Rep. Goodlatte Emerges as Leading Open Borders Advocate in House

Why does Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) continue to voice support for blanket amnesty and massive increases in immigrants and guest workers?  The best explanation is that he is acting as the mouthpiece for Speaker John Boehner, who is persistently probing to find the path of least resistance to the final passage of the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill – legislation that is extremely unpopular with voters. Boehner’s strategy for achieving this end is to garner enough Republican votes in the House to pass some kind of immigration bill, even a tough enforcement bill, in order to get to conference with the Senate.

In conference, anything opposed by La Raza and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would almost certainly be stripped out by Harry Reid and Boehner. Such a conference bill would easily be approved by the Senate and open the door to passage in the House where just 17 Republicans, like Goodlatte, would need to join with the Democrats to to make up the 217 votes needed for passage.

Boehner has long been big business’s advocate on the Hill, and with Eric Cantor (R., Va.), Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), and Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) in key leadership positions, he has surrounded himself with open border acolytes. Goodlatte’s public statements and political posturing over the past few months give every indication that he is on board with the Republican leadership’s plan to abrogate the rule of law in order to drive down wages and conditions for American workers. They are attempting to provide cover for their true intent with the canard that amnesty will win over Hispanic voters to the Republican Party.

Goodlatte told Univision, the largest Spanish-language media outlet in the U.S., that he is “very dedicated” to “finding the appropriate legal status for those who are not here lawfully today,” which he has reiterated means a “pathway to citizenship” for all illegal aliens currently in the country.  Goodlatte has also declared that there would be nothing “special” about this process. When called to the carpet for these statements, Goodlatte duplicitously argued that a “step-by-step approach to immigration reform” that promises future border security and enforcement in exchange for immediate legalization of the illegal alien population is not amnesty, while a comprehensive bill that does exactly the same thing is amnesty.    (This harkens back to Rubio’s assertion that the Gang of Eight bill is not comprehensive because the word isn’t in the title).

If Goodlatte’s goal really is true immigration reform he should call for Boehner to declare that the House will refuse to conference on the Gang of Eight bill. Instead, he should insist on passage of the SAFE Act as a standalone bill, which would be sent to the Senate for consideration. As it stands now, Goodlatte’s posturing sounds a lot like what we heard from Marco Rubio on immigration last year. That is not a good sign.

 

Senator Rubio Desperately Trying to Avoid Political Wilderness

Sen. Marco Rubio recently said that “I don’t think you can say you are against Obamacare if you vote for a budget that funds it.”  There is truth in that remark, which is out of character for Rubio, which is why no one really seems to buy the idea that he is doing anything but pandering in an attempt to win back support among Republican voters.   Once a rising star in his party, Rubio has seen his approval rating among Republican voters plummet in the wake of the Gang of Eight fiasco.

Rubio has also said that he does not support blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, the displacement of American workers, the surrender of American sovereignty, the abandonment of the rule of law, and the erosion of national security. By extension, one should not vote for legislation that does just that.  Rubio not only voted for legislation that would bring about all of those things, he was instrumental in guiding it through the Senate.  That is why his approval rating among Republican voters has plummeted, while support for Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz, who both voted against amnesty, is on the upswing.

Voters may have short memories (John “Build the Dang Fence” McCain is testimony to that) but they do not suffer from amnesia, and they don’t like having their intelligence insulted by deceitful politicians.  Marco Rubio has about as much credibility with voters as does Anthony Weiner, which is why it is increasingly looking like Rubio may have a real fight to retain his seat in the Senate.  No doubt he is hoping Florida voters grant him amnesty in 2016.

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.

GoofyRyan

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.