedy bill would have illegals go through a ridiculous set of hoops and then might be eligible to become a citizen. Other than that I have not heard one liberal talk show host, nor read one liberal or progressive publication suggest amnesty or open borders. As far as the xenophobic label being tossed around, I have heard it and sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not. In Colorado here, Tom Tancredo is a xenophobic bigot. I say this because he is against the illegal immigrants. The idea that we are being over run, that Mexicans want to take back the SouthWest is a radical and baseless one. When people are attacking the immigrants themselves thee usually is a hint of bigotry. It doesn't address the problem. Most of these folks are only coming here to feed their families. Vincente and the rest of the corrupt Mexican government won't take care of their own. The blame falls squarely on them and the American companies who hire the illegals. I live in a small town Nrth of Denver and we have a serious problem here. But blaming the illegals is like blaming your Cancer on the tumor and not the cigarettes that caused it.
We chould cut off any and all aid to Mexico until they begin dealing with their side of the border. One of the many sad and unfortunate things about this debate is that most liberals, moderates and conservatives can agree on many points. =======================================
Are we giving aid to Mexico? I do agree that Mexico should be compelled to deal with this issue and there should be some way of penalizing them for what they’re doing now which is promoting the illegal immigration. The illegals send money back to their families in Mexico which helps the Mexican economy. The Mexican government is scavenging our economy, and American Corporations are scavenging in Mexico for low cost workers. The Mexican people should be proactive and DEMAND that their government do something address the needs of their citizens all of them. I understand completely why the immigrants are coming here, but this uncontrolled immigration has to stop. I don't agree with this were’ going to round in all up stuff, but they should monitor high crime areas and target those suspected of engaging in illegal activity while here. The immigrants that are here now rooted, working, and being productive I wouldn't actively search them out. Enforcement of penalties on illegal hiring and limiting services to people who can produce verifiable proof of citizenship will probably compel some illegals back to Mexico or push some north to Canada. I think controlling these factors will reduce the existing illegal population through attrition. Combine this with increased border control, Mexican government cooperation (coerced if need be) and we be able to control the problem and make it manageable. You’re never going to stop it all; people still managed to get out of East Berlin wall, armed military guards, and all.
Now hopefully everyone can discuss this without introducing the kind of rhetoric that mucks up the issue. You know that "Hispanization of", "browning of", "changing our way of life" stuff is just so irrelevant.
I don't know the exact figures but we do give Mexico American tax payer dollars, or rather moneys we borrowed from China or the UAE, etc. We should nix that and stand on the side of the Mexican people and demand the Government begin implementing programs to build a middle class. That isn't in the interest of the current administration of course. That would be too altruistic.
that the GOP and the major news media is trying to conceal a major flip-flop in the Bush administration's position on the felony provisions on the immigration bill. It used to be wholeheartedly FOR the felony provisions. According to Sensenbrenner, it was the White House that requested them bo be put in. Now the White House is making sure that as few people as possible know that those provisions ever existed and the major media is happy to bury the story. In the Spanish speaking public where this issue is more well-known, the GOP wants to blame the Democrats for those provisions.
How is this not propaganda?
The link for Sensenbrenner's statement does not show any reference to the felony provisions per se. Are there others where he is more specific?
I would tend to think that the President did not flip on this issue. His campaign, his stint as Texas governor, his and Gov Perry's vision of the Trans Texas Corridor (and the Super Corridor into KC), all seem to be consistent with his idea of having more openness at the borders and more free movement of labor and goods, not less. Perhaps others on the White House staff had different perceptions which led to some confusion when the bill was drafted. Or perhaps the House was looking for support from the White House when initial resistance to the more punative aspects emerged. It could also be that the felony provisions were included solely as negotiable items to be used in conference committee but, as politicians seem to think that the general public is stupid, they felt they couldn't disclose their tactics.
Here's an excerpt from the article cited by MMFA:
``He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House,'' Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call. ``That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now the president appears not to be interested in it at all.''
Sensenbrenner chairs the House Judiciary Committee and would be the House's chief negotiator on any final immigration package for Bush's signature. He said it was the White House that had requested two controversial felony provisions in the bill the House passed last winter.
``We worked very closely with White House in the fall in putting together the border security bill that the House passed,'' he said. ``... What we heard in November and December, he seems to be going in the opposite direction in May. That is really at the crux of this irritation,'' he said of Bush.
[link to www.wcbs880.com]
If you still don't believe that Sensenbrenner claimed that Bush flip flopped on the felony provisions, which immigration bill provisions was he referring to that Bush flip flopped on?
The items you quoted did not specifically say the felony provisions. Sensenbrenner was not specific in the sources cited so far. What else Sensenbrenner might be referring to, I couldn't say. I do know that George Bush the campaigner stated clearly his pro-immigrant stance before the 2000; it struck me at the time as a very odd position for a Republican candidate to take and I was surprised that more was not made of it. So, did Sensenbrenner not pay attention to what Bush said at that time either? I dunno.
While people were rallying against this bill in the streets of LA and elsewhere, the GOP paid for spots on Spanish radio claiming the Democrats were responsible for the Felony issue.
is what that was, plain and simple. They saw an opening and tried to take advantage of it. But, what the Republicans forgot was that most churches (mine included) had already been discussing the felony provisions of the bill beginning at the first of the year, naming names and all.
I don't know how I feel about that. On one hand I like the fact that churches were being altruistic and engaged in the debate. I think it was a bishop in LA that took some heat and also the Mormon church too for their being outspoken for being "pro-illegal." Mainly because of the altruistic side of the church that appeals to me most. However, (there's always a however ;^}) The naming of names I think, unecassarily enters the filthy arena of politics. I am abhorrent to the mixing of the two. Both can have good and bad but should be treated like oil and water. I would think just the teachings would convince enough people, but then if you hadn't been warned of who was doing what in DC and you wouldn't have otherwise; then you might have not caught it. You seem pretty engaged though. That's a good thing, because of most of us don't. Jefferson said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." I will climb off my soapbox, now.
Perhaps my phraseology misleads. . .the church simply stated the facts: the Republican sponsors and Hastert's comments as the Republican leader in the House. Anyone who read the church paper knew full well that the Republicans were responsible for the felony provisions and therefore knew the later spin was indeed spin. The Republicans probably lost a few voters on that display of blatant dishonesty.
I think the Republicans are afraid of the growing Hispanic population because they view it as a threat to their majority control. My heart does indeed go out to the plight of the immigrants but we have to be pragmatic since we can't adequately plan for population growth if we can't control the flow of immigrants. In addition with the system or non system in place now the immigrants are being terribly exploited. I recently read an article about illegal farm workers in FL. By word of mouth they heard that they could make $8 bucks an hour picking oranges in FL, all they had to do was "get here" and there would be no questions asked. It was about 5-6 guys living in a trailer at $300 per mo. each, and they were "provided" (they had to pay for it) transportation to the fields where they worked12 hours a day- 6 days a week. They were allowed to run a tab at the store housed on the grounds where they lived. To make a long story short, after these expenses the workers made a real salary of about $3.50 and hour. And you know that illegals flocked to NO and are doing the nasty clean up work there. They are being grossly under paid and there were some instances where the companies were not paying them at all.
My Congresswoman, Marilyn Musgrave, was key in making that possible by introducing the proposal to suspend the D-B Act that would have guaranteed workers be paid by any government contractors the local living wage. Thus allowing the same contractors our military protects in Iraq to hire illegal immigrants out from under displaced locals who wanted to go home. Gee, when I put it like that it sounds so treasonous.
Skip, jump down below for my apology. . .you were right about Sensenbrenner.
My apologies. I did not read your linked article closely enough. Sensenbrenner indeed fingered the White House specifically on these felony provisions. That makes the situation more perplexing as I still believe that it was contrary to his prior publicly stated positions. So what game were they playing this time? Public nice guy, private bad guy? Who benefits from the felony provisions being in the bill if the White House can't/won't publicly support them? Hmmmmm. . . .
It's always been a blessing and a curse, and there has always been attempts to keep immigration in check. The debate must be civil if we want a solution. Unfortunately the politcos aren't serious about the debate, they want to pander. They are so disconnected with their constituents. The beef I have is with people who can't get past the reality that immigrants will always come here. The "stop all immigration" crowd are living in a fantasy land. Even Tancredo isn't that nuts. The important thing to remeber is that these folks came here to better their lives. Some intentions are devious sure. But the bulk of them flowing from Mexico just want a decent wage for a decent days work and they can't get that in Mexico. This is a warning, or should be, at what happens when a country abandons all attempts at social programs to benefit the poor. Mexico's solution, give them maps to sneak in. While we're bitching about the influx of illegals, our reps in DC are trying to kill the New Deal. Soon, it may be us that begin crossing into Canada. But that's another debate for another time.
Speaking for myself I don't want to "stop all immigration". But I do think we need to do our best to stop ILLEGAL immigration. My husband is a resident alien. He chose to come here and he chose to jump through all the neccessary hoops to do so within our laws. I can sympathize with their quest for a better life but they have to follow our laws if they want to have the better life that living in the US will give them. If I was in their position I may very well try to do what they are but that still doesn't make it right.
I agree with you completely. I think our border security is sseriously lacking and needs to be reinforced and if illegals are caught they should be deported. I'm just stressing that the problem isn't with the illegal immigrants, it's with illegal immigration. Instead of focusing on the people who are illegal, we should be focusing on the act of illegal immigration. That means taking a look at why they come here and how do we take steps to curb that.
That's an excellent assessment of the issue.
Have A Good Evening
It is appreciated ;^}
What has been reported is that Rep. Nancy Pelosi refused to allow the felony provisions to be removed from H.R. 4437 and then in a "switch and bait" move, went into loud negative remarks about "what a bad bill that was". As a long standing democrat, I have taken note of that and plan to change my party because of the small minded, veiled moves I've come to learn like Senator Feinstein putting an Ordinance in City of SF not to do anything about illegal immigrants - this after passing of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli law. If our elected officials won't obey the law, its no wonder we see lawlessness, fraud, illegals. Fairlane
I think many are missing the point of the ploy tactic of "bait and switch" Nany Pelosi's attack of this bill to kill Sensenbrenner's House bill H.R. 4437, a great bill that seeks to both secure the border but also provides for employers enforcement at the workplace where illegal aliens will end up. Rep. Pelosi (CA) insisted that the felony provision stay in that bill while House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner entertained the idea of removing it. Then, she condemned it saying what a bad bill it was! So, things are not what they seem. Californians, like myself are catching on and maybe America will catch a glimpse into some insidious things too. Also, although Fr. Maloney from L.A. has gone on board supporting illegal immigrants as a humane thing........... a noted speaker (Fr) from Notre Dame reported: "You have to shut the back door to illegal immigrants in order to open the front door to legal immigrants". Laws are there to be obeyed by all, even Senator Feinstein, from CA who placed an ordinance in SF not to enforce the Simpson-Mazzoli laws but was okay with granting only the amnesty. Doublespeak.