The Democrat's Governance Problem Remains the Same

Following the 2006 election, Dick Morris pointed out that the Democrat's new majority was largely ceremonial, and that ultimately, the Democratic caucus would wind up in total disarray. That's because the Democratic Party is much less one unified organ and much more series of competing factions each with their own agenda. Among the factions, it includes: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroot. Each of these factions have enough members that a revolt, on its own, would cause the Democratic majority to be a minority as long as the Republicans stuck together. Morris turned out to be absolutely correct and the Democratic Congress was a total nightmare. At this point, the Democratic Congress barely polls in double digits in terms in terms of approval. Nancy Pelosi swooped into Congress with a bold agenda and ultimately only showed a modest increase to the minimum wage (something she added to an Iraq War funding bill) as her "major" accomplishment.

In this Congress, we will see a similar dynamic. We are already seeing this tension surfacing.

Blue Dog Democrats Friday called on the Democratic Caucus to support “moderate voices” in the slew of leadership decisions the party will be making this month.

The release did not name any of the races or contenders, but Blue Dog sources say it can be seen as preliminary support for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a brewing bid for vice chairman of the caucus and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his fight to stave off a committee chairmanship challenge from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

“As the moderate faction of our caucus has grown and contributed to our large majority, our leadership must have more moderate voices at the table if we want to continue to be successful, strong, and effective as a caucus,” said Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.).

Leadership posts are going to be the least of the problems of this tension. The real problem will be in crafting policy that can get a majority. The Democratic Soros types in the Caucus are folks like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and the House Speaker herself, Nancy Pelosi. Their agenda can best be summed up by this Frank interview.


Folks like Barney Frank make up a good quarter to one third of the caucus. They are also, CURRENTLY, most of its leadership.

Then, on the other hand, there are the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a coalition of about 40 "moderates" in the House and about 10 in the Senate. I say they are "moderate" because in reality they are usually a lot more Conservative these days than the Republicans themselves. While Barney Frank is calling massive new spending and dismisses any worries about deficits, the Blue Dogs are calling for PAYGO spending policies.

The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit. New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds. [1] The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.

So, on the one hand, we have Barney Frank and his cohorts ready to spend with reckless abandon. On the other hand, we have the Blue Dogs who demand that any spending increase be offset by spending cuts somewhere else. Somewhere in the middle lies a policy that can turn into law.

It's important to understand the stakes. For someone like Barney Frank, spending is a matter of ideology. He believes in big government and he believes in big spending. Now that his ideological bent has power he intends to implement it. For the Blue Dogs, this is a matter of survival. They are not merely conservative philosophically. They also come from conservative areas. Many of them swept into victory in 2006 promising essentially to be more conservative than their Republican counterparts. Because the Republicans failed to hold the line on spending when in power, there was an opening. If Nancy Pelosi's Congress goes wild though, there WILL be a Republican opponent waiting to use the spending spree as a bludgeon.

Spending is only one area where this tension occurs. Most of these Blue Dogs are also socially conservative. Barack Obama has indicated that he wants all sorts of extreme abortion policies like federal funding for abortions, eliminating parental notifications, etc. The Blue Dogs would be taking huge risks in voting for these policies as well. The folks in their districts are as socially conservative as they are fiscally conservative. Having their Congress person rubber stamp any sort of radical abortion policy is not something they are likely to forget come 2011. Of course, without the Blue Dogs, there is no majority for any such radical measure.

On immigration, the Blue Dogs again act even more conservative than the Republicans. It was in fact Blue Dog Democrat Congressman and former Quarterback Heath Shuler that introduced the toughest border security bill, the SAVE Act. Anything that sniffs of amnesty will also be furiously opposed by the Blue Dogs. On the issue of immigration, illegal and otherwise, the Blue Dogs will face tension with not only the Soros types but the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. While President elect Obama is quite sympathetic to the open borders crowd, he will have a hard time passing things like the DREAM ACT, driver's licenses for illegals, etc. At best, what we will have is a stalled agenda.

Finally, there is the Congressional Black Caucus. For obvious reason, they will likely feel as though they should have more power. Here, the tension will likely be between the President himself and the Caucus. If it looks as though he is governing as an African American, that would be the worst thing that could happen to his Presidency. If legislation even sniffs of "Afro centricity" that would face an overwhelming rejection by the public at large. As such, whatever power they have, it will have to be tempered by the President himself.

The reality is that in such cases it is up to the leadership to bring all sides to the table and compromise. It is one thing not to be able to reach out to the other party. It is something quite different not to be able to reach out to the many factions of your own party. The fact that the last Congress was totally impotent in dealing with its many factions can be laid squarely on two people, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Their grades in their first terms were both F's. In order to govern all factions need to come together and compromises reached. There is a middle ground between Barney Frank's total lack of fiscal responsibility and the Blue Dog's rigid PAYGO ideas. It is the job of the Speaker and the Senate leader to get there. That they couldn't reflected badly on them. Whether they can or not in the next Congress remains to be seen, however the Democrat's governance problems remain the same as they were in 2006.

Latinos to Obama: Open Borders or Else

According to the Hill, Latino lawmakers have given Barack Obama an ultimatum regarding the Latino vote.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.

If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

Obama’s National Latino Vote Director, Cuauhtemoc “Temo” Figueroa, will have his first meeting in Washington Thursday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

Earlier, I wrote a piece about the the make up of the constituencies of the two parties. Whereas, with Republicans, the constituency is made up almost entirely based on ideology, for the Democrats the make up is made up nearly entirely on race, sex, and ethnicity. Once again, it rears its ugly head.

Fortunately, Barack Obama has been an open borders proponent for years. He has supported everything from driver's licenses to illegals, to the DREAM Act, and he has been against building the fence and the SAVE Act. Unfortunately, if he is to be totally open borders in order to please his base, he will also lose most folks in the middle. Illegal immigration will be one of the most important issues in November, and Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of tough border policy. That is NOT what Barack Obama has favored, and that is clearly not what his Latino constituency is demanding. With his opponent having a relatively moderate position as well, Obama will have to show a great deal of deference to open borders policies in order to secure that vote.

UPDATE:

Hello all VDARE readers for a full dossier of Obama's open borders policy please click here.

Hardball Politics on the Save Act?

So sayeth the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps... Once again the SAVE Act is a bill, sponsored by former qb and current NC Congressman Heath Shuler, which would among other things set up a system where all employees would be identified and matched up against a central database so that employers can make sure that all their employees are legal. Here is a quick summary of how it would work...

SAVE would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system. This internet system provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify that employees are not illegal aliens. The rules for use are such that no employee or employer suffers if there is a mistake in the system because there is ample time to correct errors on the employee's side and on the government's side.

Now, I have some reservations about the potential new bloated bureaucracy that this would create, however on paper this is by far the most sensible and productive bill dealing with illegal immigration that we have. Not only that, it is supported by an eclectic group of politicians and activist ranging from Latino groups to Tom Tancredo to John Murtha.

This bill should be on the fast track to becoming legislation. So why is it withering away in committee? The Minutemen have a theory. Here is a bit of an email I received...

Speaker Pelosi and her cronies are doing everything they can to keep House Democrats from signing a discharge petition that would bring the bi-partisan SAVE ACT (H.R. 4088) to a vote on the House floor. House rules require 218 Congressmen to sign the petition in order for a vote to occur, but only a handful of House Democrats have been brave enough to oppose Pelosi in order to save our country from the dangers of an open border and lax enforcement of our immigration laws.

As of this writing, only 150 Congressmen have added their names to the discharge petition in hopes of moving a vote this week, before the start of their two-week Easter recess. Some original co-sponsors of this bill have not added their names to the petition, for fear of reprisals by the House Democratic Leadership.

At least 69 Congressmen still need to sign the discharge petition in order for a vote to be held this week.

Now, it goes without saying that the Minutemen and Pelosi are bitter political rivals. They are nothing if not without an agenda. That said, this bill has been around since September. It was created by a Democrat. There is absolutely no reason why this bill shouldn't have seen a floor vote by now...unless the leadership doesn't want it. That is the clear implication of the email. Keep in mind the quasi amnesty DREAM Act saw a full legislature vote. If the leadership insists on seeing amnesty bills get votes, they should also allow enforcement bills the same luxury.

Senator Obama Responds Vis a Vis the DREAM Act

A few days ago, I received an email from Senator Durbin regarding my inquiry about the DREAM Act. I thought it was an instructive email because it gives everyone a glimpse into the perspective of those that do not take illegal immigration seriously. Obama just responded as well and his email is quite similar.

Dear Michael:



Thank you for contacting me to share your views on the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act (S. 2205). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



As an Illinois State Senator and a United States Senator, I have worked hard to improve our nation's immigration laws. For example, I strongly supported legislation before the Illinois State Senate that would have helped honest and hard-working immigrant students attend college by providing them with government loans to pay for tuition. In the U.S. Senate, I am an original cosponsor of the DREAM Act when it was first introduced in the 110th Congress as S. 774. This legislation would allow certain immigrant students to attend college and obtain legal permanent residency.



In order for an undocumented student to qualify and apply for conditional legal status under the DREAM Act, he or she would have to: have arrived in the United States at age 15 or younger; have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years; have good moral character; graduated from high school or obtained a GED in the U.S.; not have a history of criminal or terrorist activity; and be age 29 or younger when the DREAM Act is signed into law. The undocumented student would then be required to either serve in the military or attend college for at least two years within a six year time frame. If the undocumented student is able to meet all of these requirements within six years, he or she could then apply for legal permanent residency; if the student fails to meet all of these requirements, he or she would revert to illegal status and become deportable. This legislation offers hope and opportunity to young people who have chosen the right path and who want to become contributing citizens of the United States.



Unfortunately, in October, the DREAM Act failed to receive the necessary 60 votes in order to cut off debate on the measure. Failing to pass the DREAM Act only compounds the immigration crisis by continuing to drive thousands of young people every year into hiding.I will be sure to keep your views in mind if the DREAM Act makes it before the Senate floor for another vote.Again, thank you for writing, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.



Sincerely,Barack Obama

The first thing that should be obvious is the terminology for illegal immigrant. Obama will call an illegal anything before he will call them illegal. At one point, he simply refers to them as immigrants and at another point he refers to them as undocumented. Those are all euphimisms used by the writer to try and minimize the situation. Referring to illegals as illegal is a stigma that would rather not face. It is, unfortunately for the Senator, the truth however. Anyone that can't even bring themselves to call an illegal illegal is already suspect.

Now, when this bill was first introduced, I warned opponents that proponents would immediately try and appeal to our sympathies. At least Obama doesn't find an illegal and try and tell their sad tale. Instead, he tries to create empathy through generalization. He points out that the DREAM Act only affects those that came here illegally with their parents. He points out that it allows them to go to school and join the military, and he even tries to appeal to our reasonable side by pointing out all of the hoops they have to go through as well as the "severe" punishment for non compliance. The simple fact of the matter is that he is for a bill that gives legal status to those that came here illegally. That encourages more illegal immigration.

I notice that while Senator Obama was listing through the accomplishments he thought he had in regards to illegal immigration, there weren't any that involved enforcement or anything that would actually discourage illegal immigration. By doing a lot of work on illegal immigration, the Senator means doing everything he can to cater to law breakers. I have sympathy for those that came here illegally with their parents as well. That is why I would be more than happy if before they were deported, they also met with someone that would show them how to fast track their re entry. I would be all for a bill that absolves them of their crime when we look at their application upon re entry. I understand that it wasn't their fault that they entered the country illegally however they still did. Rewarding them with legal status only encourages more illegal immigration.

I would frankly be more than happy to revisit the DREAM Act when I am confident that the border is sealed and we have cut off employment access to illegals. At that point, the DREAM Act is the right thing to do and the compassionate thing to do. At this point, it puts compassion above reason and it is ultimately bad policy. Obama cannot get around that.

Senator Durbin Responds on the DREAM Act

This email I received from Senator Durbin gives a window into the philosophy of those that put illegal immigration and the rule of law behind compassion.

Thank you for contacting me about the Development, Relief, and Educationfor Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

The DREAM Act, which I first introduced with bipartisan support in 2003, would provide permanent residence to undocumented young people who have proven their desire to fulfill the American dream.

These young people were brought to the United States as children, when they did not have the independence to make choices on their own. Often, these young people did not discover until much later that the decisions made by their parents left them without a country to call their own. Since arriving here they have attended school, learned English, contributed to their communities, and want to be productive members of our society.

There is currently no way for these deserving young people to legally earn
U.S. permanent residence or citizenship. The DREAM Act simply provides them with
that opportunity. In return, the bill requires that these young people prove
themselves by satisfying several requirements, all of which must be verified by
appropriate documentation.

In order to qualify for residency under the DREAM Act, these members of our communities must have come to our country before the age of 16 and must have lived here for at least five years before the bill becomes law. They must refrain from criminal or immoral behavior, and they must have earned a high school degree. Most importantly, they must either complete two years of college or serve at least two years in the military.

I believe our country would benefit greatly if young people who meet these conditions are given the chance to become U.S. citizens.The DREAM Act would help our military, which faces a serious recruitment crisis. Under the DREAM Act, tens of thousands of well-qualified potential recruits would become eligible for military service. Defense Department officials have said that the DREAM Act is "very appealing" to the military because it would apply to the "cream of the crop" of students. They have concluded that the DREAM Act would begood for readiness.

For those who pursue college, the DREAM Act provides the opportunity to become an American scientist, nurse, teacher, engineer, or an American in any other profession that requires a college education. Since 2003, we have watched intelligent, ambitious students graduate from high school only to end up in low-wage undocumented jobs because they cannot attend college or work legally. As a result, the United States loses future leaders and social vibrancy as well as tax revenue and economic growth.

I understand the concerns some have about the expense of the DREAM Act. This bill does not provide free financial aid to any individual. Although an earlier version ofthe DREAM Act allowed states to decide whether their undocumented students shouldbe eligible for in-state tuition, that provision was later removed. I have led the effort in Congress to make college more affordable for middle-class families, and I will continue to support such efforts.

Some opponents of this legislation suggest that it would encourage illegal immigration or that it would provide amnesty to illegal immigrants. This is not the case. Applicants are required to have already been in the country for at least five years before enactment of the DREAM Act. Furthermore, family members of DREAM Act applicants would remain ineligible for legal status.

I have consistently supported efforts to deter illegal immigration. Soon after the debate on immigration reform, I voted in favor of a Homeland Security Appropriations bill that included $3 billion in emergency funding to ensure quick implementation of the bill's border security provisions. The fact remains, however, that the United States can benefit from the contributions of thousands of hardworking, upstanding young people who have proven themselves and who want to live and uphold the American Dream.In October 2007, the DREAM Act was brought to the floor of the Senate. Although 52 senators - including 11 members of the minority - voted to end a filibuster on the bill, 60 votes were needed to proceed to a final vote. As a result, the DREAM Act did not receive final consideration.

There is no doubt that our current immigration system must be reformed. We need reforms that are tough and enforceable but also fair and consistent with our nation's values. I will continue to support legislation, such as broader enforcement and the DREAM Act, that advances us toward these goals.I hope this letter helps you better understand my support for the DREAM Act. Thank you again for your message.

There is all sorts of equivocation, rationalization and out and out nonsense all throughout this email. Frankly, Durbin said nothing that I didn't expect him to say and so the email is instructive of the belief system of those that don't treat illegal immigration with any seriousness. As I predicted, Durbin appeals to our basest emotion. He wants everyone to have compassion for law breakers. Durbin is absolutely right that this bill only pertains to children of illegals. They had no decision in coming over the border illegally, and for this reason we should have mercy on them and allow them to stay.

The problem is that illegal immigration works much like Pavlov and his mice. If you reward illegal immigration, you encourage more of it. This may not be compassionate and it may win me no friends in certain circles, however it is the reality. While I have sympathy for the folks covered under the DREAM Act, I cannot allow for them to get blanket amnesty. By doing so, more illegals will be encouraged to cross the border in hopes that their children will also be given amnesty. While it may play well politically for Durbin to stand up for the little guy, and it may even open up a new voting block, what it won't do is create good policy.

His reasons for why this won't encourage more illegal immigration do not work for me and here is why. While it is true that they encourage people to be good citizens, it still encourages them to come here illegally and then be good citizens nonetheless. The goal is to end illegal immigration, not merely limit it to illegals that are good citizens.

He goes onto claim that he is in favor of tough enforcement and I guess I am supposed to be impressed because he favored a bill that is one third the net worth of George Soros. I am not. So far the only thing I see is him giving a pathway to citizenship to millions of illegals. Anyone that commits to a pathway to citizenship for illegals before the border is secured is not serious about stopping the flow of illegals.He even goes so far as to claim this bill will help our military. That is the height of hubris. I don't know if this is true and I don't care, because I know that we should be able to build a successful military without legalizing millions of illegals.

What Durbin does is what many who support illegal immigration do. First, he never refers to them as illegals. In this case, they are undocumented. Second, he appeals to the basest emotion, in this case empathy. Third, he lists all of the potential benefits without once addressing any problems. The fact that illegal immigration may have benefits is beside the point. Our country thrived long before a plethora of illegals filtered into our nation. It is ludicrous and insulting to suggest that there are benefits to illegal immigration. There are benefits to all sorts of things that ultimately have a lot more negatives. Hillary Clinton's baby bond idea also has benefits and it doesn't make it any less of a ridiculous idea.

Ultimately, politicians have to decide if they are serious about illegal immigration or if they are pretending. Durbin has decided to pay lip service and it is shameful.

update: Since this was written, the DREAM Act ultimately failed for now however don't think that open borders and amnesty forces are done trying to shove such legislation through.

It looks as though the DREAM Act will come up for a vote today. Senator Reid is trying to fast track this bill through the Senate and is looking for a cloture vote later today. He will need sixty votes in order to accomplish that. Now, according to Michelle their side is having trouble with logistics,

it looks like Dick Durbin is worried about senators showing up for the
vote: “Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the legislation’s chief sponsor, said Tuesday that his biggest challenge was ensuring that supporters, including five senators — four Democrats and one Republican — running for president, make it to the Capitol for the roll call. Another question mark: Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who are trying to return to California to review wildfire damage…Durbin needs 60 votes to allow the bill to be debated. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said the DREAM Act amounts to a ‘ratification of illegality’ and could provide an incentive for more illegal immigration. ”

Whatever their problems are, now is not the time to rest. Unlike last summer this bill has flown under the radar a la the Vitter Amendment to end sanctuary cities that failed a couple weeks ago. It is time to give it the attention it deserves. Here are the instructions from Numbers USA...

Hi, my name is xmxmxm xmxmxmx. I am calling about S. 2205, the DREAM Act amnesty. I urge the Senator to vote NO on cloture today and kill this amnesty. Thank you." It is going to take a lot of first-timers to pull out a victory when the Senate is expected to vote by mid-day. How about calling and saying something like: "I would like for you to tell Senator xmxmxmxm that giving the DREAM Act amnesty to 2.1 million illegal aliens will send the wrong message to the rest of the world. Ask him to please vote NO on cloture on S. 2205. We don't need to entice a larger wave of illegal immigration." Or this: "There should be no amnesty of any kind until Congress passes laws to stop the hiring of illegal foreign workers. S. 2205 would just invite a lot more illegal aliens to come. Please ask Sen. xmxmxm to vote NO on the DREAM Act amnesty."

Here is the view from the rest of the blogosphere

At one level, it’s understandable that pro-amnesty politicians would be reluctant to invite the press to what was in effect a lobbying session with illegal aliens in the Capitol building. After all, the American people have made it abundantly clear that they disagree with Washington elites on illegal immigration and the in-state tuition. The Dream Act was included in the bipartisan amnesty bill pushed by the White House and Sen. Edward Kennedy that imploded in late June, after Americans deluged their senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes protesting the legislation. Last month, Mr. Durbin, with the support of Mr. Hagel and Mr. Lugar, tried to attach the Dream Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. But once again, America protested, forcing Mr. Durbin & Co. to shelve the legislation — until today.

and

The DREAM Act positively conveys the benefits and contributions of
immigrants to America. Its passage would send a clear message across the country that immigration is a valued American tradition that is badly in need of a makeover. Senate support of the DREAM Act promotes hardworking immigrant students while expressing a commitment to repairing our broken system.If theDREAM Act Fails to Pass the Senate...

and finally,

2205, which is cosponsored by long-tenured Republicans Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), is, essentially, the same amnesty offered up for consideration by Durbin as an amendment (SA 2919) to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department (DoD) authorization bill for fiscal year 2008. The Senate passed that bill October 1 without ever taking up the DREAM Act amendment or amendments concerning increased worker importation.In this most recent iteration, the DREAM Act authorizes DHS to cancel removal for, or adjust to lawful permanent resident status (in other words, grant amnesty to), an alien who is inadmissible or deportable in cases where the alien demonstrated that he/she: * has maintained continuous presence in the United States for five years and was not yet 16 years old upon initial entry, but is no older than 30 years of age;* is of “good moral character” and is not inadmissible or deportable on certain criminal grounds or on the basis of being a risk to national security;

It really comes down to whether we become compassionate to law breakers or we are people that believe in the rule of law. It is your choice. Here is a way to reach your Senator. Let your voice be heard.

UPDATE:Here is my email to my Senator Barack Obama

Today there will be a vote on the so called DREAM Act. I suspect, Senator, that you support this bill which would legalize millions of people that came here illegally. Since the illegals in question are children and minors, I suspect that this is a great opportunity for you to flex your compassionate credentials.

When you let emotion interfere with making policy, what we all get is bad policy. Illegal immigration is a cancer on our society and our elected officials must do everything to encourage less of it. This bill would encourage more of it and that is unacceptable. Your record proves that you have more sympathy for people who came to this country illegally than you do for the rule of law.

While it maybe good politics to find a poor helpless teenager and get
behind them and their plight, it isn't good policy and we, theAmerican people, are onto all of you. We will hold all of those who perpetuate illegal immigration responsible for their actions.Last week, you missed a vote to make sanctuary cities, like ours, Chicago, illegal. I am sure you had an important rally or townhall meeting, however your non vote contributed to the amendment failing and now my fair city can continue to ignore criminal illegal aliens in its borders.

I believe that George Soros is the puppet master for your party and he is a strong proponent of open borders which eventually lead to one world government. Your actions and words lead me to conclude that your position is very little different from his. You said you stood with millions of illegal immigrants when they marched for rights they had no business receiving. You voted against an amendment that would have barred all criminals, gang members, and terrorists from entering our nation, and you even voted against an amendment that simply
would have committed our government to finally follow the laws already on the books.

You have an opportunity to show me that I am wrong and that you are not a puppet of George Soros by voting against this bill and I hope you take it.Now, it is your turn, call, fax and email and pass along your own thoughts on the matter and any responses from the powers that be.

ANOTHER UPDATE:One for two everyone, according to Michelle Malkin the cloture vote has failed, so the forces against illegal immigration have won this round, however all we have now is the status quo. We had a chance last week to outlaw sanctuary cities. Keep in mind all Democratic Senators buy Mary Landrieu either voted against it or didn't vote at all. Contact each and every Senator and tell them that sanctuary cities are unacceptable and that the amendment must be looked at again.

THE LAST UPDATE REALLY!!

Here is the roll call.There are a few names of note. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama rushed back to Washington to vote in favor of amnesty. This is important because they didn't even bother to vote on the Vitter Amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities, like the one Senator Obama lives in Chicago. They are obviously paying homage to George Soros and his open borders, one world government philosophy and I will leave it up to the folks to decide if that is the vision of America you have.

Last week, the Senate voted down an amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities. This week the Senate is planning on taking a vote legalize millions of illegal aliens under a new bill called the DREAM Act. This bill would legalize all minors who came over illegally with their parents.

What is dirty and underhanded about the DREAM Act is the manner in which Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, is trying to push this bill through the Senate. Harry Reid is using an obscure Senatorial procedure to push this bill through without the sort of debate and scrutiny it requires. The leader is using Senate rule fourteen to push this through. While this gets very technical, in layman's terms Rule 14 allows Reid to fast track the bill for a vote without much debate.

Let's recap what has happened since the contentious Senate debate over illegal immigration in the summer. While the Legislature authorized that roughly seven hundred miles of fence be built barely more than twenty miles have actually been put up. As I mentioned, last week the Senate killed an amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities. Now, the Senate wants to introduce and pass a bill that will legalize millions of illegals.

The reason that there was uproar this past summer over the illegal immigration bill wasn't because there was too much enforcement, too tough a penaties, and not enough consideration for the illegals themselves. The reasons were the exact opposite. The people didn't trust the government actually follow through on the border enforcement at the same time they were legalizing millions of people that crossed the border illegally.

Senator Reid either has no idea what the pulse of the American people is, or he simply doesn't care. Rather than taking care of the business of enforcing the border as the people demanded very forcefully this past summer, Senator Reid has decided to skip border enforcement altogether and move directly along to making lots and lots of illegals, or as he calls them undocumented Americans, legal.

Senator Reid either thinks the American people are too dumb to realize what he is up, to apathetic, or he simply doesn't care. Everyone can stand by while this bill passes and do nothing or we can mobilize and email, fax, and call until we shutdown the switchboard at the Senate. I think the second option is the best option. I implore everyone to follow this link and find your Senator and Senator Reid and tell them what you think of amnesty without enforcement. If you stand by and do nothing, you WILL get the government you deserve as a result. Please prove Senator Reid wrong.

Hat tip again goes out to Numbers USA. The DREAM Act stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. What it does is legalizes illegals who came here as minors and also stayed out of trouble after they came here. If you ever wanted an illegal immigration bill that pulled at your compassionate heart strings, this one is it. Here is a great example of the sort of tug at your heart string story you will see. This one is about a 24 year old college student from the state of Washington.

After graduating in June with a degree in social work from Eastern
Washington University, a 24-year-old Tacoma woman — the first in her family to go to college — returned to the campus this week to begin pursuing a master's degree.After that, she'll probably seek her doctorate.

She acknowledges that she's only delaying the inevitable, knowing that as an illegal immigrant she won't find employment as a social worker.

Going to school is a way to "kill time, while I wait for something to give," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used.

The break she seeks could come this week, if the U.S. Senate votes on an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status by enrolling in college or entering the military for two years.

This is exactly the sort of bleeding heart bills the Democrats are famous for. It is in the same mold as minimum wage, SCHIP, and Title IX. They pick a victim, someone that is sympathetic, and they make a bill that sides with the victim. This is a tried and true political strategy and DREAM is no different.

Make no mistake folks. Once there is a path to citizenship for illegals, any illegals, more of them will flood in. I have long ago compared illegal immigration to Pavlov's work with mice. It all comes down to motivation. If illegals think their kids can get citizenship, more of them will be motivated to come here. Any bill, any act, that creates more motivation for future illegal immigrants to come to this country is one that furthers this crisis. This is just such a bill.

There is more though. According to Numbers USA, the bill is being brought for a vote under the cover of darkness. Here is how Numbers USA described it in their email.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has invoked Rule 14 on the new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty! That means he is setting up Senate procedure to spring the amnesty at any time without hearings or committee action.

For the Majority Leader to invoke Rule 14 means that he can bring a bill to a floor without it going through the debate and markup of a committee.

Rosemary Jenks, our NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations, says, "Generally when Rule 14 is invoked, it means the leadership intends to have a vote on the bill in fairly short order."Under the rule, the amnesty bill (S. 2205) can be brought up as early as Tuesday.

The rule also allows Sen. Reid to wait until our forces are distracted and bring it at any time in the future at the spur of the moment.So, we need all of you hitting up your Senators' offices all over again starting Monday with phone calls and faxes.

Besides Reid, the chief culprits in this mess are Senate Assistant Majority Leader Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.) and Sen. Lugar (R-Ind.). I hope you will feel free from anywhere in the country to let these four Senators know how you feel about their aggressive leadership to pass this amnesty.

As anyone reading this, the forces for unfettered illegal immigration are Dick Durbin, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Harry Reid. These Senators need to hear from the American people. Expect the forces of illegal immigration to call those of us that favor the rule of law: racist, heartless, nativist, and Anti Hispanic.

It is very easy to take the compassionate position, but it is also, in this case, the worst kind of policy. In this case, it is also politically astute. Whoever gets this law passed will also be able to pick up millions of new voters to register and vote for them. Bad policy can be exposed for what it is. There are exponentially more people hurt by the cancer that is illegal immigration and we all need to be aware, alert, and most importantly active. It has been a bad couple of weeks for all of us that want the cancer of illegal immigration to be dealt with. The bill to end sanctuary cities was defeated in the Senate (with only one Democrat voting to end sanctuary cities). In my homestate, Illinois, there is a bill going through the State Senate that will allow illegals to get driver's licenses. Now, we have a bill that will give millions of illegals a path to citizenship.