From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date: Monday 30ARP07 1 a.m. EDT


Will your Senator vote again AGAINST amnesty? Don't be too sure

DEAR FRIENDS WHOSE SENATOR(s) VOTED AGAINST AMNESTY LAST YEAR,

Do you know whether your Senators will stand this week with the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who will be marching in the streets on May Day -- or will they stand with the American people?

If you respond to this Alert and call the Senator(s) from your state on the list below, you are likely to hear something like this:

"Where are you getting your information? Look at the Senator's record. He has always been against amnesty. He isn't going to vote for an amnesty now."

But I am sending this to you to warn you that there is an extremely strong movement among formerly anti-amnesty Republican Senators to support a different kind of amnesty this year.

We are picking up on some very tricky word games.

If you haven't gotten a straight answer to the questions I list below, there is a good chance that your formerly anti-amnesty Senator is seriously considering supporting an amnesty this spring.

YOUR PHONE CALLS TODAY AND THIS WEEK ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

SENATE SWITCHBOARD:
202-224-3121

I'm sending this to those of you in the states represented by the following Senators who voted against the S.2611 amnesty that passed the Senate last year.

In a broad sense, the list below is of the good guys in the Senate. Our only chance at stopping the amnesty there is for these to hold. We can't lose any of them.

But as I explain later, most of them are on the verge of slipping to the other side. Our closest, most trusted allies in the Senate are telling us that at this moment we can't count on more than 8 of these sticking with us and voting against a compromise amnesty that would have the support of the White House, Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Kennedy (D-MA).

It is important that you read this Alert carefully before you call. (You may even want to look up their grades first so you'll be familiar with all the good things these Senators have done in the past.) You don't want to insult these Senators who have done a decent to excellent job on our issues in the past.

But you cannot let these Senators slip into amnesty land because you failed to warn them.

VOTED AGAINST THE S. 2611 AMNESTY IN 2007

Alexander,Lamar (TN)
Allard,Wayne (CO)
Bond,Kit (MO)

Bunning,Jim (KY)
Burr,Richard (NC)
Byrd, Robert (WV)
Chambliss,Saxby (GA)

Coburn,Tom (OK)
Cochran,Thad (MS)
Cornyn,John (TX)

Crapo,Michael (ID)
DeMint,James (SC)
Dole,Elizabeth (NC)
Dorgan, Byron (ND)

Ensign,John (NV)
Enzi,Michael (WY)
Grassley,Charles (IA)

Hatch,Orrin (UT)
Hutchison,Kay Bailey (TX)
Inhofe,James (OK)

Isakson,Johnny (GA)
Kyl,Jon (AZ)
Lott,Trent (MS)
Nelson, Ben (NE)

Roberts,Pat (KS)
Sessions,Jeff (AL)
Shelby,Richard (AL)
Stabenow, Debbie (MI)

Sununu,John (NH)
Thomas,Craig (WY)
Thune,John (SD)
Vitter,David (LA)

Perhaps the most important information I can give you about why the Senators above are in danger of becoming amnesty supporters is the Associated Press Story below. It explains how Sen. Kyl, who has been one of the strong leaders against amnesty in the past, has become Pres. Bush's chief partner in trying to obtain an amnesty this year.

If Kyl switches, he could easily take a dozen or more of the above list with him.

Yet, nearly every one of those offices will tell you that their Senator is taking one of the following positions:


"OPPOSED TO ANY AMNESTY." Don't trust anybody who only talks about "amnesty." Nearly every amnesty supporter has persuaded him/herself that the rewards they are granting illegal aliens do not amount to an amnesty. They have come up with all kinds of tortured definitions in which almost nothing could be called amnesty.


"OPPOSED TO A BLANKET AMNESTY." That just means that they are opposed to an amnesty that would fail to weed out criminals and that wouldn't charge people a fine. But almost anybody who uses that term is supporting an amnesty for 95% of the illegal aliens.


"OPPOSED TO ANY IMMEDIATE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP." If they say this, that means they are supporting the President's new amnesty that would start with Z Visas and might take 17 years before an illegal alien gets citizenship. But they would immediately be legalized for work and residence and almost none would ever have to leave, under the new Bush plan.


"OPPOSED TO ANY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP." This is better. But we know for a fact that many of the Senators using this language are reserving the possiblity that they will support legislation that would allow illegal aliens to live and work here legally for the rest of their lives -- just without the chance for citizenship.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that the Senators above necessarily have made a decision or even want to go with one of these somewhat watered down amnesty proposals. They are conflicted because many of them think they don't have other good options. Phone calls from constituents can really help these Senators think straight.

You may want to re-read Rosemary Jenks' recent congressional testimony that notes that anything that allows a person to keep what they came to steal (legal residency and a job) is amnesty.

You will want to ask these questions of the Senators' staffs, if you are to learn whether they are truly pledging not to support an amnesty:


Do you oppose giving illegal aliens the legal right to remain in this country and to work legally?


Do you support taking away the jobs magnet for illegal immigration and fully enforcing the immigration laws already on the books so that the illegal population will voluntarily go home over time? (ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT & SELF-DEPORTATION)
It is also very important that these staffers hear this very clear statement:

"What the country needs is immigration REDUCTIONS. I'm opposed to any effort that would increase immigration."

Many of the Senators on this list are actively discussing right now the possibility of increasing immigration in one way or another even though legal immigration already is four times higher than the traditional average and than it was as recently as the 1960s.

The Senator to whom they look more than anybody else is Sen. Kyl (R-AZ).

Every news source -- and all of our sources inside the Republican offices of the Senate -- tell us that Sen. Kyl is walking the fence right now. Some days, he is said to be vigorously working with Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) for the amnesty. But on other days, he is said to be frustrated and even disgusted with Sen. Kennedy's negotiating style and ready to go back to opposing a "comprehensive" amnesty bill.

The Associated Press story below contains some ambiguities upon which I will comment a little later. I cannot tell you exactly what Sen. Kyl is doing or why he is doing it.

We at NumbersUSA agree with the article that Sen. Kyl could ensure an amnesty will pass both the Senate and House this spring if he is willing to sign on to one of the compromises.

Sen. Kyl and his staff have not publicly indicated their support for any amnesty.

But when the White House released its Power Point presentation of its new comprehensive amnesty proposal last month, it indicated that the Republican Senators with whom the President had been negotiating (Kyl was the leader) were supportive. The Power Point specifically said that most illegal aliens would eventually get permanent residence and citizenship under that plan.

Here is the AP story (my comments are interspersed in black):

Arizona Senator Seeks Immigration Deal
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press
April 25, 2007

WASHINGTON — In just a year, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona has transformed from determined opponent of a bipartisan immigration overhaul plan to a key player in President Bush's efforts to enact one.

The turnabout for Kyl _ the No. 3 Republican in the Senate and one of his party's steadiest conservatives _ illustrates how dramatically the complex debate has shifted in the wake of the 2006 elections.

A year ago Kyl was in the midst of a tough re-election race in a border state racked by strong feelings about immigration. He was adamantly opposed to a Senate-passed plan that allowed illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and created a guest worker program for new arrivals. He called it "critically flawed" and said it put the interests of illegal immigrants before those of American workers.

Now, Kyl is spending hours virtually each afternoon cloistered in a Senate office with administration officials and Democrats, hard at work on just such a measure.

A discussion draft floated by the White House recently proposed giving the nation's roughly 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship _ albeit a much tougher one than last year's plan _ though Kyl and others have called it amnesty.

His new role in the efforts to strike a bipartisan compromise is heartening to the White House and many Republicans, who view Kyl as essentially a proxy for what most in the party consider tolerable on immigration. But it is deeply disturbing to some liberals. They see Kyl's involvement as an impediment to compromise and a sign that Republicans will insist on a more hardline approach.

Sen. Kyl's handiwork is all over the White House proposal which (as we stated when it first was leaked) has perhaps 85% of the necessary tougher enforcement measures we seek and puts an end to chain migration and the visa lottery. However, those good points do not outweight the fact that the plan would raise legal immigration from a million a year to 1.4 million and amnesty the 12-20 million illegals already here.

Sen. Kennedy and the open borders lobbies have reacted to this plan in horror and indicated that they would not accept such tough enforcement against illegal immigration in the future -- or give up the chain migration that has already quadrupled annual legal immigration from the historic average of 250,000 a year.

Is Sen. Kyl just playing an incredibly shrewd (and dangerous) chess game in which he agrees to a comprehensive amnesty that he believes Sen. Kennedy will never accept? What if Sen. Kyl has persuaded the Republican Senators who last year voted for the S. 2611 amnesty to insist on a consensus amnesty like this one. If they agree to stand with Kyl and not budge any farther, perhaps they would deny their YES votes to the more radical amnesty that would come to the floor. If fewer than 16 GOP Senators vote to end debate on the amnesty bill that comes to the floor, it is likely that bill will die.

If this is what Sen. Kyl is doing, perhaps what he most needs to hear is that he must not budge one inch from the enforcement measures and the chain migration elimination of the White House Power Point plan.

Kyl's presence is equally worrisome to some conservative lawmakers and activists, who fear that if the influential Arizonan embraces a more permissive immigration plan, he could bring many others with him.

Kyl says his position hasn't changed since last year, when he sought unsuccessfully to toughen the 2006 measure and at one point warned its supporters that American workers would someday demand to know, "How could you have let this happen?"

With no election pressures this year, he argues that there's room for a more conservative immigration measure.

"People were not in a negotiating mood last year. There wasn't time. Everything was political, and it was very difficult to get anyone to even think about making compromises," Kyl said in a brief interview. "We have a chance to make it better than it was last year."

This is a very discouraging quote. It indicates that Sen. Kyl's opposition to amnesty in the past has just been that it didn't have enough enforcement for the future. It seems to indicate that he has always thought it a good idea to reward illegal immigration with permanent residency and jobs.

This sort of thinking is totally unacceptable. If Sen. Kyl thinks illegal immigration is harmful and needs strong enforcement to stop it in the future, then allowing 12-20 million illegal aliens to stay has to be just as harmful.

Why would he saddle taxpayers with the gigantic costs of keeping the illegals in the state? The Heritage Foundation has found that most households headed by illegal aliens are costing governments about $18,000 more in social services and physical infrastructure than the illegals are paying in taxes. EVERY YEAR!

The amnesties that Sen. Kyl seems to be considering would make that taxpayer subsidy permanent.

Kyl and a majority of Republicans ultimately broke with Bush to vote against the bill that the Senate passed last May. It died in the House, where GOP conservatives instead pushed tough border-security measures.

Now Kyl says his goal is to "create a bill that is more in tune with a majority of the Republicans in the Senate."

The White House draft circulated last month appears heavily influenced by Kyl and other conservatives whose support Bush sees as vital to a deal.

Illegal immigrants could stay in the U.S. and work after paying fines, but they would have to go home, endure long waits, and pay penalties as high as $10,000 to have a crack at citizenship. It would be more difficult for them to bring family members to the United States, and new temporary workers couldn't do that at all.

The $10,000 penalty is laughable. Most of these illegal aliens would cost the taxpayers $10,000 in the first seven months after they paid the fine. It looks like the illegal aliens would be paying $10,000 so they could receive perhaps a quarter-million dollars over the rest of their lifetime. What a deal!

With bipartisan bargaining kicking into high gear in recent days, Kyl and other Republicans have signaled they're open to a softer approach _ lower fines and shorter waits for illegal immigrants seeking a chance at citizenship, according to sources close to the negotiations.

Kyl would not comment on the details of the talks, but he sounded ready for compromise. "It hasn't been easy for any of us who have strongly held views on this to make some concessions, but everyone has made some concessions," he told reporters Tuesday.

While most national polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support an immigration overhaul that would allow those here illegally to stay, work and earn their way to legal status, Kyl's tough stance last year weighed heavily in his re-election race. An Associated Press exit poll found that voters who supported Kyl said they felt terrorism and illegal immigration were extremely important factors.

By the way, the AP and nearly every mainstream media organization is citing these polls which are bogus. The polls do not give Americans the choice of Attrition Through Enforcement, which is what the bi-partisan House-passed bill would have done. The polls only give people the choice between legalization and mass deportations, and the wording tends to really lead people to choose legalization. All polls that have offered people the third choice of Attrition Through Enforcement & Self-Deportation have found that to be the most popular choice.

Some Republican lawmakers and senior aides say they have seen a shift in Kyl's thinking since then, toward a greater willingness to find a bipartisan compromise. As chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the party's message arm, Kyl now sees more of a responsibility to build and broadcast a politically palatable GOP position on the issue, they said.

"He heard a lot in the election process that led him to understand that it was important to get something done, and I think he understood a little better about how many people felt really passionate about a solution to the problem," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., another player in the bipartisan talks.

Democrats and immigration rights activists are wary.

"Senator Kyl has been opposed to immigration reform for some time. He voted against the bills (last year), and the fact that he is now speaking for some group of Republican senators is not encouraging," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Charles Kamasaki of the nonpartisan Hispanic-American advocacy group La Raza said he's "hopeful but highly skeptical" about Kyl's involvement.

"The underlying assumption is that making a bill tougher and less workable is somehow going to make it more likely to pass. I think it's a dubious assumption," Kamasaki said.

END OF STORY

The comments from open-borders and Democratic leaders at the end are the most hopeful in the piece. If we are lucky, these forces will be so demanding and unyielding in their desire for rewards for past violators of immigration laws and for making it easier for future illegal aliens to come that it won't matter how much the Republicans are willing to sell out America on this issue, as long as they include some semblance of enforcement for the future.

But what a sad situation if that is our only hope. Wouldn't it be far better if Sen. Kyl and other anti-amnesty Senators adhered to firm principles and once again became supporters of Attrition Through Enforcement & Self-Deportation.

Yes, the electorate wants something to be done. But that doesn't mean the electorate believes that doing anything is better than doing nothing.

Enforcement is picking up already. More and more illegal aliens are buying their own bus and plane tickets and going home. Fewer illegal aliens appear to be crossing the border at the moment.

The trend is in the right direction.

Just think, nearly every time an illegal household moves back home, taxpayers save around $18,000 -- EVERY YEAR thereafter. Tell youR Senator that is the goal you wish him/her to seek.

THANKS,

--ROY
Burr and Dole will be hearing from me today!