Thread: Grassley admits amnesty mistake

Grassley admits amnesty mistake
By Stephen Dinan
June 22, 2007

Sen. Charles. E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who supported a 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens, in a letter to colleagues yesterday wrote: "Amnesties just don't work."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
It's not often a politician admits to making a mistake, but that's exactly what Sen. Charles E. Grassley says he did when he voted for the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens.

Twenty-one years later he has become one of the most steadfast opponents of amnesty and the strongest critic of the federal government's ability to handle a new legalization program.

"I was fooled once, and history has taught me a valuable lesson. Amnesties just don't work," the Iowa Republican wrote in a letter to his colleagues yesterday, telling them he is fulfilling a "duty to warn you of the mistakes" of passing yet another bill that would put illegal aliens on the path to citizenship — this time for an estimated 12 million to 20 million, far more than the 3 million from 1986.

This time around he has also become one of the new Senate bill's most dangerous foes, offering an amendment that threatens to splinter the fragile "grand bargain" underlying the bill. His proposal would remove some of the obligations of businesses to check the legal status of their workers, and limit immigration authorities' ability to obtain information from other government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service.

That amendment, which passed in a similar form during last year's debate, prompted a worried letter from the Bush administration vigorously opposing it. But with supporters ranging from businesses to the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union, it will be difficult to oppose.

The bill, written in secret by a small group of senators and the Bush administration, will return to the Senate floor next week, after collapsing two weeks ago as both Democrats and Republicans demanded more time to pass amendments.

Mr. Grassley's amendment is just one of approximately two dozen amendments the Senate is expected to vote on, and several others could also cause the deal problems: A proposal to walk back from the provisions of the Real ID Act, which passed two years ago and set a federal standard for state-issued identification, which the Bush administration says are needed for the bill to work; an amendment to require illegal aliens to show roots to be eligible for the path to citizenship; and an outright ban on illegal aliens from ever obtaining a path to citizenship, though they would still be eligible for temporary legal status.

Mr. Grassley said he thought he had agreed with the secret negotiators to protect IRS data. But when the bill was introduced, his provisions were gone.
Asked whether he was worried his amendment would be a deal-breaker, he said that was a problem for the negotiators.

"The deal break was when I left the rump sessions they were having back there in April or early May," Mr. Grassley told reporters yesterday. "I thought I had a compromise on the table, and when the final document comes out it puts every taxpayer in this country's privacy in jeopardy."

Mr. Grassley said 21 other members of the Senate were also in the chamber in 1986, when the amnesty bill passed 63-24. It passed the House on a 238-173 vote.

Of those, 15 voted for the bill, five voted against it and another, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, didn't vote but supported it, according to the 1986 Congressional Quarterly Almanac. The "no" votes were Republican Sens. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, and Democratic Sens. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

That law continues to cast a shadow over this year's debate, with those supporting the new bill arguing it is not an amnesty and that it tries to avoid the mistakes of the 1986 bill.

Mr. Kennedy said he wouldn't talk about specific amendments yesterday, but said those who are focused only on enforcement miss the issue of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here.

"For those that have the bumper-sticker solution, paste it somewhere else. We stand for families," Mr. Kennedy said.

Meanwhile, the bill continues to sputter, with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, indicating yesterday she is opposed to it, even though the grand bargainers sought to win her support by letting her offer an amendment.

The Grassley amendment puts many of those who support the bill in a bind — not least because it passed last year, 59-39, garnering the votes of seven of the eight senators left in the original "grand bargain" — Democratic Sens. Ken Salazar of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Mr. Kennedy, and Republican Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

To preserve the bargain, they will have to vote against the amendment this time.

The Bush administration is worried.

In a letter to Mr. Grassley and two co-sponsors, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Barack Obama of Illinois, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said passing the amendment would punch a hole in the verification system his department has written into the bill and would end up punishing immigration authorities by subtracting money as a penalty when DHS makes a mistake.

Mr. Chertoff said by limiting employee checks only to new hires, it would provide "job security" for criminal illegal aliens who could stay put in their current job and never be discovered. The secretary also said the amendment would undo the information-sharing between DHS and Social Security or the IRS that is needed to weed out fraud.

It is turning into a testy exchange, with Mr. Grassley and his allies writing a response Wednesday that accused Mr. Chertoff of distortions, and the secretary responding with a letter last night saying the senators' amendment threatens the entire new framework for workplace enforcement.

"Your amendment will perpetuate the kinds of obstacles that have burdened effective enforcement of immigration law at the work site since 1986," Mr. Chertoff wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... 20099/1002

I guess I'm confused here. Seems as though Grassley is opposed to the bill, at least partially, or primarily because of amnesty but his amendment loosens employer/workplace enforcement. So if his amendment passes and, god forbid, S. 1369 passes, employer/workplace enforcement is a sham. Or, what I'm hoping here, is that Grassley is wise and cagey, and he knows the Dems favor lessened workplace enforcement so if they vote for it, the bill gets hammered by us (the citizens) and opponents have more ammunition or if they vote aginst his amendment the bleeding hearts scream how unfair it is to employers to really know if they are hiring citizens or not.

Maybe, his amendment is a cagey poison pill??? I think it might be.

How many times does this dog have to be hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper before he gets it? All this guy has learned in twenty years is how to cover his ass better.

zeezil wrote:

I guess I'm confused here. Seems as though Grassley is opposed to the bill, at least partially, or primarily because of amnesty but his amendment loosens employer/workplace enforcement.

IMHO, seems like Grassley is big on issues he thinks intrudes on individual privacy. However, you may be right and this could possibly be an attempt at making the bill less palatable to some. I'm a little confused too.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... =0&thold=0

Well I am glad I am not the only one confused here . If anyone has the answer to this one please put your 2 cents in here





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET INVOLVED NOW! TIMES RUNNING OUT!!
.................................................. .................................................. .......
COME ON EVERYONE WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW! "BILL 1639" STOP IT !!
"JOIN OUR FOCUS CAMPAIGN"
HELP SAVE OUR COUNTRY FROM THIS INVASION! OK LOOKIE LOU'S YES YOU!!
join in on the CALLS, FAXES AND E-MAILS TO OUR SENATORS!!
"FOCUS CAMPAIGN" DAILY INSTRUCTIONS AND POSTING THREAD LINK BELOW!
Leave posts so we know what they are saying!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=70455
ALL CONTACT INFORMATION.....Senators, news, radio, ETC.
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=68216
Your contributions are welcome, help keep ALIPAC afloat and fighting!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=C ... page&pid=9