We need more Senators like Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama. Last Friday he gave one of the most extraordinary speeches on the immigration reform bill S-2611. Sessions is one of the few, if not the only Senators who has actually done some studies on the impact the bill will have.
Here is his concerns with enforcement. We are being told that enforcement will be forthcoming, and also that securing the border will come later. You might feel deja vu of Reagan's amnesty in the 80s that was supposed to fix everything.
In 1986, they passed comprehensive amnesty and immigration reform. Those who were in the Senate then–I was not yet here–and remember the debate know it was an amnesty to end all amnesties. It was supposed to create a legal immigration system, and we were told we would not have to do this again. Those concerned about it warned, however, one amnesty begets another amnesty. The more you go down that path, the easier it is. This sends a signal to the world that we are not serious about our laws. In that one bill in 1986, we passed the amnesty, and we authorized a number of things to occur that were supposed to result in an effective legal system. Well, the amnesty became law just like that. But the other things that the enforcement side took–the required funding and congressional assistance, and mostly Presidential leadership–never occurred. It didn’t occur.
So Senator Isakson came up with an amendment this week that I thought was pretty good. It basically would have ensured that the borders were secure before any of the amnesty provisions could be implemented. They are telling us constantly that the borders are going to be made secure if we pass this bill, so let’s hold their feet to the fire and say this time the American people want to have a little hold on you before you grant amnesty again. Let’s be sure the borders are secure first, that Congress won’t forget that goal after the bill passes. Without the Isakson language, the amnesty provisions in the bill take effect the day the bill is signed. But we didn’t accept that amendment. Instead, we will remain in the position where we hope that we will have immigration enforcement in the future. We accepted the Salazar trigger amendment that simply requires the President to determine that the bill’s amnesty and guest worker provisions will "strengthen the national security of the United States."
After rejecting such a comon sense amedment they also rejected an amendment that would prevent social security benefits to illegal aliens for the time that they were illegal, even those using fake illegal social security numbers. Apparently they are not worried about our already overburdened and broke social security system that they were unable address either last year.
Federal benefits was a key vote yesterday. The Senate shockingly rejected the Ensign amendment 50 to 49–close, close vote–that would have prevented aliens from collecting Social Security benefits as a result of their illegal entry into the country, their illegal work, and their illegal presentation of a Social Security number. Fraudulent presentation of a Social Security number and criminal entry into the United States, and this bill provides they can draw Social Security. We had an amendment to clarify that issue, and the Senate voted to keep the provision in the bill.
Maybe the worst part of this legislation is the so-called temporary worker program which in reality there isn't even one in the bill. This attempted fraud on the people of this country is not only shocking but a slap in the face to the concerns of the American people. I can only assume that Republican Senators are more concerned with large contributions from the business lobby, while Democrats are salivating over the millions of potential votes that they assume will predominately go to them.
The section we were trying to change was the section that is as bogus as any part of the bill. It is the section that is captioned in big print: temporary guest worker. That is what the President has been saying he favors. He told me that personally a couple of days ago. He told me, when he flew to Alabama, that he believed in temporary workers. But it is not so that this bill creates a temporary worker program. I challenge any one last night to tell me that what I am saying is not true.
Under this bill, under that rubric of big print language, “Nonimmigrant Visa Reform, Subsection A, Temporary Guest Workers'’–what it really says is if you come into this country under this work visa you get to convert your status to a green card holder–a legal permanent resident that can then become a citizen. Somebody said last night: Why are people afraid to discuss this issue? I say to the supporters of the bill: Why are you afraid to tell the truth about your bill? Why do you title the section one thing and then write it to actually do another?
Why are you putting in here “temporary guest workers'’ when there is nothing “temporary'’ or “guest'’ about them. Why? Are they afraid the American people will find out what is really in that provision which would have brought in, had it not been amended by Senator Bingaman, perhaps 130 million new people into the country permanently? What kind of temporary program is that?
How does it work? This is the way it works: You come in, get a job; you come in under this guest worker proposal, and within the first day you arrive, your employer can seek a green card for you. If you qualify–and most will–then that green card will be issued, and you are then a legal permanent resident. You are a legal permanent resident within weeks or months of entry into the country, and within 5 years of being a legal permanent resident and having a green card, you can apply for citizenship. If you know a little English and don’t get arrested and convicted of a felony, you will be made a citizen by right under that provision. So it is not a temporary guest worker program. We need one in the bill. It is not there. That is what the President says he supports.
The American people don’t think we ought to huddle up, have some groups come in and meet with a few Senators and have them foist on the American people an immigration bill that ignores their concerns about legality and their legitimate concerns over the depressing of the wages of American citizens. That is not a myth. The law of supply and demand has not been abrogated with regard to wages and labor.
In terms of lawfulness, decency, morality, and the national interest, the American people are head and shoulders above the Members of Congress who are asserting and pushing this flawed legislation. A huge majority of the American people have been right on this issue for decades. It is the executive branch and the Congress that have been derelict in their most solemn duties. If the American people had been listened to and not been stiff-armed by an arrogant elitist bureaucracy and political class, we wouldn’t have 11 million to 20 million people in our country illegally today.
The American people have been concerned about this issue–and the polls have shown it–for 20, 30 years. So what is our national interest and what policies should we pursue? What about border workforce enforcement? Any good bill would include a good enforcement system at the border and workplace.
Forget for the moment the insanity of amnesty without enforcement and concider the effect of the type of immigrantion encouraged by the bill on the economy. Obviously high-skilled immigrants are a plus and strengthen our country, while low-skilled workers are not. In fact low-skilled workers according to Stanford Law School Professor Dan Siciliano "
have a modest net negative fiscal impact for all low-wage workers in the United States, not just immigrants."
We should focus our policies on higher skill needs, college degrees, instead of low-wage workers. Serious consideration should be given to how we welcome new immigrants into the American world and have them reach their fullest and highest aspirations. We are not able to do that under the current system, and we certainly should fix this illegality and actually provide some mechanism for a large number of people to come out from the shadows, as they say.
We should consider seriously the impact of wages on the American workers, and we need to consider what other developed nations, such as Canada, Britain, and France are doing. How are they confronting these questions? Why don’t we do that? I will tell you why we don’t. It is because this bill is totally incompatible and inconsistent with the principles those advanced nations are following.
But under the present bill a large amount of new labor, mostly unskilled, will pour into the American workforce. With competition for jobs at the unskilled low-wage level already stiff, I shouldn't have to explain the problem of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities.
Sixty percent of Nicaraguans say they would come here if they could. Seventy percent of the people of Peru say the same. I don't know what the percentage is in Mexico but it is probably similar. And how about the rest of the world, and how many can we take especially when we change from legally accepting those with skills (as we tend to prefer now) to accepting those without skills and in poverty? What will happen will be a huge drain to our already heavily used social services.
There is so much more enlightenment in Senator Sessions floor speech that should be required reading. Every citizen needs to know what this bill really contains, not what the partisan talking heads are spouting. I have already excerpted quite a bit though only a small portion of it. Please read his entire Senate floor speach
posted at Vdare blog.
H/T
The Immigration Blog
