Kill the Immigration Bill

                The Senate of the United States passed the immigration bill last month, and the U.S. House of Representatives is now discussing various aspects of immigration.  All we hear is that our immigration system is “broken” and must be fixed.  The system is not broken, but the enforcement of our present laws is “broken.”  If our current laws were enforced, we would not need a brand new law; we would need only some minor tweaking of the current laws if anything at all.

                William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, are two conservatives who rarely agree with each other about immigration; however, they both agree that the immigration bill passed by our Senate “is a comprehensive mistake.  House Republicans should kill it without reservation.”  The two men authored an article entitled “Kill the Bill” which explained why they think the bill is a terrible mistake. 

“There is no case for the bill, and certainly no urgency to pass it.  During the debate over immigration in 2006-07, Republican rhetoric at times had a flavor that communicated a hostility to immigrants as such.  That was a mistake, and it did political damage.  This time has been different.  The case against the bill has been as responsible as it has been damning.

“It’s become clear that you can be pro-immigrant and pro-immigration, and even favor legalization of the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here and increases in some categories of legal immigration – and vigorously oppose this bill.”

The authors listed the “fatal” deficiencies in the bill.  1) “It doesn’t solve the illegal-immigration problem” but is “riddled with exceptions, loopholes, and waivers.”  [This sounds like Obamacare!]  “The CBO looked at the bill and concluded that “about 7.5 million illegal immigrants here in ten years.”  2) “Everyone professes to agree that our system should be tilted toward high-skilled immigration, but the Gang of Eight bill unleashes a flood of additional low-skilled immigration.  The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers.”  Our nation does not need more poor people receiving entitlements!  3) “Finally, there is the sheer size of the bill and the hasty manner in which it was amended and passed.”

The authors elaborated:  “Conservatives have eloquently and convincingly made the case against bills like this during the Obama years.  Such bills reflect a mistaken belief in central planning and in practice become a stew of deals, payoffs, waivers, and special-interest breaks.  Why would House Republicans now sign off on this kind of lawmaking?  If you think Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are going swimmingly, you’ll love the Gang of Eight bill.  It’s the opposite of conservative reform, which simplifies and limits government, strengthens the rule of law, and empowers citizens. 

“There is no rush to act on immigration….”

The article concluded:  “House Republicans may wish to pass incremental changes to the system to show that they have their own solutions, even though such legislation is very unlikely to be taken up by the Senate.  Or they might not even bother, since Senate Democrats say such legislation would be dead on arrival.  In any case, House Republicans should make sure not to allow a conference with the Senate bill.  House Republicans can’t find any true common ground with that legislation.  Passing any version of the Gang of Eight’s bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing.  House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”

The Washington Post reported that Democrats are targeting Republicans in the House.  “If there is a vote on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship in the House, it will pass with a bipartisan majority.  If all but a handful of the House Democrats vote yes, and at least 20 Republicans from the list below come along, reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber.  Looking at the list of 99 House Republicans below, it’s clear that capturing those 20 or so Republican votes is well within reach.”

The “target list includes several different groups of Republicans.”  1) “Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents…..”  2) “Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts….” 3) “Republicans who understand the need for the Party to tackle immigration reform for its own future….”

Alaska’s own Representative Don Young is one of those Republicans that have been targeted.  Alaska’s numbers of Latino constituents is apparently “growing” and has reached the huge number of 5.50% of Alaskans.  Since both our Senators voted for the Senate immigration bill, Alaskans would be wise to contact Congressman Young and make sure he knows how you feel about the Senate bill.

The Heritage Foundation  listed ten problems with the Gang of Eight bill.  1) “Grants amnesty to 11.5 million illegal immigrants, encouraging more law-breaking in the future.”  2) “Border security `triggers.’ [The bill] authorizes billions of spending with no guarantee of border security.”  3) “Cost to taxpayers.  Trillions of dollars go to government services for those who get amnesty.”  4) “Spending.  [The bill] worsens our entitlement spending and debt crisis.”  5) “Bureaucracy expansion.  [There will be] more government offices, task forces, and commissions.”  6) “Sweeping powers for Homeland Security [are] hidden in the 1,000-page bill.”  7) “Unfair.  More than 4 million people are waiting to come to U.S. legally.  8) “Disregard for federalism.  [The bill] hinders states from meeting local needs.”  9) “Special interests and ear marks. [The bill contains] pork project and [is] a boon for lawyers.  10) “Fails on opportunity.  [The bill] fosters dependence on government.”

                There are many reasons why the Gang of Eight bill passed by the Senate should be killed by the House of Representatives.  We must let our representatives know that we do not like the bill and ask them to vote against it.