Immigration Bill or "How to Eat an Elephant"

Scenario...There is a rogue elephant in the room. First step is to identify the elephant. Second step is to formulate a plan on how to deal with said pachyderm. Next thing needed is a plan on how to properly dispose of the animal for the good of all. The only way to eat said elephant is one bite at a time. What does this have to do with Immigration and the bill that won't die? Instead of insisting on an all or nothing approach, euphemistically called a "Comprehensive Approach" let's start over with nothing, show the country that they (the Government) is willing to enforce the laws that are already on the books, build the fence that was overwhelmingly approved last year, increase border security, stem the flood and enforce employer laws, cut off federal money to
Sanctuary Cities" and then we can talk about dealing with the illegal immigrants already here and maybe a guest worker program. The bill that is under consideration is so gangrenous and rotten that is smells from its core.

If President Bush is successful in his attempt to revive this fiasco as part of his legacy, it will indeed go down as part of his legacy and it is not the kind of legacy most people would find attractive. He and several of his party, formerly my party, in collusion with many of the Democratic party are willing to spit in the face of 73% of the American people. As low as Bush's approval rating is, it is almost twice what Harry Reid's approval rating is at the time. That may not last. There are a few heroes in the GOP. Among them are Cornyn, Hutchison, Coburn, Demint, Sessions and others but there are also a perfidious few that are in a race to the bottom. This elephant is down but not out and remains indigestible in its present state.

Why is the Senate and Bush so enamored with this bill? Why does it need to be 'comprehensive" and try to address both the enforcement and the amnesty at the same time. Why not separately? Because this puts them on both sides of the issue which is what most politicians want. Plausible deniability depending on the audience and set of voters they happen to be addressing at the time. They can say that it was the best they could get and had to compromise to do it. Expect to hear various forms of the canard "We just could not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect." In fact what they have done is settled for the bad rather than pursue the good or at least much better. I'll say it again, better no bill than this bill. This may be a watershed moment for some of the GOP Senators when it is time for the primaries. Voltaire said it best. "Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" In this country, it is wise from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage the others. Some of these Senators may indeed face a career ending primary firing squad.

Cornyn, Hutchison Followup Letters

I received two follow-up letters from Texas Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison today and thought I would share them with you. It does seem that some of the Senate is listening. I hope they continue to listen to the people and not to the President and others including Kyle, Graham, Kennedy and McCain.

Dear Mr. Heard:

Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. The need to fix our broken system is clear, and I appreciate having the benefit of your insight on one of the most important issues of our day.

Immigration reform ultimately must be about improving our system for legal immigration, not about creating new benefits for illegal aliens. Although we are a proud nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. If policymakers will agree that all immigrants must abide by the rule of law, then we can reach a consensus on ways to improve the legal process so that it meets the needs of our society, our economy and our national security.

Recently, the Senate began to debate S. 1348, a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is encouraging that the Senate is taking up this important matter and attempting to address the problems that plague our immigration system. However, I have serious concerns that the legislation, as drafted, will repeat the well documented mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill. Further, if we fail to address the rampant fraud and fail to close all loopholes in our current broken system, then we will fail to truly reform our system.

I have been working throughout my time in the Senate to develop a solution to this problem that I believe will work. I would invite you to visit my website at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/immigration to acquaint yourself with the immigration reforms I support. As we consider this bill in the Senate and beyond, I will continue to promote these policies, but I will oppose any bill that rewards illegal conduct and encourages further disrespect for our laws.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator





517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Here is the letter from Senator Hutchison.

Dear Mr. Heard:

Knowing of your interest in the issue of immigration, I wanted to send you a copy of an opinion editorial that I wrote with Senator Cornyn three weeks ago about the immigration bill currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. The editorial appeared in newspapers throughout Texas.

Secure Borders and Immigration Reform Without Amnesty

by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn

Published in Texas newspapers the week of May 21, 2007

As your U.S. Senators, we have been heavily involved in the Congressional debate on immigration reform for several years. We have taken a leadership role on this issue because we represent a state that uniquely benefits from the contributions of legal immigrants, but is also uniquely vulnerable to the dangers of illegal immigration. Throughout this process, our principles have been clear and consistent: We must secure our borders, and we cannot encourage illegal behavior through amnesty.

Last week, the Bush administration, along with a small group of Senators, announced a compromise immigration bill that would take a necessary first step in improving border security. We did not join in the announcement. While our efforts had a positive influence, we were not convinced the announced proposal guarantees repair of our current broken system. We are particularly concerned that we may be repeating the mistakes of the failed 1986 national amnesty.

As of late Friday, the actual text of the “grand compromise” had not yet been published. Major questions remain about details of the plan, and how it would work. , We believe the bill – which was negotiated privately – deserves a full public airing before it’s considered.

The bill promises some long-term positive changes, including significant border security measures, an end to chain migration, and a switch to green card distribution based on merit.

But many problems have not been satisfactorily addressed. For example, we must make certain that convicted criminals are not eligible for any legalization, and if these individuals attempt to stay here, that they are arrested and promptly deported.

We must ensure that only those who have played by the rules – and not those engaged in identity theft – receive Social Security benefits. This proposal would enable illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits for the time they were unlawfully in our country. At a time when we are already facing major shortfalls in our ability to pay benefits for future retirees, this represents an unfair burden on the American taxpayer. We must end the rampant document fraud that plagues our workplaces today, and do it in a way that is legally enforceable.

Some of our colleagues, sensing the fragile nature of the proposed compromise, want to rush it through the Congress immediately. This would be a major mistake. It is too important and too complicated to rush. The legislation requires extended Senate debate, with full opportunity for public input and criticism, and an open process for amendments to strengthen its provisions.

In 1986, the Congress approved a similar compromise plan that, in return for amnesty for most immigrants here illegally, promised an end to porous borders and disregard for our laws. Those promises were not honored. The amnesty legislation instead actually encouraged further disrespect for our laws, and led directly to the situation we face today.

As the bill reaches the Senate floor this week, our goal will be restoring the integrity of our borders, providing guest workers with opportunity, not amnesty, and preserving our social security for all who legally qualify. Our contributions to the debate will continue to be positive, and constructive.

Our country needs immigration reform. We must ensure that it’s done, and done correctly.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison


Please do not reply to this message. If you have additional comments, send your remarks through Senator Hutchison's website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/. Thank you.

I am working on a "how-to eat an elephant" piece as a way to immigration reform.

The Fine Print of the Immigration Bill

When I posted earlier about the devil being in the details, I was right on the money. Hugh Hewitt, a law Professor and blogger among other things has been pouring over the details since the 700 page summary was released and spent a very productive weekend for our benefit. So far he has broken it down in 8 parts and I'm sure he is not through with this large and complicated document. It is actually worse than I thought. His concluding statement in Part I is spot on.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I can only read Section 601(h) as a massive undercutting of the entire concept of "triggers," an undercutting which various talking points have not underscored or quantified, which points to why the jam down demanded by Senator McCain is so reprehensible. Ordinary citizens have almost zero chance of figuring out what this bill intends and how its provisions will interact, and the proxies on whom they might rely will hardly have any opportunity to fully vet the language.

As I noted below, the president and the GOP Senate leadership need to postpone any cloture vote until the law is examined, debated and amended.

Scott at Powerline gives us a little background on the "F*ck you" incident and what really went on. Well worth reading it.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out N.Z. Bear's online version of the draft immigration bill which allows for section-by-section comments.