The Unwasted Life

Secure Borders and Immigration Reform Without Amnesty by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn:

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.

On May 17th, 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.

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. 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. 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 Senate considers this bill, 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.

I’m with you both. Americans want security first — Fortress America! Then, and only then, should we talk about immigration reform.

Hugh spent the weekend doing the hard work for all of us, reading the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 that the Senate wants to ram down our throats.

Read the fine print with Hugh:

• Part 1: Does The First Exception Swallow The Triggers Whole?
• Part 2: Title I –Who’s Blowing All That Smoke?
• Part 3: Title II: Send Lawyers, Clerks, Judges, And Background Checks
• Part 4: A Huge New Tax On Business
• Part 5: No Illiterate Nonimmigrants
• Part 6: And The Grand Total Is?
• Part 7: “There’s Been A Slight Change In Your Job Description”
• Part 8: Humbug And Common Sense
  
• Summary Of The Fine Print Read, And NZ’s Easy To Use Text
• N.Z. Bear’s online version of the draft immigration bill and an explanation here.
• For more crucial background, see Powerline’s entry on the McCain-Cornyn shouting match.
• Dean Barnett: FAQ - The Politics of Immigration Reform

Thanks so much for your efforts Hugh and N.Z. Bear! Now we need to let our leaders hear from us (Senate | House)

Fred Thompson Comprehensive or Incomprehensible? on the Paul Harvey Show today. The audio is here.

Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem — secure our nation’s borders.

But there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.

I’d tell you what was in the legislation, but 24 hours after the politicians agreed the bill looked good, the Senate lawyers were still writing what may turn out to be a one thousand page document. In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. That may come five days from now. That’s like trying to digest an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break.

We’ve tried the “comprehensive” route before to solve the illegal immigration problem with a bit more care and deliberation, and the results haven’t been good. Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law.

Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do — secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t.

The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier — at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.

If he keeps this up, Fred Thompson will be the next President of the United States.

Bill West writes Immigration “Reform” Will Be National Security Disaster over at Counterterrorism Blog. He summarizes his argument with:

The devil truly is in the details. Conveniently for the politicians on both sides of the aisle pushing for a feel good bill, they are ignoring real world details in all this. If what is being proposed on the Hill becomes law, contrary to what some political leaders claim, there will be significant security risks emanating from the process.

Can I get an Amen?

Securing America should have been the number 1 priority on the morning of September 12, 2001. Now almost 6 years later we still have not secured our borders and today we raised the white flag.

Reports are flying that the an agreement has been reached between the Bush Administration and Senate leaders. As usual, Hot Air has good coverage: Breaking: Bush, Senate leaders reach immigration agreement.

After first hearing about this pending disaster on Hugh Hewitt’s show last night. I let the GOP leadership (McConnell, Lott, Kyl) hear from me that I was not on board with any plan that did not give us Fortress America with a very secure border that would keep terrorists and illegals out BEFORE we have any discussion about immigration reform.

This is what the majority of Americans want. We want to be secure and have out country defended. What sense does it make that we send our best off to fight overseas and the leave the doors wide open at home for anyone and everyone to come in?

Allahpundit said it best at Hot Air:

We had a Republican Congress and a Republican White House for six years. Six years, and it’s come to this.

The GOP better start praying that they still exist in 6 years. This issue is that big.

Update: Michelle Malkin It’s here: The Bush-Kennedy amnesty Report: Potential cost = $2.5 trillion. Also, vote Hell No! in her poll.

(Update: link added to Fortress America post.)

The great Ronald Reagan once said Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose..

Where are leaders like Reagan in times like these? Everyday it seems like more and more Republicans are joining with the What is your strategy? What is your plan to defeat and eliminate the countless Islamic fanatics and their millions of supporters and sympathizers? Have you not heard one thing they have said? Are you blind to the destruction that they have brought?

This might come as shock to you, since some of you don’t even know that al Qaeda is Sunni not Shiite, but they (radical Muslims, Islamofacists) are locked in a holy war against the world. Only Muslims who agree with them are safe from this jihad.

Iraq is just one of the dozens of battles that we going to fight against this enemy. If we don’t even attempt to win in Iraq, why should we even bother fighting them elsewhere?

America must stand strong and united against this enemy. Republicans who cave on this should be booted out of office along with all the Democrats (save, Joe Lieberman). Hugh Hewitt has spoken and written passionately about this the past 2 days and NZ Bear has put an online pledge together so we can show the Republican Senators that we will not stand for their lack of courage and failure to support the President and the US Military. As I write, over 14,000 people have already signed the pledge. Please sign the NRSC Pledge today. Call and write your Senators. Hound them until they proclaim “Not now, not ever, never will we vote to encourage the enemy.”

Ultimately, this is a spiritual war (a prelude to the end of days?) and I pray that our Heavenly Father’s will be done. I pray that Jesus Christ be glorified in all that I do and all that America does. I pray that all Muslims will come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Getting back to Reagan, only in Christ can we truly win and receive eternal life while non-believers lose and face eternal separation from God.

Thanks Hugh for your fine work and inspiration!

Hugh Hewitt sums it up nicely with The Road Not Taken: Forfeiting a Majority.

The Republican Party sent them and their 52 colleagues to Washington D.C. to implement an agenda which could have been accomplished but that opportunity was frittered away.

The Republican Party raised the money and staffed the campaigns that had yielded a 55-45 seat majority, and the Republican Party expected the 55 to act like a majority. Confronted with obstruction, the Republicans first fretted and then caved on issue after issue. Had the 55 at least been seen to be trying—hard, and not in a senatorial kind of way—Tuesday would have had a much different result. Independents, especially, might have seen why the majority mattered.