Immigration Amnesty 2: The Return of the Seatwarmers

When last we left the intrepid snoozers in Congress warming their seats last year, they had proven incapable of rising to the responsibilities they had set to themselves in 1986 to really, truly, 'cross my heart and hope to die', 'Scouts Honor', actually DO SOMETHING about those very same promises made in 1986. This last year's election took a horrific toll on these valiant incompetents and their Ranks of 90 have now dwindled to 77:

NAME	PARTY	STATE
ABERCROMBIE, Neil	Democrat	HI
ACKERMAN, Gary Leonard	Democrat	NY
AKAKA, Daniel Kahikina	Democrat	HI
BARTON, Joe Linus	Republican	TX
BAUCUS, Max Sieben	Democrat	MT
BERMAN, Howard Lawrence	Democrat	CA
BIDEN, Joseph Robinette, Jr.	Democrat	DE
BILIRAKIS, Michael	Republican	FL
BOUCHER, Frederick C.	Democrat	VA
BOXER, Barbara	Democrat	CA
BURTON, Danny Lee	Republican	IN
BYRD, Robert Carlyle	Democrat	WV
CARPER, Thomas Richard	Democrat	DE
COBLE, Howard	Republican	NC
COCHRAN, William Thad	Republican	MS
CONYERS, John, Jr.	Democrat	MI
COOPER, James Hayes Shofner	Democrat	TN
CRAIG, Larry Edwin	Republican	ID
DICKS, Norman DeValois	Democrat	WA
DINGELL, John David, Jr.	Democrat	MI
DODD, Christopher John	Democrat	CT
DOMENICI, Pete Vichi	Republican	NM
DORGAN, Byron Leslie	Democrat	ND
DREIER, David Timothy	Republican	CA
DURBIN, Richard Joseph	Democrat	IL
FRANK, Barney	Democrat	MA
GORDON, Barton Jennings	Democrat	TN
GRASSLEY, Charles Ernest	Republican	IA
GREGG, Judd Alan	Republican	NH
HALL, Ralph Moody	Democrat	TX
HATCH, Orrin Grant	Republican	UT
HOYER, Steny Hamilton	Democrat	MD
HUNTER, Duncan Lee	Republican	CA
INOUYE, Daniel Ken	Democrat	HI
JEFFORDS, James Merrill	Republican	VT
KANJORSKI, Paul E.	Democrat	PA
KENNEDY, Edward Moore	Democrat	MA
KERRY, John Forbes	Democrat	MA
KILDEE, Dale Edward	Democrat	MI
LANTOS, Thomas Peter	Democrat	CA
LAUTENBERG, Frank Raleigh	Democrat	NJ
LEACH, James Albert Smith	Republican	IA
LEVIN, Carl	Democrat	MI
LEVIN, Sander Martin	Democrat	MI
LOTT, Chester Trent	Republican	MS
LUGAR, Richard Green	Republican	IN
LUNGREN, Daniel Edward	Republican	CA
MARKEY, Edward John	Democrat	MA
McCAIN, John Sidney, III	Republican	AZ
MIKULSKI, Barbara Ann	Democrat	MD
MILLER, George	Democrat	CA
MOLLOHAN, Alan Bowlby	Democrat	WV
MURTHA, John Patrick, Jr.	Democrat	PA
OBERSTAR, James Louis	Democrat	MN
OBEY, David Ross	Democrat	WI
ORTIZ, Solomon Porfirio	Democrat	TX
PETRI, Thomas Evert	Republican	WI
RAHALL, Nick Joe, II	Democrat	WV
RANGEL, Charles B.	Democrat	NY
REGULA, Ralph Straus	Republican	OH
REID, Harry	Democrat	NV
ROGERS, Harold Dallas	Republican	KY
SARBANES, Paul Spyros	Democrat	MD
SAXTON, Hugh James	Republican	NJ
SENSENBRENNER, Frank James, Jr.	Republican	WI
SHELBY, Richard C.	Democrat	AL
SMITH, Christopher Henry	Republican	NJ
SNOWE, Olympia Jean	Republican	ME
SPECTER, Arlen	Republican	PA
SPRATT, John McKee, Jr.	Democrat	SC
TOWNS, Edolphus	Democrat	NY
VISCLOSKY, Peter	Democrat	IN
WARNER, John William	Republican	VA
WAXMAN, Henry Arnold	Democrat	CA
WOLF, Frank Rudolph	Republican	VA
WYDEN, Ronald Lee	Democrat	OR
YOUNG, Donald Edwin	Republican	AK

These not so brave, not so bold, not so able liars to the American People still refuse to keep their pledge of 1986 to actually FIX the illegal alien problem, establish border security and in some way keep track of those coming to this Nation who illegally overstay their visit periods. Something that would get one placed in a third world hell-hole prison in less savory Nations gets the big yawn from Congress. Not willing to do their jobs, their diminished ranks of stalwart seatwarmers now looks to fix it again JUST LIKE THEY DID IN 1986!

We heard fine words from the House on 13 DEC 2001 in regards to this:

[Congressional Record:December 13, 2001 (House)]
[Page H10148-H10153]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr13de01pt2-30]

IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL AND THE SECURITY OF OUR BORDERS

[..]

Mr. ROHRABACHER: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very apropos that my colleague is talking about the danger of out-of-control immigration to our country.

My staff was recently looking at some of the statements that I made back in 1997 in the Congressional Record. On September 29, 1997, there was a debate about extending 245(i), which was basically a provision which suggested that if someone was in the United States illegally, instead of having them have to go back, which they traditionally have had to do, to their home country in order to change their status and then stand in line and become a legal applicant, 245(i) would have permitted them just to give $1,000 and to stay in the United States of America and to have their status adjusted here.

During that debate, I stated, and I think it comes right down to the safety of the country, and we are talking about immigration policy: "Extending 245(i) also raises serious national security questions.'' This is back in 1997. "Unlike those who enter the United States legally, 245(i) applicants are not required to go through the same criminal checks, history checks, as they do when they go through this check in their home country when they are waiting to come to this country legally. The consular offices located in the applicant's home country, along with foreign national employees working for the State Department, are in the best position to determine if an applicant has a criminal background or is a national security risk.''

Again, this is in 1997. "Consulates abroad are more knowledgeable, they speak the local language, they know the different criminal justice systems in the country, and they are the ones who should be screening the people before they come to the United States so that we do not have criminals and terrorists coming to the United States, not being screened, and ending up just paying $1,000 to be put in front of the line. Allowing these lawbreakers to apply for permanent status in the United States rather than having them returned to their home countries to do so circumvents a screening process that has been carefully established to protect our country's security.''

Now, that was back in September of 1997. And let us note that any one of the September 11 hijackers who was here in this country would have been eligible then to find a sponsor or to marry somebody, just with the restrictions that they wanted to tweak this 245(i), that would have permitted them to stay in this country. And the general idea of 245(i), had that been totally accepted, which was being pushed in 1997, none of those guys would have had to go home to get their status changed. Every one of the terrorists that slammed into those buildings and was involved in this conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans would have been given an avenue to stay right in this country legally.

Now, when we have policies, when we have people advocating this type of policy that we are going to change the way we do things around here, and this is the policy change, and it is so evidently nonchalant about the national security of our country, something is wrong.

And I would like to applaud the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for the leadership he is providing on this overall issue of immigration, because what we have here is immigration out of control. And an immigration policy that is out of control is bound to do great damage to our country, to our people, and to the national security of our country.

Already we have seen what that means just in terms of traditional national security, and that is we have lost almost 4,000 of our citizens to a terrorist attack because we did not have proper control of our borders. We had people here in our country that should not have been here, not to mention of course the failure of the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency, which of course was a failure as well, but now we are just talking about specific policies.

In my State, okay, we have not lost 4,000 people to a terrorist, but we have criminals who are let loose every day in my State because we have a policy of, what? If someone is arrested and they are here illegally, that does not automatically mean that they are sent home to the country from which they come.

Mr. TANCREDO. It is called the catch and release policy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Imagine that. We are turning loose criminals, people who have been arrested for crimes in our country and just turning them loose among our citizens. This is outrageous.

And why are we doing this? We are doing this because Americans have good hearts and we are afraid to do things that would cause great hardship and discomfort to very good people. Ninety-five percent of the illegal immigrants, much less the legal immigrants, but 95 percent of them are wonderful people, and we are afraid to do something that would cause them hardship.

Well, who are we representing, anyway? Who are we supposed to represent? We are supposed to represent the people of the United States, the people who happen to be of all races and all ethnic backgrounds. The people of the United States are not one race. We are not representing a racist point of view or one ethnic point of view. We are representing the patriotic interests of every American, no matter what color he or she is, or what religion he or she is.

We should have no apologies that to whomever it is we are saying, "I am sorry, because you are not here legally, you have to go home,'' or "you are here illegally and you cannot get benefits to take away from our citizens,'' we should not be afraid to do this.

They shouldn't be afraid to do their jobs! Oh, dear me! And yet nothing gets done AFTER 9/11 even with warnings BEFORE 9/11... four years before... that this is a dangerous situation. And it should be noted that in 1997 those that opposed actually stopping the flow of illegal aliens can be seen in just the debate cited by Mr. Rohrabacher and Douglas Brian (Pete) Peterson (D-MN) steps up to offer some of the organizations *supporting* illegal aliens coming to the US:

Mr. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Rohrabacher motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, this motion is opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, and all by itself, bringing those organizations together, that should be enough to make Members realize that there is merit in this 245(i) program.

Quite a lovely group, isn't it, supporting illegal aliens to flood into the Nation? Big Business and Big Labor siding WITH the 'open borders' folks! And then there are the ethnic communities already here that want the flow to continue because, to do otherwise, might just cause some 'hardship', Mr. Lincoln DiazeBalart (R-FL):

I would like to say in addition to fairness, in addition to common sense, in addition to proportionality, there is a perception issue here.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has grown to one of immense proportions in the Hispanic community throughout the United States. I think it is appropriate for all my esteemed colleagues to know that this is perceived by the Hispanic community as one directly related to how immigrants in the United States are treated. I think it is important for all of our esteemed colleagues in this House to know that.

For all the fine words of what is required to get a Green Card, those that do not obey the law are still free to flout the laws and just come here. But I guess that is a question of 'fairness', this obeying the law thing. At that those who choose *not* to obey the laws should, you know, be treated a bit differently than those who do. Perhaps there is no 'common sense' or 'proportionality' in that. Who ELSE was on board with this idea of supporting illegals to continue breaking the law? Well, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), points out that having folks go home to be processed might just be a bit of a bother and they should just stay here, and she then points to a supporter of this concept:

After being subjected to fingerprinting and rigorous background checks, immigrants who have never been convicted of a crime provide and fund our INS' detention and deportation activities by paying a sum of $1,000 to have their status renewed. It raises $200 million to our U.S. Treasury.

That is why Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist, supports the extension of 245(i). I urge my colleagues to vote against the Rohrabacher motion and support the renewal of 245(i) because it is essential and beneficial to American businesses and, indeed, to the American taxpayer. By supporting 245(i), we would support America and the scores of organizations and corporations which are depending on our vote.

What she doesn't want to address is those WITH criminal records who know they will NOT be accepted and who can just continue on being here without any oversight at all, because the damned law doesn't go looking for them. The very law abiding folks she cites who have *already* entered the system are another matter, but using them as a smokescreen to *block* actual enforcement of the law is something else again. Plus those very ones she cites would have the financial ability TO actually follow the law as they are Professionals.

Mr. Benjamin Arthur Gilman (R-NY) also rises to support the concept that families and businesses will be 'burdened' by actually trying to find illegals, plus he also says that 'consular staffs' will have a lighter workload and makes that out to be a *good thing*, and that Americans will raise more taxes this way, too! Lovely, isn't that?

Mr. Henry John Hyde (R-IL) points out that those here illegally can be deported at 'any time'... unless, of course they apply under the provisions of the legislation.... basically : the legal folks do the right thing and the illegals we can't be bothered with.

Then come the sob stories of separated families and such because the law is just 'too much of a burden' to them. Can't have that burden business of doing things by the law, now, can we? Mr. Calvin M. Dooley (D-CA) also points out that the Senate rejected a bill that would, indeed, eject illegals from the US by Unanimous Consent, so that there is no point in doing anything as the Senate will 'just say no'. Now that is moral fiber in defense of National Security for you: the other chamber doesn't want to protect the Nation so why should we?

Mr. Richard (Dick) Gephart (D-MO) then brings in a lovely sob story of an man from India who is working for a biotech firm and is here illegally! What, he can't pay the fees involved to get a damned Green Card? The LEAD SCIENTIST AT A BIOTECH FIRM?

What really, and truly, takes the cake on this comes from Ms. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and it is precious beyond words:

A significant proportion of people who use 245(i) never intended to break the law. Rather, they were tripped up by the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is arguably second only to the Tax Code in its sheer complexity. My colleagues who have criticized the Internal Revenue Service for strictly enforcing arcane tax laws will agree that honest mistakes happen. Likewise, these 245(i) applicants are not running from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They are not fighting the paperwork requirements or griping about the $1,000 penalty. All they want is to retain the opportunity they now have in the law to set things right and get on with their lives.

And who, in particular, MAKES such complex laws that mere mortals cannot understand? Is it a deific being, Beauracratis the Demi-God of Red Tape, that creates this? Unfortunately Ms. Pelosi has just decried that Congress has made things too complex in assenting to beauracracy that folks can't follow and *then* has the audicity to use the Congressional incompetence as an excuse NOT to do anything! Yes! The exact *same* approach used to decry the lack of military goods and the overhead at the VA is trotted out here, a decade ago, to explain why nothing should be done to enforce the borders and the laws that govern the Nation. She then goes on to list companies that actually SUPPORT this concept of not enforcing the Laws of the Land and remove illegal aliens:

Scores of America's leading companies support making 245(i) a permanent part of U.S. law, including: AT&T, Apple Computers, Bayer Corp., Digital Equipment Corp., Dow Chemical, Ford Motor Co., Hewlett-Packard, INTEL, Maytag, Merck, Microsoft, Monsanto, Motorola, Procter & Gamble, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, TRW, Westinghouse Electric, and Xerox. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants 245(i) to continue. I am baffled as to why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not listen to these business and industry leaders on this issue.

Excuse me, but these do NOT look like small businesses and such depending on a few illegals to do some gardening or child care.

So we can now see who is against this a bit more: Big Business (and lots of them!), Big Labor, the Hispanic community of Florida, Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist. Add in the do-nothingist Congresscritters, and those refusing to step up to the plate and accept the blame for the twisted system Congress created and you have the perfect storm of stupidity. Needless to say actually *doing* something about illegal aliens was voted DOWN by the House in 1997.

Here is where Transnationalism takes hold in the Congress of the United States. From the Right we get this ethos, as described by John Fonte:

There are serious tensions and fundamental disagreements within American conservatism on globalization. Three arenas that highlight these conflicts are (1) global migration or immigration, (2) global trade, and (3) regionalization, specifically North American integration.

The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is a major voice of American conservatism.

Last summer during the immigration debate the Wall Street Journal editors argued for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill on the following philosophical grounds:

"Our own view is that a philosophy of 'free markets and free people' includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting their labor, which is a basic human right."

Thus, the Journal is telling us that immigration for employment purposes is “a basic human right.” It is not simply a policy preference but is elevated to the realm of a universal principle. On the crucial democratic question: who decides American immigration policy? The answer is clear enough. American immigration policy is decided by autonomous individuals who are foreign citizens in places like Mexico, Pakistan and Ireland. These decisions are made without the consent of the governed. Policy is not decided by ordinary American citizens in Ohio or Oklahoma. Nor on principle, the Journal editors tell us, should this policy be decided by the elected representatives of the American people in Congress assembled. Clearly, this is a post-democratic, post-constitutional principle advocated by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

That is Big Business wanting to remove obstacles of Nation State to ensure a liquid labor force and utilize it without respect to Nationality nor to the Rights of Nations. And note what one of the backers of the non-enforcement of the Immigration Laws is doing:

REGIONALIZATION: NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION

For several years, government leaders and business elites in US, Canada and Mexico have been promoting North American integration. An executive agreement established the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America (the SPP). In June 2005 and March 2006 Cabinet members from the US (including Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Michael Chertoff) and their counter parts in Canada and Mexico outlined priorities.

These priorities include:

(1) The immediate number one priority was to “facilitate the movement of people” across the borders of North America.
(2) The “harmonization of security and customs regulations in all three countries.” This priority is vaguely written and ambiguous, although implicit is the suggestion that there should be one border for all of North America.
(3) The “formalization” of a “transnational professional labor force” that could work in any North American country.
(4) The creation of institutions to promote North American integration

On March 31, 2006 the three governments established the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) to implement these measures. The US Chamber of Commerce is the Secretariat for the council.

Yes, the very same US Chamber of Commerce cited as being against the 1997 enforcement of the Immigration Laws. They wish to remove the oversight of Congress to some 'higher body' for North America. It is these very powers that are a SOLE grant from the People of the United States to its Congress and to NO other body. That is the Transnational Capitalists on the Right espousing an end to democratic means to sustain National identity. That is clearly reflected in Congress as is the Transnational Left also called Transnational Progressivism by John Fonte in this article and this extended article. The basic vies of Transnational Progressivism are summed up as follows:

The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:

The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.

A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.

Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."

The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.

The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.

The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups.

Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.

Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"

The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

Yes, this fits quite well with the 'ethnic communities' asserting that the law unfairly hurts them and that their 'people' are put under and undue burden. Illegal aliens from 'other cultures' by being 'innocent' and 'just seeking a good job' have the right to erode the Nation State, and have that right trump actual law enforcement and democratic powers of the United States to actually uphold its laws for All of the People. And because joining up families is 'fair' and that those breaking the laws are 'victims' of such laws instead of just law breakers, they should be elevated in status and given more than they are granted by law and are free to flout the laws of the Nation State. Also for many of these the disingenuous claim that 'we didn't move over the border, the border moved over us' is one that directly attacks the Sovereignty of a People to expect that other Nations and their Citizens will respect the Treaties between such Nations.

The 'oppressed' or 'victimized' individual can, thusly, do no wrong and it is the over 'authoritarian' and 'outmoded' laws that need to be removed so that 'classical liberal values' can be asserted for all of humanity.

Just don't mind the fact that an Empire will rise where the Nation State has fallen, as it will be ruled by the 'enlightened' ones that will decide who get which 'rights', because those, too, are just a fiction and individuals are not fit to decide upon their lives for themselves.

From what I can see the only argument is *who* gets to be the Elite: 'classical liberals' (whoever *they* are), corporate boards, or the Caliph. The top doesn't matter as it is the People who get the shaft from each of these views of the 'post-Nation State' world.

Those are the echoes ringing louder and louder from 1997 to now: Congress slowly signing up so as to sign away the Rights of the People to Others.