January 29, 2013

To hear the accounts about tough bipartisan negotiations from the Senate’s “Gang of 8” on immigration, one would think that Hatfields had just made peace with the McCoys. The truth is that all the Republicans on this gang have long been supporters of amnesty.

The border enforcement group Numbers USA gives Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham, and John McCain F grades for their support of amnesty. Rubio has not had a chance to vote for an amnesty yet, but he has been vocally supporting the policy for the last year. Similarly, the four Democratic Senators who sponsored the bill, Richard Durbin, Michael Bennet, Chuck Schumer, and Bob Menendez all have F-.

This tells you a lot of what the American people should expect when they hear about “bipartisanship”: nothing more than a compromise between F- Democrats and F Republicans. And sure enough, what they offered represents the worst from both parties.

The comprehensive immigration reform they offer reflects the tired scheme of amnesty and massive increases to legal immigration in exchange for vague promises of enforcement. America was promised enforcement in exchange for amnesty in 1986. The enforcement never came, and 20 years and 12 million illegal aliens later, the same compromise was offered. The American people were not fooled in 2006 and 2007 and they rejected amnesty, despite the support of the Republican and Democratic establishment.

The Gang of 8 proposal will give amnesty to virtually every single illegal immigrant living here. Like the failed 2007 amnesty, they say citizenship is “contingent upon our success in securing our borders.” The illegal aliens will be able to live and work in the US immediately, but they will not be given citizenship until a commission declares that the border is secure.

However, the Democrats have already admitted that the commission will be powerless. According to Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, “Democratic Senators reassured immigration advocates that this commission won’t be constructed in a way that will hold up the process for too long.” He continues, quoting amnesty lobbyist Frank Sharry, “Democrats realize that they can’t ‘allow the commission to have a real veto.’”

In 2006, Flake, Schumer, Graham, Durbin, and McCain all voted for the Secure Fence Act that was supposedly going to create a border fence. However, the Democratic Congress cut the funding for the fence and it was never built. The new blueprint says nothing about a border fence or troops on the ground, but merely increasing “infrastructure” and “technology,” something that both President Bush and Obama claimed they had already done. In fact, in 2011, Janet Napolitano said “The border is better now than it ever has been.”

Rather than rehashing the dismal past of immigration policies, let's ask the question, how will amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens affect our lifestyles? Now keep in mind, that is 11 million now, but it will more than double when those already in the country are allowed to bring their families across the border. Let's just say that would come to 25 million.

Let's expand upon the question above: Who will pay for their healthcare? And while you are thinking about that, ask: "Who will pay for the healthcare of their relatives who get sick or injured while waiting their citizenship to go through?"

A couple of issues need to be mentioned here. The first is the issue of demographics. Demographics are very telling. There is a massive population of illegal immigrants who refuse to learn English, refuse to wave the American flag, and basically refuse to assimilate into the great "melting pot" called America.

The Democratic Party realizes that amnesty is a shot in their arm, a way to accrue more votes that will virtually put the Republican Party out of business for good. Yet we heard John McCain say Monday that Hispanics do not vote for Republicans because of their past stands on immigration. I highly doubt that.

Consider these facts from the Pew Research Center: In 1980, Democrat Jimmy Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote, Ronald Reagan only 35%. In 1984, Democrat Walter Mondale received 61% and Reagan received 37% despite the fact that in one of their debates that year, Reagan stated he favored complete amnesty for illegals.

In 1988, Democrat Michael Dukakis received 69% of the Hispanic vote, George H.W. Bush only 30% despite him being the Vice President under Reagan when the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty bill was signed by Reagan which legalized over 3 million Hispanics.

In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton got 61% of the Hispanic vote; George H. W. Bush 25%. In 1996, Clinton received 72%; Bob Dole only 21%.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore racked up 62% of the Hispanic vote; George W. Bush 35%. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry got 58%; Bush only 40% and this despite his support for comprehensive immigration reform.

In 2008, Barack Obama had 67% of the Hispanic voters in his column; John McCain, who championed comprehensive immigration reform, managed only 31%.

Finally, last November, Obama had 71% of the Hispanic vote; Mitt Romney a measly 27%.

What these stats tell us is that Republicans should not expect to gain anything by way of potential votes should the Gang of 8 proposal passes and is signed into law. With a Democratic President and Senate which doles out money and benefits to those who don't want to work like it is candy, they can easily snag 70, 80, maybe 90 percent of these new citizens vote.

A second issue here is the Gang of 8 promise of workforce verification, by “developing a tough, fair, effective and mandatory employment verification system.” Sounds good, except that there already is a tough, fair, and effective employment verification system called E-Verify. However, the Gang’s proposal does not mention E-Verify. We can only assume that they will eliminate the program and replace it with a new program that is filled with loopholes.

The proposal also massively increases legal immigration. It calls for unlimited high skilled immigration and massive low skilled guest worker programs. They also propose that the amnestied illegal immigrants will not receive green cards until “every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card.”

Even though America issues over one million green cards each year, there are over 4.5 million people on the wait list, which is 20 years long in some categories. So either there will be over a 20 year wait for the new illegals to get amnesty, or else they will expedite those waiting, leading to an increase of millions of legal immigrants.

President Obama was in Nevada Tuesday to make a pitch supporting the Gang of 8 proposal but with one exception. That being to put those already here illegally on a quick path to citizenship without the long wait. After all, if they become citizens they will be given a voter registration card and properly shown how to mark the box by the name having the letter D following it. After that, those D's will provide for their well being and these newly minted citizens will always vote Democratic.

In a press conference Monday, John McCain said most of the illegals live in the shadows, have no benefits and cannot afford to pay their debts to society. He said by passing this so-called comprehensive immigration reform bill, illegals granted amnesty will settle their debt to society. This is an absolute lie. Also, to say they will fulfill the necessary requirements to become law abiding citizens is, at best, laughable.

11 million immigrants granted amnesty will, according to a study in 2004 by the Congressional Budget Office, cost approximately $45 billion for welfare, Earned Income Credit, subsidized housing healthcare and food stamps. Add another 14 to 16 million to the mix and it will easily exceed $100 billion.

Who is going to pay for this? YOU (that is, if you work for a living).

Thus far, the Gang of 8 has released a 4 page summary of their plan that will inevitably turn into a bill that is hundreds if not thousands of pages long. You can be sure that the final product will have tons of loopholes that I have not even contemplated.

Listening to the media, one would think that the support of a few establishment Republicans who always supported amnesty for this bill represents a major shift in the political winds. Yet I heard the exact same talk in 2006 and 2007. We stopped amnesty then, and we can stop it again.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.