Correlation or Causation?: Senators Don’t Believe in Telling the Truth, Americans Don’t Believe Senators’ Promises on Border Security

A new Rasmussen poll found, to absolutely no one’s surprise, a very small minority of American voters believe politicians who promise to secure the border in the future in exchange for amnesty upfront. This is why some Americans may support a theoretical bill that secures the border, deports criminal aliens, requires illegal aliens to pay back taxes, learn English, etc., etc., but most have no illusion that S.744 (the Gang of Eight’s upfront amnesty bill) will do anything to address the root cause of the problem.

Despite hearing for months that there has been a sea change in public opinion in favor of amnesty and increased admissions of foreign workers, Senators aligning with the Gang of Eight have had to engage in a massive disinformation campaign in order to justify their vote in the face of public opposition. If voters really wanted amnesty, a tripling of legal immigration, and a doubling of guest workers, Congress would have passed “comprehensive immigration reform” long ago. Or, one has to believe that a tiny group of dissenters has been able to defeat the coordinated efforts of the White House, bi-partisan efforts in Congress, big business, big labor, the Catholic Church, the ACLU, La Raza, etc., etc., etc.

Of course the majority of Americans do not want what the Senate is now trying to ram down their throats. And, of course, most Senators couldn’t care less what the American people want.

Can’t Americans Do Anything Right?

Jeb Bush received a lot of attention for saying that we need mass immigration because immigrants are “more fertile and they love their families,” and a lot of other head-scratching things at Ralph Reed’s latest attempt to remain relevant. Bush’s remarks may strike many Americans as unsavory, and they should, but they should surprise no one. These types of comments are commonplace, though most commentators are not so ham-fisted as Jeb Bush (or Marco Rubio’s staff).

The intellectual bankruptcy of proponents of “comprehensive immigration reform” is on full display in a new report from the American Enterprise Institute, which has long served as the mouthpiece for the Republican Party’s Wall Street wing. The report’s authors, Madeline Zavodny and Tamar Jacoby, who are both supporters of open border policies, argue that millions more low-skilled immigrants are necessary because they have greater “physical strength and stamina” than Americans.

What’s next? Will Paul Ryan discover that immigrant doctors have x-ray vision?

Paul Ryan’s Favorite Book is Definitely not the Dictionary

Paul Ryan has declared that he will debate anyone who says the Gang of Eight bill is amnesty. This from a man who by comparison made Joe Biden sound like Demosthenes in their vice presidential debate last fall.


Ryan’s argument is that granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens is not amnesty because he has decided to call it “earned legalization.” What does he mean by “earned legalization?” Why, amnesty of course. Sadly, Ryan is what passes for the “intellectual leader” of the GOP these days.

It would not be difficult for Paul Ryan to find out the meaning of amnesty, and to discover that there is no such recognized term as “earned legalization.” He could click here, or here. Or he could pick up an actual dictionary, any dictionary will do. They are quite weighty publications, so he could strengthen both body and mind.

To save him some time, I’ll provide him with a standard definition.

  1. a general pardon, esp for offences against a government;
  2. a period during which a law is suspended to allow offenders to admit their crime without fear of prosecution;
  3. a pardon granted by the Crown or Executive and effected by statute.

Collins English Dictionary

He could also consult his hero Ayn Rand Ronald Reagan, who had no problem understanding plain English or the plain truth. Heck, he can even quote Marco Rubio, circa 2009.

If Ryan is serious about debating this issue (though he ran from the very first opportunity to do so) he might want to acquaint himself with existing U.S. law. In it, he could discover that the penalty for an alien who is illegally in the United States is deportation and either a three or ten year bar from applying to reenter the country. The Gang of Eight waives these penalties for illegal aliens, as well as forgiving identity theft, filing a false tax return, etc., etc, etc. This is amnesty.

Ryan’s argument is that illegal aliens won’t receive amnesty because they will have to “pay a fine [and] back taxes.” The “fine” is nominal, $2,000 and can be paid out over the span of 10 years, and can be waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Ryan’s assertion that the Gang of Eight bill requires amnestied aliens to pay back taxes bill is simply untrue. But the larger point is that this amnesty may indeed have certain conditions, but that only makes it a conditional amnesty –which is what almost every amnesty is.

Take one example. A tax amnesty doesn’t mean tax scofflaws get off scot free. It means that the penalties for not paying taxes are reduced or waived. That’s the amnesty part. Most importantly, it does not entitle tax cheats to continue to avoid paying taxes in the future.

The amnesty Ryan is defending is coupled with the inestimable reward of allowing those who violate U.S. immigration law to remain in the United States and eventually to gain citizenship and full access to each and every benefit offered by local, state, and federal governments. In other words, after paying a small fine (perhaps) for having entered, resided, or worked in the United States illegally, they gain the benefit of entering, residing and working in the United States legally.

What Ryan is trying to pass off as “earned legalization,” is, in fact, nothing more than buying one’s way out of compliance with the law – which is nothing more than an assault on the rule of law.

The Republican Establishment’s New Talking Point: “De Facto Amnesty”

It is clear that someone in the Republican hierarchy has decided that calling the failure of the federal government to secure the border and enforce current immigration law “de facto amnesty” will convince Americans that the Gang of Eight atrocity is the only alternative. This is pure duplicity. These Republicans are decrying de facto amnesty while giving their full support to de jure amnesty.

The answer to our “broken immigration system” is not amnesty. The answer is a Congress that does its constitutional duty in ensuring that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Too bad Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Kelly Ayotte, Lamar Alexander, and Paul Ryan are members of Congress who are more concerned with parroting the Party line than they are about upholding their oath of office.

“Our current immigration system is a disaster. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)

“[T]he status quo isn’t working – it’s de facto amnesty.” U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)

“Millions here illegally have de facto amnesty.” U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)

“I’ve got a news flash for those who want to call people names on amnesty. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)

“What we have right now is de facto amnesty – meaning there are currently 11 million immigrants living undocumented and without legal status in the United States.” U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)

Senator Rand Paul’s Self-Discovery Tour Kicks into High Gear

As he seeks to position himself for a 2016 Presidential run, it is difficult to guess what Senator Rand Paul will say, or what position he will hold, from one day to the next. On immigration, Paul was against amnesty before he was for “comprehensive immigration reform” before he had serious reservations about the Gang of Eight bill before he decided he just might vote for it.

Anyone who is following Rand Paul’s political career understands that he walks a fine line between being a Tea Party rebel and an establishment Republican who can win the financial support of multinational corporations whose backing can be decisive for a serious run at the Presidency.

This was evident in his defense of Apple’s tax dodge, in which Paul tried to portray the expectation that a company that earns billions of dollars in profit in America should pay taxes in America as government “bullying”. The very next week, the Senator jetted off to Silicon Valley on a fundraising tour. Paul has vigorously supported increasing the number of foreign tech workers the computer industry uses to displace American workers and drive down wages. Paul’s defense of tax havens and his call for huge increases in guest workers sells quite well in Silicon Valley, where industry titans have traditionally been more generous to Democratic politicians.

It also appears that Paul recognizes that conservation is an issue that resonates with voters, unlike many of his Republican colleagues, who only use the word “environmentalism” as a pejorative. Speaking at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, Paul said that Republicans “care just as deeply about the environment as Democrats,” and that “I am a libertarian-conservative who spends most of my free time outdoors…I compost, I plant trees.” 

It is great that Paul does these things, but as a U.S. Senator he has the opportunity and the responsibility to do much more to protect the environment, starting with supporting the enactment of a sustainable immigration system.  If he continues to ignore the environmental and ecological consequences of adding over 50 million people to the U.S. population through the immigration system over the next ten years he is espousing the Al Gore brand of environmentalism – otherwise known as hypocrisy.