Thread: Pence Again

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15339

Pence's Plan: A 'Comprehensive' Approach You Can Take Seriously

by Brian T. Johnson
Posted Jun 08, 2006

It used to be, that when President Bush prepared to make a major move on domestic policy, conservatives awaited the proposal with hopeful anticipation. Six years into his presidency, we are now painfully aware that Mr. Bush eschews limited government and other bedrock conservative principles, and instead look to leaders like Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) -- true sons of the Republican Revolution -- for any hope of good government.

For this reason was Mac Johnson's categorical rejection of Rep. Pence's immigration plan less than 24 hours after its unveiling so remarkable. Within several days, border hawks from Rush Limbaugh to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) weighed in with reactions ranging from healthy skepticism to implicit accusations of betrayal. Johnson went so far as to state that Pence's Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is dangerous precisely because it is offered by a genuine conservative, and therefore less likely to be subjected to scrutiny or attack than similar plans offered by liberal senators like Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid.

It's true that conservatives lend greater credibility up front to a champion from their own ranks, and for good reason. Pence's growing stature among movement conservatives -- from the Beltway to the Blogosphere to Back Home -- stems from the very fact that his legislative record purely reflects his stated principles. To recognize the damnable political realities that make meaningful border control difficult to achieve is not a sign of selling out, it's a sign of sanity. The challenge is to combine real border security, national sovereignty, the rule of law and the American Dream with real political feasibility. Not politically feasible in the RINO sort of way, exempli gratia the path of least resistance to Senate Democrats, but in the way genuinely good legislation can be pushed through with the right combination of congressional maneuvering and direct appeals to the American public. As such, the Pence plan is perhaps the only "comprehensive" plan one can, and should, take seriously.

What did Pence propose in his lecture last week at the Heritage Foundation that sparked unrest from a handful of usual allies? Calling his offer the "real rational middle ground," the Republican Study Committee chairman offered a plan emphasizing border security, denial of amnesty, a temporary guest-worker program and tough enforcement of immigration and employment laws. Johnson rushes to denounce the real rational middle as the ground of moderates, but consider that Pence's middle has always been principled conservatism.

Staking out strategic ground in any reconciliation with a then soon-to-be-passed Senate plan, Pence leads with a declaration that "we are far from reaching the kind of compromise that would make a legislative outcome possible in this session of Congress." With the Senate plan passing with bipartisan support and the favor of the president, this is an essential marker as pressure inevitably begins to mount on House Republican conferees to accept the most intolerable provisions of the package. The claim not only reiterates the House's distinct preferences on the issue, but creates leverage through its implication that the House is prepared to delay final adoption of a bill until after this session in order to get its key provisions enshrined in law.

The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act offers a positive alternative to the instant, permanent pardon for illegals presently in the country, relatively automatic path to citizenship and watered down border enforcement of the Senate bill. Instead, it emphasizes the superior border-protection elements of H.R. 4437 while offering closely monitored temporary worker status to illegal immigrants willing to return home and immigrate the right way: with permission and according to the law. The Act is admittedly gracious in this regard to those who entered illegally; indeed after twenty years tolerating and even promoting rampant lawlessness our elected, self-representative government now requires a limited degree of flexibility in solving the problem and ending permanently ending the untenable circumstances that led us here.

To hastily dismiss a return-and-re-immigrate concept as "amnesty-for-tourism," is to ignore the profoundly different effect self-deportation and lawful re-entry would have on future waves of would-be illegal immigrants. While the Senate plan promises to increase illegal immigration with the promise of amnesty upon arrival, there is comparatively little incentive to sneak into the country if you know you will have to return home just to have a shot at legalization. Reduction in illegal immigration is not merely a goal in and of itself, but isolates those who would still attempt to gain access to the homeland without our knowledge and permission, thereby enhancing an ability to defend the border against al Qaeda types and other undesirables.

The psychological effect of returning to one's country of origin and immigrating to the United States of America under the auspices of the law for the first time would be a powerful one. The ennobling experience of acknowledging and literally reversing one's wrongful action in order to do it the right way would offer immigrant workers a pristine respect and appreciation for their new home country and its laws. With the accompanying welcome into open society, this strategy would tangibly diminish one of the greatest problems associated with a mass illegal domestic population: the ghettoization of an entire ethnic and socioeconomic class, or the balkanization of America. Assimilation not only provides benefits to those who choose to Americanize -- as Pence's own Irish Catholic family did in the course of three short generations -- it is a real and precious asset that reaffirms and strengthens this Union based on shared ideals.

A frequent obstacle to sensible immigration and border security reform is the tendency of nearly every stakeholder to hold hostage the one supposedly agreed-upon necessity -- border security -- to their own narrow interests. The ransom demand is typically wholesale amnesty by the corporate right and cultural left, or downright economic protectionism and isolationism by the economic left and social right. Rather than take hostages, Pence's proposal outlines principles all conservatives agree on, including absolute border security and free markets (in this case, the labor market). It is in this sense that the Act represents the real rational middle ground, and a way forward.

To scrutinize a reform plan billed as "comprehensive" is not only fair but critically necessary. Conservatives are rightly skeptical of anything billed as such, because we know the historical record of such plans: concrete policy concessions in the form of amnesty to the anti-borders crowd, and little more than cheap rhetoric for the vast constituency of law-abiding, pro-borders Americans as the enforcement measures of the bills became ignored or outright violated by employers, federal agencies and state governments alike. The Pence approach withstands scrutiny with its concrete steps to ensure border security and actual teeth to enforce immigration and employment law. Calling the President's move to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border "not enough," the Pence plan mandates calls for more boots on the ground, 700 new miles of physical barriers, additional port of entry inspectors and increased deployment of technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles. Given the current nonexistent state of border security and the very real de-facto amnesty for illegals presently in effect, the net changes put into effect by the Pence plan are ones conservatives can universally rally around.

Not content to stand on a soapbox and offer principled, rhetorical jabs at the political establishment, the statesman from Indiana has proposed a plan that promises to move the debate over illegal immigration and broken borders forward -- and rightward. As the national debate continues its inevitable move towards a legislative resolution (that's what legislatures do, they legislate), the extent to which conservatives principles shape the outcome of that debate rests squarely on the shoulders of sane and serious conservatives: sane enough to recognize reality -- serious enough to do something about it.

I read Pence's plan weeks ago and recognized it for what it is: a stealth PLAN B set- up to insure that slave labor continues, at the cost to the Citizens of the US.
Oh, I'm sure it's part of the Rockefeller Republicans plan to have a fall back plan.
And OMG free Enterprise?! Outsourcing background checks to Private Corps.? Sh*t, my dad has been waiting for a security clearance for 3 years now from one of those independent contractors that the US gov. uses. Where's the transparency? Do any of you even know that the govt. already outsources background checks, and that it doesn't work? Did you know that it depends on gov't funding? And we all know how they manipulate gov't funding in order to manipulate the enforcement of law .

Also see

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=30915

The Pence bill would be another disaster. We'd be back here at square one in a few years but with a larger Latino bloc. demanding amnesty again and with an economy in shambles.
I'm not surprised that Newt did a flip flop. He reminds me of a slightly taller, and hetero (although he and Hannity do look like they are going to throw a lip-lock on each other sometimes) version of Truman Capote.
Just because we are experiencing boom times now ( if you believe the radio talk show buzz) doesn't mean that we will continue to have plenty of jobs.

I think that if an American employer has a job he cannot fill with an American he needs to take a look at the wage he is offering. Anyone who does arduous work for minimum wage or less is a wage slave and we don't need slavery in our country.

http://tancredo.house.gov/press/PRArtic ... ewsID=1198

Press Releases :: May 23, 2006

Will Adams, 202.226.6997


Tancredo Expresses Disappointment at Pence’s Immigration U-Turn

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chairman of the 97-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, expressed disappointment at Rep. Mike Pence’s policy shift on immigration reform. At a Heritage Foundation speech this afternoon, Pence presented what he called “a rational middle ground… between amnesty and mass deportation” that turns its back on a enforcement-first strategy, grants rogue employers amnesty, and would in effect reward illegal aliens for breaking the law.

“Mike Pence is making the same mistakes that the President has, using the straw man of mass deportations and redefining amnesty to suit his interests. Unfortunately, like the President, Pence is breaking from House conservatives who remain steadfast in their support of a security-first approach to immigration,” said Tancredo.

Pence’s plan would require illegal aliens to return to their home countries to apply for a new ‘W’ worker visa. Employers could hire as many foreign workers as they want under the W visa, and, in practice, they would likely hire the same workers who they employed illegally before. Pence wants to start the new foreign worker program before border security is even proved effective, which is the same strategy that was used in the 1986 amnesty. Twenty years later, the U.S. got amnesty as promised but no border security.

“Pence’s W visa is aptly named. It gives the Administration exactly what it wants: unlimited foreign workers first, enforcement later or never,” said Tancredo. “Pence’s plan is just the 1986 amnesty with a trip home tacked on.”

The Pence plan includes no prevailing wage standard for foreign workers—it simply relies on the good will of employers to “try to hire American workers” before offering jobs under the new foreign worker visa. In fact, almost all current visas require employers to offer the job to American workers before seeking foreign labor, but with no enforcement mechanism, the requirement is laughable.

“The House’s strategy in H.R. 4437 was to fix the illegal alien problem by enforcing the law. Over time, as illegal workers cannot obtain jobs, they go home because they have no other option open to them. Pence takes a much different approach: fix illegal behavior by legalizing it,” said Tancredo. “As a conservative and a friend of Mike Pence, I am baffled by his shift on immigration. I hope he reconsiders his position and returns to an enforcement-first position.”

###

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15116

Only Nixon Could Go to China, and Only Pence Could Sell Amnesty to the House

by Mac Johnson
Posted May 24, 2006

Yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence, whom I generally like and agree with, offered his personal plan for legalizing illegal aliens as "the guest-worker plan that conservatives should embrace." But it is not. There is very little about it that is substantially different from a dozen other plans, except that it is a conservative proposing the "compromise" in this case.

And that is precisely why I believe that Pence's plan is more dangerous than the other legalization schemes -- because it will not be subjected to the same level of skepticism and examination as a compromise produced by Senators Kennedy or McCain or Reid. It is thus more likely to be actually passed by the House in the name of "doing something" on immigration before voters boot its members from office for what they’ve already been doing on immigration. Pence’s position within the conservative movement has served to immunize the proposal from most attacks, but should it be so immune? You be the judge.

In a nutshell, the plan is to allow the 12 million immigration criminals already in America to become legal guest workers, and to remain in the country doing the proverbial jobs that "no American will do" (for the same low wages.) That's it. That's the big "outside the box" idea conservatives should allegedly embrace. Rep. Pence, however, claims that his idea is not like the others because of two important details.

One is that the guest worker bureaucracy that would “match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers” would be run by the private sector. Well, great. But letting businesses decide how many aliens they want to hire is pretty much the system we have now. Pence’s plan simply gives them a license to do so legally and gives the licensed foreign recruitment centers a mushy name, "Ellis Island Centers." It does offer the real benefit that aliens hired through such centers could be screened, were the government willing to do so. All proposed guest worker plans offer this advantage, however, including the Senate bill.

The second claimed innovation is to have the first guest workers processed through these centers be all the illegal aliens that are in the country now. They would be made legal, given a work visa, and be allowed to stay. Again, that is precisely the same goal as the Senate amnesty plan that conservatives have opposed so passionately. The only real difference is that the Senate not-an-amnesty requires only some immigration criminals to return to their home country with a guarantee of readmission before getting their legal reward, and Representative Pence’s not-an-amnesty requires all of them to return to their home country with a guarantee of readmission before getting their reward.

Now, perhaps I am dense. But if you give them a guarantee of readmission into the United States, what is the point of having them leave the country at all, other than creating a lot of business for Southwest Airlines?

The only real purpose of the amnesty-for-round-trip-tickets scheme is to allow Rep. Pence to claim that it is not an amnesty. Such a claim is only possible because Mr. Pence offers his own definition of amnesty, "Amnesty is allowing people whose first act in America was an illegal act to get right with the law without leaving the country." Mr. Pence, by contrast, would require that people whose first act in America was an illegal act would have to visit their relatives before they get right with the law. So you can see how that is not an amnesty. That’s the Christmas travel season, then an amnesty.

If this plan had been introduced by anybody else, it would have been justly bludgeoned to death by conservatives on day one. When one judges the plan, and not the man, it fails some basic tests. It’s an amnesty. And it is dishonest or naïve in that it calls the guest workers "temporary." As I have said before [link http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12206 ], does anybody really believe that such guests will ever be made to leave? If people do not have the stomach to eject them now, when they are entirely illegal and illegitimate, why are we to believe people will be willing to do so after they have been here legally for more than a decade and have kids in high school?

That’s the plan he proposes. The rest of his 4000 word speech was just the typical platitudes and vignettes that hover over this debate like so much sulfur-laden flatulence. And so I would like to take a quick diversion or two to address a few of the more common of these, because I am quite sick of them.

First, he intones his introduction with the obligatory inscription found on the base of the Statue of Liberty. You know, the guilt-inducing bit we always hear quoted right before someone proposes some mass immigration nonsense: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Let’s get one thing straight: this poem on the Statue of Liberty is not a law, it is not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence and it is not a national mission statement. It has never even been given the force of a law by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a damn poem, written by a private citizen for fund raising purposes and put on the Statue in a feel-good moment of nostalgia well after the Statue was erected. Using it as a guiding policy for our current political debate makes about as much sense as referring to Michael Jackson's "We Are the World" during a debate over the United Nations.

Also, while I'm on the subject, the Statue of Liberty does not celebrate immigration. That is revisionist crap. It was a kind, but unsolicited, gift from the French and celebrates Americans' new freedoms, acquired after we took our independence from England. So in that respect, it celebrates the fact that we got our own borders.

It became a symbol for immigrants because it was the most impressive landmark many saw as they arrived in America via Ellis Island. And Ellis Island was a screening center for aspiring legal immigrants. Those not qualifying for admission into America were forcibly detained there until they could be forcibly deported. That's why they chose an island on which to build the screening center --so that those who were told "NO, you may not enter our country" could not just run off and get a job for Tyson Chicken or, worse yet, run around spreading typhoid or syphilis or Marxism.

So if you want to make the Statue of Liberty a symbol for our true tradition of immigration, then perhaps it should read:

"Give me your qualified, healthy, and law-abiding newcomers in the numbers and occupational specialties I find most useful for the economic and demographic needs of the United States at this moment in history, and the rest of you can go someplace else. Good luck in Canada."

Please note that the above inspirational poem carries the same legal weight as the drippy, dreamy, internal propaganda gag-fest that is actually on the Statue which celebrates our borders and island detention facility. So let my poem guide national policy too.

Well, now that that is properly reclaimed for history. Let's move on to the final sidebar: Rep. Pence's claim that his proposal represents "the rational middle ground" -- an open-border Bushism that Pence uses nine times in his sales pitch, apparently in an effort to convince someone, possibly himself. The middle ground is no more inherently rational than any other position in a debate. If I think that 2+2=4 and Ted Kennedy thinks 2+2=6 (Big Dig Math), the middle ground would be to declare that 2+2=5. But the rational thing to do is to stay true to the facts. That's the beauty of being correct -- as opposed to being a moderate.

The current debate over what to do with immigration criminals is a similar binary situation. We are either going to make them legal or we are not. Any plan in which they are made legal, whether they travel home with a guarantee of readmission or pay a fee or do a little dance, is an amnesty. The details just amount to haggling over price. No immigration limit will be obeyed, no law will be feared, no guest worker will be temporary, no expired visa will be respected, and no end to this debate will occur until we resolve to begin deporting those that are not supposed to be here -- just like we did at Ellis Island, our beloved fortified island detention facility. That is not to say we have to have "mass deportations" over one long weekend. We can take our time and do it gradually.

But it has to be done. A reluctance to deport is what created our current massive problem and what drives otherwise intelligent and admirable men like Representative Mike Pence to come up with impractical and tortured amnesty-for-tourism schemes in search of an irrational middle ground that avoids the unpleasant necessity of deportation.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15459

But I'm Still Right About Pence's Plan

by Mac Johnson
Posted Jun 09, 2006

First let me thank Mr. Brian Johnson (no relation) for thoroughly reading my earlier criticism of Rep. Mike Pence’s not-an-amnesty immigration proposal, and believing it was important enough to dedicate a response to it.

Now let me respond to several of the points in Brian Johnson’s article.

1) I was wrong to reject Rep. Pence’s proposal so quickly, especially given his bona fides as a conservative legislator.

As the debate over late-term abortion shows, it is sometimes important to kill things quickly, lest they take on a life all their own. Rejecting Mr. Pence’s misguided proposal was a similar case. I stayed up writing way past my bedtime the day Mr. Pence launched his public relations campaign specifically because I wanted to publicly reject the notion that Mr. Pence’s plan was “the conservative plan.”

It may be a plan by a conservative, but it is not a conservative plan. Good people sometimes do strange things during the heat of a debate they wish to bring to a premature close. And to borrow a phrase from our friends, the insane left wing kooks, “not in my name” did Mr. Pence speak. Also, unlike wine, cheese or catfish bait, Mr. Pence’s proposal seems unlikely to me to improve with age. It is what it is, and it’s bad.

2) More than any other proposal, Pence’s plan goes further toward bridging the gap between the liberal Senate immigration bill and the enforcement-first House immigration bill.

Much like the English Channel in 1942, some gaps are best left un-bridged. The negotiating position of the House of Representatives is NOT improved by Mr. Pence breaking ranks before the negotiations have even begun. Mr. Pence’s unsolicited and ill-timed Rodney King moment (“Can’t we all just get along?”) has made it much more likely that a bad bill, containing a de facto amnesty and a guest worker provision, will result. Mr. Pence, build back up this wall.

3) Mr. Pence’s plan to have immigration criminals briefly return home, with a guarantee of readmission, before receiving their guest worker amnesty is more than just a cheap political stunt, but will have real psychological effects on those aliens that choose to ride the trans-border merry-go-round.

If it’s psychological effects you’re after, try deportation without a guarantee of readmission. Punishment should feel bad. The amnesty for tourism scheme will just make immigration criminals feel good about finally possessing legally what they at first only stole. Giving a car thief the title to the car may give him pride of ownership, but who cares?

4) Mr. Pence’s plan is in tune with “political realities.”

See, I knew it was bad. More mischief has been facilitated in the name of “political realities” than in any other name, except “Kennedy.” Political realities gave us the Medicare prescription drug boondoggle, Bush’s record expansion of domestic spending, our current illegal immigration fiasco, a response to Hurricane Katrina that looked like Huey P. Long wrote the relief bill, and, oh yeah, Harriet Miers.

As the last example teaches, political reality is what we make of it. Sticking to your guns and being willing to take a fight to the bitter end often wins you more than quick compromise. If ever there was a case in which a fight to the end was merited, the immigration debate is it. We could lose our country in this debate. The original plan coming out of the Senate would have brought in hundreds of millions of new immigrants within just 20 years.

There is one point in Brian Johnson’s response that I wholeheartedly agree with, however: “the tendency of nearly every stakeholder to hold hostage the one supposedly agreed-upon necessity—border security—to their own narrow interests.”

It is time for this to end. And there is only one bill that proposes to increase security markedly, without entangling the security measures in debates over amnesty, or legal immigration quotas, or guest worker plans -- and that is H.R. 4437. This is the bill passed by the House that Mr. Pence seeks to compromise upon, by entangling it with other nonsense, such as a guest worker amnesty.

It would be better to pass no bill than to pass a bad bill. If some senators want to explain to people that they did not pass increased border security (H.R. 4437), because they wanted to continue to hold it hostage to pet projects and amnesty, then let them. Mr. Pence’s approach is not to issue an ultimatum that we can no longer hold border security hostage to other matters, but instead to simply try to negotiate a better ransom price.

Therefore, his bill, however well intentioned, remains wrong.

I went to Pence's website and read through his proposal. How can anyone in their right mind look at this as an alternative??
12 million get to vacation at home before making the permanent move?? And they can't come back if they don't have a job?? They all have jobs!!! What threat is that??
Ohhh and then there's the bit about not being a permanent temporary worker. Pence doesn't let them do that, he makes them become citizens!!! Great idea! What limits are there?? Oh, that's determined by the job market. Yea, right. We need an unlimited supply of slave labor as the companies that hire illegals don't want to pay an American a decent wage.
It's a wonder Tancredo didn't have a stroke after reading Pence's proposal.
I don't know how Pence could offer this with a straight face. I think our idiot president had something to do with this.
God help us!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50622

Tuesday, June 13, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stealth amnesty of Rep. Mike Pence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Patrick J. Buchanan



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Addressing a gathering of Hispanics last week, President Bush declared: "There are those here in Washington who say, 'Why don't we just find the folks and send them home.' That ain't gonna work."

Well, deportation certainly "ain't gonna work" if the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States refuses to enforce the law, as Bush has refused for five years.

But as is his custom, President Bush is attacking a straw man. Few in this debate call for creation of a national police to begin Palmer Raid roundups of nannies. The agreed-upon strategy for dealing with this crisis of Bush's creation is, in a word, attrition.


The crucial steps are these. Build a fence along the 2,000-mile border to stop the flood. End welfare benefits to illegal aliens, except emergency medical treatment. Vigorously prosecute employers who hire illegals. Cease granting automatic citizenship to "anchor babies" of illegals who sneak across the border to have them. Take care of mother and child; then put them on a bus back home.

Turn off the magnets, and the illegals will not come. Cut off the benefits, and they will not stay. In five years, the crisis will be over.

As this is what America wants, the Bush-Kennedy bill that came out of the Senate – providing amnesty to almost all the 12 million to 20 million illegals here and a blanket pardon for the scofflaw businesses that have hired them – is dead. It simply cannot pass the House.

The report by Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector, who estimated the Senate bill could mean 66 million more immigrants in the next 20 years, delivered the coup de grace.

But because the Senate bill cannot pass the House does not mean Bush, the ethnic lobbies and corporate America have given up.

Which brings us to the Pence plan, named for the conservative congressman from Indiana who heads the House Republican Conference and was the 2005 Man of the Year to the conservative Human Events weekly.

In "The Godfather," Don Corleone warns his son Michael that, after he dies, someone inside the family will come to Michael with an offer of peace from the Barzinis, who murdered Michael's brother. Whoever brings you the offer, Don Corleone warns his son, will have betrayed you. Tessio, lifetime friend and high-ranking captain of the Corleones, comes to Michael with Barzini's offer. A mistake.

Rep. Mike Pence appears to have accepted the Tessio role in the great immigration battle of 2006.

As Bush backs away from the Senate bill ("we don't have to choose between the extremes – there's a rational middle ground"), Pence uses identical rhetoric to describe his plan, now being hailed by Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, David Keene of the American Conservative Union and The American Spectator. It looks like the fix is in.

Pence calls his plan a "middle ground" proposal, a "no amnesty immigration reform" in which "securing our border is the first step."

This is fraudulent. At the heart of the Pence plan is amnesty. Illegal aliens here return to Mexico for one week with an assurance they can come back to their jobs. Down there, they visit "Ellis Island Centers" to register as "guest workers" and return with "work permits." The illegal are made legal and put on a path to citizenship.

The only difference between the Pence plan and the Kennedy-Bush amnesty is the one-week vacation employers would happily fund, as it means blanket amnesty for them as well as their illegal hires.

What makes the Pence plan insidious is that Mike Pence has an unimpeachable pedigree. What makes his plan a grave problem is that even Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the Horatius at the Bridge in this battle, is speaking favorably of it.

Why is Pence proposing capitulation at the moment Americans are looking to the Republican House as their last, best hope to kill the Senate amnesty, end the "guest-worker" scam and get control of America's borders before we lose our country?

Answer: The forces in Washington pushing for an amnesty deal, by whatever name, are immense – the White House, the ethnic lobbies, the Big Media, mainstream churches, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the "conservative" front groups and foundations they finance, and corporate contributors to congressmen who fear law enforcement. Then there is a Democratic Party that voted 10-to-one in the Senate for amnesty, as it looks to legalized aliens as future voters to bury the conservative cause forever in this city.

Anyone who thinks the establishment has given up because it has lost the country does not know it. Behind closed doors, deals are even now being discussed for a "compromise" bill that will give GOP congressmen cover for selling out the cause for which they bravely voted in December.

If the House buys the Pence plan, it will be the end of Republican control of the House in November and the end of Mike Pence as a rising star of the GOP. But that will not matter. For the consequences for the country will be irremediable and infinitely worse.

If it does not impose the penalty for the laws that were broken then it is an amnesty. No penalty imposed for illegal imigration. No penalty imposed for tax evasion. No penalty imposed for falcifying documents. No penalties for Social Security fraud.

I guess everyone who has been waiting in line to immigrate lawfully will just need to step aside because they do not have a job waiting for them. While we are at it lets take jobs away from the poor, push the minimum wage lower and make the American dream far from reachable by our underprivileged citizens.

Enforcement only will vacate jobs for the poor and needy. We can create a job surplus which will encurage wage competition to attract non-skilled American workers to fill the labor void. Big business will pay more and pass the cost on to the American people. Higher wages to legal workers will produce higher tax revenu. Couple this with the elimination of illegals collecting social benifits and a migration of welfare recipients to the workforce and our government should have a surplus. This surplus could be used to guarantee the viability of Social Security in its time of need.

AI_BOT