Illegals Favored Over Citizens

According to Sen. John McCain, a member of the Senate’s Gang of Eight, criminals will not be legalized under the proposed bipartisan immigration bill.

“Anyone who has committed crimes in this country is going to be deported,” the Arizona Republican declared on the Senate floor last week.

However, as Washington Examiner columnist Byron York recently reported, “the bottom line is an immigrant could have more than three misdemeanor convictions in his background check and still qualify for legalization.”

Furthermore, the following chart published June 21 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit organization that opposes liberalization of immigration law, compares the consequences for an array of crimes and discovered that while illegal immigrants might be exonerated and legalized, U.S. citizens and legal immigrants face years of incarceration or temporary expulsion from the country.

Continue Reading

Amnesty Vote Today!

On Monday at 5:30pm, the United States Senate will vote on the most sweeping immigration reform proposal it has considered in almost 3 decades – and it will do so having only seen the nearly 1200 pages of text for approximately 72 hours.  Americans – including myself, my fellow senators and our staffs – are still trying to figure out exactly what is in the new Schumer-Corker-Hoeven “deal.” 

Sound familiar?  Pass it to find out what’s in it?  Reminiscent of Obamacare, the lengthy amendment to replace the Gang of 8’s original bill was crafted behind closed doors and introduced late on Friday, after many members had left town.  In the 2007 immigration debate, close to 50 amendments were considered.  But this year, we have only debated 9 – with some of us being completely shut out. 

Given only a weekend to review the language, we will now vote on whether to end a debate that never really began.   To be clear – this is not a difficult vote.   On process alone, we should all vote “no.“  This was by design – the President, Harry Reid and the Gang of 8 preferred all along to ram through a “deal,” and not have a real debate – just like Obamacare.  Worse, just like Obamacare, the “deal” involved lots of horse-trading and buying off of votes at the last minute – a display of everything that is wrong with Washington, and one of the things I specifically campaigned against.

But, on substance – the vote is even easier.   There are too many troubling provisions of the bill to list, such as de facto affirmative action hiring for current illegal immigrants due to Obamacare and huge amounts of discretion for the DHS Secretary to waive deportation and inadmissibility.   And for all the talk, the new Schumer-Corker-Hoeven “deal” is nothing new at all.  It’s the same amnesty-before-false-promise-of-security of the Gang of 8 and the bills of debates past. 

That is why we started this petition, so that Americans can speak out and let Senators know that they oppose the legalization-first bill offered by the Gang of 8 and Schumer-Corker-Hoeven.

Here’s what we know that the bill does:

Grants Immediate Amnesty with Empty Promise of Border Security

Although we are told that it fixes border security, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment maintains the Gang of 8’s flawed framework of guaranteed and immediate legalization, followed by an empty promise of eventual border security.  This structure repeats the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty, which, as noted by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, is precisely the same as this “deal,” and only encourages more illegal immigration.

Continue Reading

Sharia…Coming to a City Near You?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Imagine this scenario. A husband-and-wife are married in the Catholic Church. The wife gets pregnant. They have a falling out and get divorced. The now ex-wife wishes to have an abortion but her ex-husband wishes her to have the baby.

Putting aside our views on murder abortion, the husband decides to challenge her decision. Rather than take her to civil court, he and she go before a Catholic tribunal. The tribunal rules that the woman must carry the baby to term and upon the baby’s birth relinquish he/she to the father who will have full custody.

The woman doesn’t stand for this ruling and takes the matter to her state court, but the state court upholds the Catholic ruling.

Now how many liberal organizations would have a cow over this? Naturally all of them. And might the Obama justice system inject themselves into this case? You bet they would.

Surprise. I would agree with the libs. This case should be decided in state court and a tribunal ruling should have no bearing on its outcome. Why? Because there is no place in this country for a parallel judicial system.

Yet with the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood and our overwhelming political correctness, how long will it be before Sharia law becomes that parallel system?

Another surprise. It’s already here, in a manner of speaking. Liberal judges are and have been deferring to Sharia law for years when adjudicating cases.

You may ask how prevalent it is, or more to the point, just how bad it could get?

Well, whenever you wish to predict the future, one merely has to find a similar situation that has already occurred and walk it back. Knowing that liberals and progressives follow the same patterns no matter where or when they reside, you can, with a fair amount of certainty, predict our future.

Political correctness coupled with fear is strangling Europe. As bad as it is here, it’s much worse in European countries. Predictably, France is at the politically correct forefront.

To date there are over 750 “No-Go Zones” in French cities, containing over 5 million Muslims. What’s a No-Go Zone? The PC name for it is “Sensitive Urban Zone”. Ah, that sounds nice, does it not?

What they are is whole swaths of a city where French law enforcement has virtually no presence. It’s a separate country within the city. These areas are controlled by Muslims and the law they follow is Sharia, not French. These neighborhoods erect mosques to further radicalize their population, all financed by governments such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In other words, the Muslim brotherhood.

Oops. Not all the financing comes from Middle East. A lot comes from public assistance provided by the liberal French government. Assistance such as welfare benefits, etc., similar to those provided to Tamerlin Tsarnaev in Boston.

And it’s not just France. This is happening all over Europe. Even Germany has a growing number of court cases where judges defer to Islamic Sharia law. Islamic “Shadow Courts” operate in every major German city.

So if we wish to see our future, whether it be our swift march to socialism and all the joy it creates, or the rise of Sharia, we have only to look across the pond.

Senate Kills Bill

WASHINGTON — The Senate rejected a border security amendment proposed by Sen. John Cornyn Thursday, as senators touted bipartisan agreement on a different border security package sponsored by Republican Sens. John Hoeven and Bob Corker.

The Texas Republican’s amendment was tabled by a vote of 54-43. Because it was a vote to table (to put the amendment aside without debating its merits), that means the 53 aye votes were votes against Cornyn’s amendment, and the 43 nay votes were votes in favor of it.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio broke with the Gang of Eight on the amendment, voting not to table it. All other members of the Gang of Eight voted to table it.

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote to table his amendment, Cornyn said: “I’m looking forward to seeing the language that’s being proposed, the alternative language. But for now, I believe my amendment deserves the support of the members of this chamber.”

Continue Reading

Ryan v Levin on Immigration

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Paul Ryan was on Mark Levin’s show on Tuesday discussing immigration. You know, the same Paul Ryan that with his tag team partner Marco Rubio, have been pushing for a “comprehensive immigration” bill. I’ll give him props for his courage at least.

Levin told Ryan that some new immigration numbers were just-released. He said that new CBO estimates are that the Senate bill will only reduce illegal immigration by 25%. Ryan responded by saying that the House will not focus or discuss the Senate bill and will only focus on their own bill.

Ryan said that “this problem” has to be dealt with. The “problem” being illegals but would not say the words illegal alien or illegal. He called them undocumented workers.

Ryan continued saying that we had a law in 1986 and it didn’t work nor did the ‘96 or 2006 laws. Ryan claimed, as Levin laughed out loud, that they in Congress want to get it right this time.

Naturally Mark asked him: “Why should we trust you [guys]?” Ryan said that this time they would have “real metrics” that would have to be met to secure the border. Not just DHS’s promise. He said the GAO would make the determination of border security. He then went on to explain the metrics that must be met regarding the undocumented workers.

Levin asked: “What if the illegal doesn’t meet your requirements. Are you going to deport them?” Ryan’s answer: “Yeah, then they are deportable, that’s the whole point.” Levin interrupted rather emphatically by saying that they’re not going to be deported!

Notice that Ryan said they are deportable, not that they would be deported. One has to listen very carefully as politicians throw out these code words.

Levin added that the president is in charge of who is deported and he simply won’t do it no matter what Congress insists on.

And of course Levin is correct. That’s why this argument is so specious. It sounds like tough talk but that’s all it is. I’m reminded of the Bumble Snow Monster that looked scary but was harmless after his teeth were removed.

Ryan’s response was if you write a law and they break the law, they are deportable. It can’t be fought or adjudicated. Huh? They already broke the law just getting here. What the heck do they care if they break another?

Could someone as intelligent as Paul Ryan really be this naïve, or is it something else?

Ryan then asked Levin: “Do you believe we will find 11 million or more people, round them up and kick them out?” Levin’s answer: “no, under this administration we won’t round up a half million people.” Ryan said that no administration could do that, even if they tried.

Frankly, how would we know? We’ve never tried. And I beg to differ. You won’t get them all, but you can get 70% within a few months time with the will and a few thousand agents. I live on the outskirts of a northeastern city. It’s a small city but a city nonetheless. I guarantee, you give me 1000 agents and a few days and I could find 75% of all illegals in my city. Why? Because they all settled in about 10-block area downtown and I’ll bet every city is the same. That’s why! 

All of what Ryan continued to promote was in the 1986 amnesty bill. Levin pointed this out to Ryan. Ryan didn’t really acknowledge it. He continued to drone on about metrics that have to be met regarding security and legal status of the undocumented workers. It didn’t convince Mark and it didn’t convince me.

Look, the bottom line is that all the metrics, the rules and new laws are not going to solve the illegal problem. We have been debating this current problem for over 25 years.

If they, Congress, were serious, they would simply state that we can live with our current situation for another year or two. Therefore Congress’s proposal should be to secure the border…period. Each border State would then verify to its security. When that is completed, we can revisit the rest. It’s that simple and that’s why it will never be done. It’s not “comprehensive” enough!

Disappointed in Rubio

by: the Common Constitutionalist

A few days ago Erick Erickson at RedState wrote of the great immigration debate, particularly the involvement of Senator Marco Rubio.

Senator Rubio, for good or ill, is the talk of the political town, as it were. He has become the face of this battle.

Erickson said that Marco Rubio is either being played for a fool or we are being played by Rubio.

I’m sorry Erick. You are either soft peddling what you know to be true, or stupid. and we know you’re not stupid.

Let’s just say it. A liar is a liar, regardless of party affiliation and Rubio is a bold face liar. What…need proof? Here ya go.

During a recent interview with Latino broadcaster Univision, Rubio said, in spanish: ” Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about  preventing legalizations. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residency.”

Now I don’t hablo espanol, but I think I can translate. Millions upon millions of illegals will be immediately legalized. Then there will be plan for border security, but no border security. There will be no fence, or wall erected. They may hire more border agents but  the “no-touchy the illegals” policy will remain so it won’t matter.

It’s painfully obvious that the vast majority of politicians in Washington are not interested in border security. Just look at the failed yet quite reasonable amendment put forth by Senator Chuck Grassley. He wanted legalization to only happen after certifying that the border had been secure for a 6 month period. Only 6 months! It received virtually no support and was tabled by “Dirty” Harry Reid.  So you tell me anyone wants to seal the border.

Glenn Beck made a great point about Rubio. As usual, Glenn is dead-on right.

Beck said that he likened Rubio’s “spanish language” interview to the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah. Their leaders give incendiary speeches to their followers in arabic. They then give a whitewashed speech in english to the rest of the world claiming it was the same speech, but we misunderstood due to the poor translation.

Beck continued by saying that Rubio: “Is not on your side.” He was also disgusted with Rand Paul and Jeff Flake.

Like Beck, Levin and Limbaugh, I too have had enough of these faux-conservatives we all counted on to take the fight to Washington. At this point I wonder if these republicans were ever constitutional conservatives as some of them claimed.

After the last election, I stated unequivocally that under NO circumstances will I ever support any politician who supports amnesty! And don’t fool yourself. That’s what this is.

So, you may say; this is one issue. You can’t expect to agree with politicians all the time, right? Wrongo! Not this time.

The immigration issue is the most important issue of our lifetime. More important than the debt ceiling, the sequester, the deficit, the IRS scandal, Benghazigate, the PRISM program…anything; even Obamacare.

We will not and cannot survive the onslaught of 10, 20, 30 million instant citizens. And this will be a perpetual amnesty program. It will not end. Don’t believe the lies to the contrary.

I hate to be such a downer but we better wake up and fast. Call, write, talk to your friends. Whatever, but this must be stopped. If it is allowed to take hold, we are done.

 

Immigration Law…Then and Now

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Who hasn’t heard the new pro-immigration ads? It seems like they’re playing on every news-radio station, all day. The group “Americans for a Conservative Direction” brings the ads to air. It is a lobbying group put together by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who is definitely not a conservative. The southern RINO Haley Barbour is also involved.

The ads posit the notion, put forth by Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, that the current immigration system is de facto amnesty. They neglect to mention that the current system bears no resemblance to and follows virtually none of the thousands of immigration laws already on the books.

Rubio and Ryan take turns promoting the new 1000 page “comprehensive” bill, saying: “Let’s secure the border.” But that’s not what is in the bill. It says that DHS shall submit a plan to the secure the border – that’s it.

In the ad both senators claim: “they’ll undergo background checks, start paying taxes, won’t qualify for federal benefits, pay a fine, learn English and no amnesty.” They claim that if illegals do all this they will then go to the end of the immigration line.

All lies or half-truths.

And what if they don’t do all those things? Will we deport them Marco? Will we send them home Paul? Of course not.

So no matter what they say, in actuality, between 11 and 20 million illegals will become legal. Litigation will see to that. Mark my words.

Don’t believe me? Okay, let’s take a ride back to 1986 and examine IRCA, the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

This failed law allowed amnesty for in excess of 2.7 million illegals (a fraction of todays). It greatly contributed to the downfall of California with over 40% of all illegals ending up in California and Texas. Texas as we know, is far more conservative than is California, thus it has been spared the same fate.

But did IRCA accomplish what the liars in 1986 claim it would do? Did they shut down the border and end or greatly decrease illegal immigration? Nope – none of the above – as any thinking person would guess.

According to a study done by the Cato Institute: “IRCA did not achieve its goal of reducing illegal inflows and the size of the undocumented population. Illegal immigration quickly resumed growing and legal immigration increased because the families of legalization beneficiaries immigrated.” (chain migration)

The study added that stricter enforcement has had little actual deterrent effect. But of course, we all know there is no “stricter” border security. There is virtually no border security at all.

They (Cato) warned of the potential burden of legalizing so many unskilled immigrants. Almost half of all adult illegals had not even a high school education and they comprised 22% of all non-high school graduates.

As we conservatives all know today and was expressed after passage of the 1986 law, “the number of immigrants far exceeded expectations”. Big surprise!

Newly legalized women were found to have left the workforce. Why? They suddenly became eligible for far more government giveaway programs.

The study added that the new adult citizens could then sponsor relatives; their parents, children, married children and their spouses, and so on and so on. 11 million immigrants my foot. Try double or triple.

And all those new arrivals will of course be taking advantage of the freebies we so generously offer. How stupid are we?

They concluded that having an amnesty can create the expectation of additional future amnesties which encourage continued illegal inflows. Another shocker.

So what have we learned from the debacle of 1986? Evidently, absolutely nothing. Check that. We’ve learned that politics and elections trump the nation’s security and our ever-dwindling resources. Oh… and common sense. We’ve also learned that whatever the era, politicians lie.

Let’s End Conservatism In America

I am strongly against amnesty. The most important thing we need to do is enforce our existing laws. We have existing immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced. Nothing will make it harder to enforce the existing laws, if you reward people who broke them. It demoralizes people who are going through the legal process, it’s a very clear signal of why go through the legal process, if you can accomplish the same thing if you go through the illegal process. And number two, it demoralizes the people enforcing the laws. I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally. — Marco Rubio, 2010

Question: At this point, if your original (comprehensive immigration bill) came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it? […] John McCain: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first. — John McCain, 2008

Do you think the Tasmanian tiger would have voted to end the existence of its species on earth? How about the Dodo? What about the Tyrannosaurus Rex?

It’s tempting to say that none of them would have voted to destroy themselves, but since John McCain and Marco Rubio are engineering nothing less than the end of conservatism as a political force in America with the immigration bill they’re working on right now, it’s hard to say.

For all practical purposes, what the Gang of 8 amnesty bill does is permanently ensconce 11 million plus illegal immigrants in our country in return for mostly waivable promises of border security that will never be fulfilled and a permanent liberal majority. This is a phenomenal deal for Democrats and people who came to this country illegally; so it’s easy to understand why they’d back the deal.

Why there are so many conservatives in Congress who are willing to put conservatism’s neck in a noose and jump off a stool is harder to say.

As always, money is helping to grease the wheels. There are corrupt businessmen who have made such a killing by hiring illegals to do jobs that should have gone to American workers that they have plenty of cash to spread around. Combine them with the greedy tech companies that are willing to saddle the public with 11 million illegal aliens if they can get some new high skill immigrant workers in the bargain and you have the primary reason this bill is getting Republican support. If you took that cash flow out of the equation, a bill this suicidal would have been a non-starter.

Continue Reading