Rekjalhew

May 22, 2006

Why Senate Republicans Won’t Stop Illegal Immigration and Favor Amnesty

by @ 12:01 am. Filed under Business, Illegal Aliens, Nuts on Parade, Unions Destroying America

The bottom line is that Senators and political parties feel they need more money to run a state-wide campaign, than US House members who run in smaller districts. So Senators and parties cater more to big business, because big business has big money to help fund their campaigns. Big business, labor unions and big religious players like leaders in the Catholic church are all for illegal immigration, amnesty and anything else that will boost their numbers. For big business it’s all about getting cheap labor. For labor unions it’s all about growing the size of their union base. For big religious players in the Catholic church, it’s all about allowing as many supporters of the Catholic church in as possible.

Redstate.com has all the pertinent details. Those details come from this Investor’s Business Daily article, that requires a subscription to read. (They do offer a free trial.) I did find another copy of the article on the Americans for Legal Immigration message board. That thread also has a CNN transcript with other details.

This is why the House had a bill in HR 4437, that mirrored the views of Americans overall. But we saw the effort to honestly end illegal immigration shot down in the US Senate, because GOP leaders and Republican Senators cut a back-room deal. The side that wanted to stand up against illegal immigration in the Senate was told to stand down by those who favor illegal immigration and amnesty programs.


At their winter meeting in Washington, D.C., RNC members approved a pro-Bush plan resolution by Texas committeeman Bill Crocker. That forced the withdrawal of a resolution against the plan proposed by Arizona committeeman Randy Pullen.

GOP leaders, including Vice President Dick Cheney, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, lobbied hard for the Crocker resolution and against the efforts of immigration critics.

The Crocker resolution is the McCain-Kennedy bill.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT – Aired January 20, 2006 – 18:00 ET


SYLVESTER: The Republican leadership succeeded beating back Pullen’s attempt to split from the White House. Even though the public vote was not close, behind closed doors there is a deeper conflict between pro-business Republicans and anti-illegal immigration Republicans.

DAN STEIN, FAIR: It’s tearing the Republican Party apart, because if the president and Karl Rove insist on jamming a big guest worker program through Congress, I predict it’s going to cost Republicans the majority.

SYLVESTER: At the RNC committee level, there was a more vigorous debate. Pullen says that was the big fight that he lost.

PULLEN: You know, it’s the old saying, sometimes you’re the bug and sometimes you’re the windshield. Well, this time, I was the bug.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER:
RNC chair Ken Mehlman says the debate process was a fair one, but Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, who has been very outspoken against the guest worker program, responded, saying, “The RNC’s failure to pass a get-tough border security resolution shows the extent to which the White House will use strong-arm tactics to secure an amnesty.” And Representatives Tancredo expects that there will be one heck of a fight when immigration reform is debated in the Senate — Lou.

DOBBS: It also shows that the absolute obedience of the Republican National Committee to corporate interests and those for open borders and not border security, and for the continued ignorance and indifference to immigration laws will continue. And the peril that puts the House of Representatives in, it will be — it’s generally speculated significant come November.

Now don’t go thinking the Democrats would act any differently. While Republicans are stereotyped as cutting deals like this, Democrats do the exact same thing! This is why you must vote based on what a candidate is about and not their party affiliation.

Hat tip reader rightonpeachtree.

Me and rightonpeachtree have been discussing how to address big business’ influence over Senators. We both like the idea of term limits, but how would you ever get that approved? Nice idea, hard to get it done, but we’ve got to push for it.

I have also thought of another means of ensuring US Senators work in the best interests of the state they represent, instead of some big money interest group. I think Alan Keyes may have had a point when he mentioned that our means of selecting a Senator may not be best. Maybe we should consider going back to the way the founders intended that be done?

From: US Constitution Article 1, Section 3

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Once upon a time in America, each state’s legislature voted for US Senators. So there was no statewide vote by the people. Which meant senatorial candidates did not need to run big money campaigns across an entire state. State legislatures had to answer to the people if they picked a bad Senator.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed that.

From: Ammendment XVII

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

But before the 17th Amendment, there were similar issues.

FindLaw.com Annotations: U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment (emphasis added)

The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators. As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.

So even if the 17 Amendment went away, big business would still know how to influence the Senate. Not to mention taking an even stronger hand in state legislatures. So term limits seem like the best available option.

Also before the 17 Amendment, there were other terrible issues.


Very shortly after ratification it was established that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the United States. Consistent with this view, federal courts declared that when local party authorities, acting pursuant to regulations prescribed by a party’s state executive committee, refused to permit an African American, on account of his race, to vote in a primary to select candidates for the office of U.S. Senator, they deprived him of a right secured to him by the Constitution and laws, in violation of this Amendment.

But in the absence of the 17th Amendment, I feel that the same argument could have been made using Article. I, Section 2 of the Constitution. Which contains in part the following:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

OK, so the short version is that parties and Senators are bought and paid for. Let’s press for term limits and pray for the best. In the mean time, vote the bums out that support illegal immigration and amnesty. Vote for candidates that really do express your views regardless of party and regardless of fear tactics used, to try and keep voting for people based on party affiliation.



3 Responses to “Why Senate Republicans Won’t Stop Illegal Immigration and Favor Amnesty”

  1. Independent Conservative Says:

    If More People in Congress Were Like Ted Poe (Audio)

    Then we would have already secured our borders and moved on to other issues. Many who want the borders secured have been wondering who has been speaking on their behalf? It seems the media loves to highlight politicians, that are advocates of amnest…

  2. Independent Conservative Says:

    Laura Ingraham Tells Ken Mehlman His Immigration Policy (Amnesty) is a Loser (Audio)

    With the news of Karl Rove not facing any charges, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman did the radio/TV rounds yesterday. In the AM he spoke with Laura Ingraham. Given Mehlman is one of the chief architects behind the Senate’s amnesty program I was inter…

  3. Independent Conservative Says:

    Sean Hannity and Patrick J. Buchanan Discuss Illegal Immigration and Republicans Inability to Properly Address the Issue (Audio)

    On last Friday’s Sean Hannity Show, Hannity spoke with Patrick J. Buchanan, author of the latest hot seller about illegal immigration, titled State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. It was a 2 part interview and …

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2022 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

85 queries. 0.242 seconds