I would like to know the names of the “so-called leading Republicans” who met in the back room with all those illegal backing organizations of activists to try to put over this obscene immigration bill. They certainly were not in tune with the American voters, and my guess is that they were RINOs.

They should be unmasked.

[Name redacted], Los Alamos

After thinking about this for a few moments, I decided to pen a response:

Dear [Name redacted],

Several Republicans were involved in this compromise legislation, including Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain (whose appearances at the meetings were, until last week, mostly made by proxy due to his busy campaing schedule), Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, and Sen. John Cornyn from Texas. The fact that Senators Kyl and Cornyn were complicit in this agreement, though, should not cause them to be newly branded as RINOs so much as it should raise eyebrows about their apparent naivete in trusting that the provisions for which they fought – and for which they made concessions – would actually be included in the bill’s final draft. For example, as mentioned in the original column, while Jon Kyl was appearing on television Thursday night touting the major accomplishment of getting a measure included in the bill which would eliminate chain migration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was on another network promising that that provision would not be included in the bill’s final draft.

It should also not be assumed from their participation in this venture that all of the Republicans involved were in agreement on what concessions to make, what provisions to fight for, and what a “successful” immigration bill would contain. There was a great deal of friction between the participating Republicans — especially on the final day of negotiations, when Cornyn was the object of a profanity-laced blowup by McCain. This apparently came about when, as the time approached for the prescheduled triumphant joint press conference announcing the agreement, the former remained unwilling drop his request for inclusion in the bill of a provision streamlining deportation procedures, instead choosing to champion principle over concession and easy compromise. For his trouble, after working with those involved “in good faith” for three months, Cornyn was ordered by McCain to leave the negotiating room – and his provision was not included in the final draft of the bill.

Simply branding those Republicans who were involved in this matter as “RINOs,” without looking a bit deeper to see their motivations and the concessions they hoped to gain from the other side, is a bit of a hasty indictment of Senators who may well have been acting in good faith. However, more even than the bill’s contents, it is the hasty, secretive manner in which this was carried out which is, to me, most worrisome — as well as the fact that some of these Senators, after years of being stonewalled by the Democrats to such a degree that they could not accomplish many key legislative goals while in the majority, have continued to demonstrate an unfortunate unwillingness to learn from that past experience, as well as a naive belief that, if they only made certain concessions to the opposition and to those who hold entirely different beliefs on this issue, their pragmatism would be reciprocated, and their provisions would also be included in this “comprehensive” bill.

Sincerely,

Jeff Emanuel

How can the Senate vote on a bill which has not yet been written?

Early last week, conservative weblog RedState.com broke the news that key members of the Senate — from both parties — were cloistered in a dark back room, conspiring with the White House to draw up a hastily-agreed-to “comprehensive immigration reform” bill which would be sprung both on the Senate as a whole, and on the American populace, with little or no warning or time for debate before cloture was sought early this week.

Less than 24 hours later, key provisions of the forthcoming Senate bill leaked to the public, including the so-called “Amnesty” provisions, which, through the issuance of “‘Z’ visas,” would allow “aliens, along with their dependents…to legally remain in the United States under certain conditions for an indefinite period of time, even if they chose not to pursue the so \-called ‘pathway to citizenship.’”

Last Thursday afternoon, the bill was reportedly released to the Senate, and politicians, pundits, and candidates came out of the woodwork to issue statements about its contents. President Bush lauded the proposal, which he said “will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly, …will treat people with respect,” and the White House communications office sent out a fact sheet touting this successful “bipartisan agreement on comprehensive immigration reform.” South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint disagreed, saying “the little we do know about the bill is troubling.”

“This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America,” DeMint continued. “I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty.” Despite this, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), appearing at a news conference with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and others, expressed concern over “undue limitations on family immigration” included in the bill, as well as other provisions.

“I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate,” said GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called it “the wrong approach.” Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy boasted that “the agreement” was “the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America.”

Others took a more measured approach. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the agreement “far stronger than the bill the Senate produced last year,” but stipulated that border security and “a real security infrastructure” were “requirements for [his] support of any legislation.” Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson released a statement in which he said that he would “reserve judgment on supporting the final bill until the debate is complete,” but that “at a minimum the bill must include [a] border security “trigger” prohibiting implementation of a temporary, probationary work permit program until the Department of Homeland Security certifies to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational.”

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, posting on RedState.com, called on Washington to “scrap…the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.”

The media — print, online, and television — were swarming Thursday afternoon with this and other commentary on the sudden immigration legislation. However, amidst the debate and the rush to support or condemn specific provisions of the bill (or the bill as a whole), one aspect of this issue was entirely overlooked:

At the time, there was still no actual immigration bill.

Multiple Senate sources confirmed that, despite Senator Kennedy and others’ original statements, as of 10:00 PM eastern daylight time Thursday evening, “no bill presently [existed] and probably won’t until tomorrow at the earliest” because “the lawyers are still behind closed doors putting it together.” Senate sources also confirmed that “the bill probably will not be online [and available to the public] in its final form until after the Senate has voted on it.” Furthermore, even Senators involved in the process itself offered contradictory reports on its contents. For example, at the same time that John Kyl (R-AZ) was on one news channel praising the bill’s elimination of chain migration — a key provision he himself had championed — Reid was telling another network that that provision would not be in the bill’s final draft.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), speaking Saturday morning at his home state’s Republican Party Convention, confirmed that as of that time he still had not received a completed immigration bill. This fact, though, did not keep him from praising the forthcoming legislation — an act which attracted a chorus of boos from representatives of his own party.

The proposed legislation was finally completed Saturday night, giving legislators one day to read and analyze the 326-page proposal before it comes to the floor today. Though the Senate apparently had no plans to make the bill public before cloture was reached, the conservative Heritage Foundation did the public a great service by acquiring a copy of the proposed legislation and immediately posting a draft of it online. Causing further disquiet is the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has been completely bypassed in this process, with the bill set to come to a final vote before the end of the week without ever having gone through the process of committee review, hearings, testimony, or fiscal analysis.

Proceeding in such a hasty, guarded fashion reflects poorly on the intentions of those crafting it in such secrecy at the very least, as well as on the legislation itself, and such backroom dealings speak volumes about the ethical nature of this Congress. Unfortunately, prominent members of both parties have gone along with this process willingly — as has the administration itself, which has long sought such “comprehensive” reform, as opposed to the border security- and- enforcement-first approach many concerned members of Congress and of the citizenry have favored.

Beyond these parliamentary concerns, though, is one issue of supreme importance: that of the war supplemental. Over 100 days have now gone by with no supplemental funding for America’s troops who are currently in harm’s way and in growing need of supplies. Approving the funding which would provide much-needed materiel to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are putting their lives on the line 24 hours a day, on orders from their government, is a far more important and more immediate issue than “comprehensive immigration reform,” and as such it should take priority. The fact that it does not speaks volumes about how seriously the key members of the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” actually take the war in which our military is currently engaged.

The provisions of the immigration agreement aside, the fact that so many statements were made when such an important piece of legislation had not even been written yet — as well as the fact that, even when completed, the bill was poised to be rushed through the Senate and made available to the public only after its passage — should sound alarm bells in the head of every citizen and lawmaker who prefers honest, open government to backroom dealings and votes on bills that have not even been read before they hit the floor for debate. The state of affairs it represents is, unfortunately, becoming a hallmark of the 110th Congress. The fact that the administration, along with a number of Senate Republicans, is so deeply complicit in this affair paints a very distressing picture of where some key individuals’ priorities really lie. Apparently, these priorities do not include supplying the young men and women who are risking their lives day in and day out in the War on Terror. Likewise, these priorities are neither in tune with the American populace, nor with the spirit of our Republic, which demands open, honest, and accountable government — regardless of the subject of the legislation in question — in order to function as it should.

Jeff Emanuel is a director of RedState.com, a special operations Iraq veteran, and a fellow at the University of Georgia’s Center for International Trade and Security.

Mar 26, 2006

The “most comprehensive illegal immigration proposal ever to come before the Georgia Legislature” made it out of the Georgia state Senate this month when it was approved by a 40-13 vote of the 56-member body. Supporters hope that other states will follow Georgia’s lead and that this legislation could be the beginning of an immigration-reform movement across the nation. The House is expected to pass the bill and Governor Sonny Perdue will likely sign it into law, but the all-inclusive measure is sure to spark a major courtroom showdown in the near future. Senate Bill 529, known as the “Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act” is a much-needed response to the ever-increasing number of illegal immigrants in Georgia who benefit from the state’s taxpayer-supported programs while avoiding paying into the system.

Nobody seems to be able to make an accurate estimate; the number is often listed as “between 250,000 and 800,000″—a margin of error which is so large that it provides an excellent illustration of the problem itself. A population can only support so many non-productive beneficiaries of goods and services, and the swelling underclass of illegal immigrants is straining Georgia’s state infrastructure to a point at which further inaction would be extremely detrimental to the state’s economy and society.

“If this bill in its present form makes it into law, it will be the strongest [state immigration] law in America,” said state Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), one of the bill’s sponsors. SB 529, which was a no-brainer to pass in an election year when almost 80% of Georgians want this issue addressed, would “prohibit adult illegal immigrants from receiving many taxpayer-funded benefits, financially penalize private employers who hire illegals, require employers with public contracts to verify that their workers are in the country legally, and crack down on human trafficking.” It would not, however, “prohibit the children of illegal immigrants from attending public school, nor would it deny them certain medical benefits, such as emergency medical care, prenatal care and immunizations”—benefits which have already been largely guaranteed by federal courts.

This measure’s passage has sparked controversy among student groups on the state’s more liberal university campuses. Various pro-illegal immigration groups have protested the measure, calling the legislation “troubling” and citing in large part the revocation of illegals’ current ability (which they often refer to as a “right”) to pay in-state tuition rates at state universities (a difference of roughly $12,000 per year). “If you cut that, there’s no way they can go to school,” said a Hispanic Student Association spokesman, who added the dire warning that “educational barriers will only create a negative economic cycle among the illegal immigrants.”

Threats regarding the enforcement of our nation’s laws resulting in a cycle of economic depression aside, this legislation is, for the most part, a very positive step forward on the road to getting Georgia’s, and America’s, ballooning illegal immigration problem under control. The Compliance Act does not advocate deportation or other “inhuman” treatment of illegals, but rather encourages those who are here to make themselves known and to comply with the law, while discouraging those who are elsewhere from migrating to the state of Georgia in hopes of gaining an under-the-radar, illegally “free ride” through the state’s institutions and services—many of which are barely efficient enough to cater to legal, tax-paying citizens. Undocumented “students,” for example, are by law illegal; therefore, it makes perfect sense to not guarantee them privileges like in-state tuition, which are reserved for citizens of the state.

The price America pays for being the strongest, most prosperous, and most free nation on earth is that people the world over are constantly striving to immigrate here. A microcosm of that is that many of those people attempt to accelerate their relocation here by doing so outside of the law. We as American conservatives, who pride ourselves on living in a “nation of laws,” must take care to differentiate between those in this country who are law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants, and those whose presence is a violation of law.

There will always be a demand for low-wage, high-efficiency, unskilled labor, which immigrants today so readily provide. As President Bush said this week, if an “American won’t do a job and you can find somebody who will do the job, they ought to be allowed to do it legally.” While we American conservatives are, and should be, 100% for immigration, we are, and must be, 100% for the law as well. This has always been a nation of immigrants; our history as a “melting pot” is a large part of what has made us the great nation we are today. However, even more importantly in this modern age of terrorism than ever before, it cannot—and must not—be too much to ask that those who come to this country, be it for the lifestyle, the opportunities, the freedom, or the work, do so legally, and with a full disclosure of their intentions.

Jeff Emanuel, a Special Operations military veteran, is a columnist and a director of conservative web log RedState.com.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com