From Politico:
President Barack Obama told Democratic members of Congress Tuesday he wants the DREAM Act passed in the lame duck session as a “down payment” on substantial immigration reform, according to members at the meeting.
Well, he may want the DREAM Act amnesty passed in the lame duck, but then Attila the Hun probably wants ice water about now, but he’s not getting any.
And, he said, he’d call resistant senators to get them on board.
Which senators? Maybe the 23 Democrats up for reelection in less than two years? Or Republican sponsors of the amnesty, like Lugar and Hatch, who are now worried about primary challenges in 2012?
The president told Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Reps. Nydia Velasquez (D-N.Y.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) in a meeting at the White House that he would call members holding out on approving the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who complete two years of college or military service.
“What we said to him was, ‘We know you’re for comprehensive immigration reform. We have a window. It’s closing. Be for this. Let’s all be for this specific part,’ ” Gutierrez told reporters off the floor of the House. “And he said, ‘I will call the members and say I’m for comprehensive immigration reform, reiterate my commitment to it. I’d like this as a down payment.’”
You bet the window is closing. Of course, if they’d moved “this specific part” of their amnesty agenda on its own years ago they might have won. But they wanted the whole loaf and disdained the prospect of just a slice, and now it’s too late for them.
“Nydia asked him if he’d help. And he said just call me and give me the names. And he would begin to personally call members that need it. Any help that we need in terms of phone calls,” Gutierrez said. “He said ‘My policy is the following. I will call and tell them I am committed to comprehensive immigration reform. Give me the dream act in the lame duck.’”
That’s all the president is going to do? Tell opponents of the DREAM Act amnesty what they already know? Why not call them and say, “Hey, fellas, I am committed to seizing the commanding heights of the economy. Give me socialism in the lame duck” — that has about as much chance of succeeding.
The measure was attached to the defense authorization bill in the Senate just before Congress left town to campaign for the Nov. 2 elections, but stalled.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last week she plans to bring the measure to the floor before the end of the year.
In fact, Pelosi’s already postponed such a vote once, until after Thanksgiving, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she pulls the football away from Charlie Brown yet again.
Democrats are eager to address the concerns of Latino voters who have been disappointed that Congress hasn’t passed a bill with a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. But Latinos still turned out on Nov. 2, supporting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), among other candidates.
In other words, the Democrats have learned they can string along the pro-amnesty groups, giving them absolutely nothing, and still get their votes. Why would they change tactics now?
I sure hope Mark Krikorian is correct. But it ain't over until it's over.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn my opinion, passing any amnesty would create a backlash that exceeds Obamacare, TARP or any other travesty foisted on the nation by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid mob.
In theory we can reverse any legislation and overcome financial hits. But amnesty, aside from rewarding lawbreaking, changes the national electorate (which, is why liberals want it naturally).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI, too, hope Mark is correct, but I am afraid there's a bigger danger out there. Obama must realize he cannot get the progressive agenda through Congress. He will therefore get much of it accomplished through administrative means or merely by subterfuge (e.g. lawsuits by friends of the Administration which go largely undefended).
All we have to fear now is fiat itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor previews of coming attractions, see today's Boston Globe where our Supreme Exalted Leader, Deval Patrick (aka Mini-He) promises to provide amenities above and beyond normal, taxpaying citizens for criminal immigrants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what Obama, the Democrats, and some GOPers want to do is take a group of young, impressionable foreigners who are living in our country illegally and encourage them to spend 4 years in a place where they are likely to be bathed in liberal anti-Americanism 24/7. Then we're going to make them citizens with the right to vote and all that entails. And oh yes, they will then have the right to sponsor an unlimited number of family members for green cards.
What could possibly go wrong?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemocrats have known for some time that they can promise amnesty, fail to deliver it and still get the pro-amnesty vote. It appears pro-amnesty advocates haven't caught on to that game, as they continue to reward Democrats for stringing them along with promises and excuses. During the campaign Harry Reid questioned why Latinos would be Republicans. I question why they would be Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope Mark is correct too but we can't take anything for granted. We have to keep calling and keep the pressure on -- as the pro-DREAM Act crowd is out in full force.
Please call certain GOP seators such as Hutchison, Cornyn, Gregg, Snowe, Collins, Murkwoski and Bennett.
Also, some Dems such as Sen. Hagan still apparently oppose it, as well as Pryor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's try something different. The main issue I see in the amnesty debate is providing a path to citizenship to persons who violated the law to get here. Perhaps there is a middle ground, but it would take some rethinking.
I propose the following:
Change the criminal code to make unlawful entry into the USA a Class E Felony, one year sentence followed by mandatory deportation.
Provide a limited duration (1-2 years from passage) alternative sentence that would involve (i) voluntary surrender to authorities; (ii) no prior criminal arrests or activities (i.e. identity theft, Soc. Security fraud) arrests; (iii) payment of a criminal fine (probably just enough to cover some program costs and probably payable in installments and (iv) disclosure of employment status so that employers who hire illegals can be audited. Qualified persons would receive a conditional residency card (call it the orange card) and be allowed to retain residency provided that they pay their taxes and not not commit crimes (any criminal conviction and you are immediately deported at conclusion of the sentence).
No naturalization path wold be available to orange card holders. if they wish to become citizens, then they must either return to their country of origin and reapply or serve four years in the military (not college, that is not service to the country).
The persons who do not qualify for the above are far less sympathetic and should be deported. Sanctuary cities forfeit all Federal funding (like the Solomon Amendment, but enforced)
Legal immigration must also be changed to provide more openings for persons with desirable job skills or who wish to buy/start a business.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTO CTFederalist: I've got a better idea. Rather than "orange cards" Z-visas or guest-worker schemes, why don't we try something really different and just enforce the laws already on the books.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does the GOP fail to make the very persuasive point that the 10 million or more illegal workers are currently holding jobs that the unemployed American citizens could have. These low paid menial jobs occupied by illegals may not be jobs that "Americans want" but isn't it better for the unemployed to to be working at some job rather than doing nothing while collecting unemployment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis citizen commends for Senator Reid's attention, a compromise for "Dream Act" legislation (q.v., below).
Proposed compromise that will permit punishment befitting the crimes of the principal offenders
Rationale for proposed amendment
Children who involuntarily accompanied parents entering this country illegally, by inference, didn't have much to say about it. And the fact that they have been permitted to remain here illegally, along with their illegally resident parents, constitutes an indictment of local, state and especially national officials in the U.S.
Accordingly it is proposed to amend the current Dream Act as follows:
Part 1)
It is deemed appropriate to grant legal status to all children previously designated as eligible for Dream Act provisions, if their parents come forward, confess their transgressions, repent openly and, in contrite atonement, do the heretofore apparently unthinkable, namely, go back to their respective places of legal origin ASAP.
Part 2)
All government officials--national, state, local-- in the U.S.A. who have neglected the problem of illegal immigration will be afforded the same treatment as that provided in Part 1), above, for illegally resident parents.
Such an amendment, we firmly believe, merits bi-partisan consideration. But as to whether it will be so considered, quien sabe?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse