God bless Senator Ted Cruz, one of the few Republicans in Washington, DC with any sense. He again took to the Senate floor to decry bipartisan legislation that is just plain awful. In Washington, DC it doesn’t matter how bad a bill is as long as it’s bipartisan. What a horrible standard.buy valium without prescription
Cruz blasted the immigration bill that nobody has read, saying we’ve seen this play before.
buy tramadol no prescription
We have seen this play before. It is reminiscent of Obamacare, yet another bill that we were told we’ve got to pass it to find out what’s in it. And, unfortunately, it seems, there are some republicans eager to go along with the democrats in the mad rush to pass this bill. In the 2007 immigration debate, close to 50 amendments were considered. In this debate, only nine have been debated. I introduced seven substantive amendments to improve this bill. Not a single one has been considered on the floor of the senate.buy phentermine online no prescription
My point is very simple: what is the rush? Why are we proceeding gangbusters? And the only explanation that makes sense is there are many senators it seems in this body perhaps on both sides of the aisle that very much want a fig leaf. They want something that they can claim we are supporting border security when, in fact, this bill does not.buy klonopin online
The first and most important difference is this amendment provides legalization first and then border security maybe at some time in the future. We have seen this before. In 1986 it was the same promise congress made, and we got the legalization, we got the amnesty and we never, ever, ever got border security. In contrast, the amendment I introduced reflects the will of the American people to have border security first and only then the possibility of legalization.valium for sale
Secondly, this amendment does not require operational control of the border. Current law requires that. This amendment weakens current law on operational control. My amendment would require that the problem actually be solved.klonopin online no prescription
Thirdly, this amendment does not require a biometric entry-exit system. It weakens current law. Current law requires it. This amendment takes that out. Instead, it requires essentially a photo ID. I would suggest, madam president, for anyone who perhaps has known a teenager, you would know that the difficult of securing a fake ID with a picture on it is not very high. Any flea market in the land will allow it.
Fourth, this bill weakens the requirements of statutes on secure fencing. It weakens current law on border security.
Fifth, this amendment is not offset. My amendment was offset so it’s brand-new spending in this amendment with no offset.
And sixth, this amendment has no real enforcement. The amendment I introduced said if the changes within it on border patrol agent were not implemented within three years, 20 percent of the salary of political appointees at DHS would be reduced, 20 percent of the budget reduced and it would be block granted to the state to fix the problem.
Fundamentally, this is about political cover. It’s not about solving the problem. And I would suggest the approach is one we’re all familiar with. It is the approach that perhaps in childhood we knew well. It is an approach that says: I will gladly secure the border next Tuesday for legalization today.
Now, if we were naive, if we had not been through 1986, if we had not seen congress play this same shell game with the American people, perhaps we would fall for it. But I don’t think the American people are that gullible. Everyone wants to fix our broken immigration system but at the same time we shouldn’t be replicating mistakes of the past.
This amendment and the underlying Gang of Eight bill grants immediate legalization and the border security changes will never be implemented and the border will not be secured. That’s not a solution the American people can be proud of, and I urge this body to reject the amendment, to vote against cloture and reject the underlying bill.
There’s so much in this bill that’s bad, it’s hard to even know where to begin. Maggie’s Notebook has a post with a few more nuggets from the dreaded Hoeven/Corker amendment and a list of the GOP Senators who voted for this mess. They are:
Lamar Alexander, Kelly Ayotte, Jeffrey Chiesa, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, John Hoeven, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Marco Rubio, and Roger Wicker.
An illegal alien arriving in the U.S. prior to December 31, 2011 can commit up to three misdemeanors, including assault, battery, identity or document fraud, and tax evasion and still be eligible for Registered Provisional Status (RPS) and move forward toward a Green Card. By contrast, those entering the U.S. legally face up to $100,000.00 in fines, 15 years imprisonment or be prohibited to reenter the country for up to 10 years.
Those so-called Republican senators listed above voted for this crap. Each and every one of them should be voted out of office. If you live in their states, remember this the next time they come up for reelection. Remember this the next time they come begging for a campaign contribution. Let the RNC and the NRSC know what you think of them when they call you up pleading for your hard-earned money. Enough is enough.
I hope Cruz decides to run for president in 2016. I’ll work night and day to help elect this good man.
Update: I almost forgot, Senator Chuck Schumer went out and predicted/threatened mass riots if this crap sandwich doesn’t pass. If that happens I’m sure OFA would be happy to organize it. Oh, and who are the 2 conservative bloggers who actually support this?
Update 2: Something else I almost forgot, ICE agents, border agents and sheriffs are all against this bill. What does that tell you?