We have heard time and time again throughout the immigration debate that it’s better to do something than to do nothing at all. That is not true. Enacting legislation that is extremely flawed just for the sake of doing something is unacceptable and misguided – in short, it is typical Washington. Americans deserve better.
Not only that, but the bill actually weakens current law. Today during debate on the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) explained that the bill does nothing to strengthen our interior enforcement efforts.
Earlier today, during debate on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, some Senators went to great lengths to make this complex amendment to an already complex bill seem simple. They want us to believe all the Senators have had plenty of time to read and carefully consider the amendment.
It’s just not true.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) proclaimed, “This amendment was 119 pages long.” In reality, when the amendment was included in the underlying bill (which itself was changed substantially), it ballooned to 1,200 pages. What’s more, he boldly but erroneously asserted, “What this amendment does is put in a much stronger border security regime… This will significantly reduce the amount of illegal immigration we have in this nation.”
But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said:
We have seen this play before. It is reminiscent of Obamacare. Yet another bill that we were told ‘we have to pass it to see what is 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.
Putting amnesty in an “immigration reform” bill precludes the possibility of it being good for America; amnesty is simply bad for America. No specific amendment, no rhetoric, no emotional plea and no arbitrary number of votes can change that.
Unfortunately, according to CQ Roll Call (sub. req’d), some Senate Republicans believe a certain number of votes is all it takes:
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a number of proposed amendments that they say could create enough momentum for the immigration bill to pass the Senate with more than 70 votes, a mark of support they say would improve the legislation’s chances in the House.
Republicans are working on amendments related to border security, employment verification, public benefits for undocumented immigrants and other issues and hope to introduce it within the next few days.
Over the past couple days, the immigration spotlight shifted to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). The question everyone in Washington is asking is whether Speaker Boehner would bring a comprehensive immigration reform plan to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; in other words, would he violate the Hastert rule for the fifth time in 2013.
National Review has taken a thorough look at the Gang of Eight amnesty bill and concluded that it is fundamentally flawed. It does not serve our economic or national security interests, and it would create a “permanent underclass of foreign workers.”
It is painful to watch Marco Rubio’s maneuverings on immigration. He is refusing to say whether he will vote “yes” on his own Gang of Eight bill after spending months drafting, defending, and helping shepherd it to the floor. He has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the “toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States” (which is what his website still says). At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95–96 percent perfect.
This is all very confusing, but perhaps we can help the senator get his story straight: He should vote against the bill. It is an amnesty-first, enforcement-maybe program drawn up mainly to reflect the priorities of 11 million citizens of other countries rather than the concerns of more than 300 million citizens of the United States.
[T]he fines for illegal immigrants contemplated by the Gang of Eight can, under the current bill, be waived by DHS, and the collection of unpaid taxes applies only to levies already assessed by our dear friends at the IRS. The main security provisions of the legislation require only that DHS draw up a plan for security. (That is classic Washington: a plan to have a plan.)
The bill is full of flaws, but the article identifies the central or fundamental flaw, which is that “legalization of millions of illegal immigrants happens first, immediately and irreversibly.” The bill is wrong “in its fundamental architecture.”