Thread: Sen. Sessions-posts today about repositioning on issue

Hey folks, got a small update re: Jeff Sessions.

I also was a little concerned about a couple of the posts I read today regarding Sen. Jeff Sessions and how he [reportedly] was considering guest-worker/amnesty legislation... So... I sent directly to Sen. Sessions chief of staff in DC and received the following reply:

"<PhredE>, no shift in position. Sen. Sessions still stands by the points he made last yeart and early this year re: the Kennedy/McCain immigration reform bill.

Good news is that things seem to be breaking our way on the issue up here but its still an uphill fight.

I plan to share your e-mail with the Senator and I know he appreciates your kind words and support.

RAD"

Just thought some of you might like to hear the reply.

Thank GOD!!!!

Thanks PhredE!

This is great news! We are all on pins and needles with Hazelton and this new shamnesty bill coming out!

Thanks PhredE!!!!!

no shift in position. Sen. Sessions still stands by the points he made last yeart and early this year re: the Kennedy/McCain immigration reform bill.

I wish I was as optimistic as you guys. I appreciate you posting this but ask them/him for clarification on where he stands specifically and exactly on the 12-20-30 million already here?

I will happily stand corrected and hope/pray he really is on our side but the above is not really an answer per se. It is an answer that is based on "assumptions' as to what Mr Sessions means by "no shift in position".

What I believe he is against is the wild anything goes that was being proposed by the Kennedy/McCain bill. Not only amnesty but encouraging new guest workers who also would have a pathway to citizenship. In addition to further loosening up of and an increase in certain visas. It was then extrapolated out for chain migration which came up with the wild potential numbers of new entrants.

This is the problem with words or phrases that are not always clearly defined. He was against what was being labeled "amnesty" as defined against the Kennedy/McCain bill. Just call me doubting Thomas...

Thanks guys.

Just a couple of notes to follow up:

1. Yes, I included the response verbatim to show the reply at face value.
While it sounds pretty encouraging on the surface, I did not want to imply that there is nothing to be concerned about (let's hope there isn't).

2. Practically speaking, if we think there is potential 'backsliding' which might take place, it might be a good time to zip 'em some supportive emails/calls to let him know that he is doing the right thing and to 'hang in there'. It is my opinion that he does *want* to do the right thing.
Since I am getting personal replies from his staffers (from his Blackberry and off-hours no less!), I wouldn't mind sharing this person's email with you all here that want to follow up with a message or two. PM me for that info - I don't want to post it publicly here.

3. I was searching desperately for the initial thread re: Sessions, and couldn't find it - I thought I was losing my mind! Then, after posting this OP here, a couple of the Mods/Admins sent me a PM to let me know that the trolls were attacking me personally - gee whiz, I go away most of the day and I miss all the fun (I don't think I've been called 'racist' and 'stupid' before! - although, I won't even begin to talk about what my ex has called me! What does the [ex]-newbie flbreeze have against yours truly?)
Oh well, s/he got the proverbial 'boot' - thanks Dixie!

imho These good conservative reps in the AG states can take a hit from some of the business lobby, but not the Ag lobby too. They need to be electable. We just can't expect these guys to cut off their own heads.

The worst evil is the supporters of wide open borders, amnesty, and doing away with sovereignty. The Ag lobby wants some seasonal bodies and they don't need to be here permanently, don't need to add to the full time population, collateralized units, or be future citizens.

The problem is giving our no amnesty supporters something they MUST have without throwing open the floodgates. I think we need to get a dialogue going with these guys that can provide some of what they need with the safeguards we need.

Flame suit on.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

The Ag lobby wants some seasonal bodies and they don't need to be here permanently, don't need to add to the full time population, collateralized units, or be future citizens.

I can partly agree with this but we also have to be careful the Ag lobby does not turn temporary workers into indentured workers with no rights, or use them as an alternative to mechanization.

Loserville, I understand what you're saying but my problem with this is that I don't trust our government - to enforce the laws, to severely crack down on employers, to stop new illegals from flowing in after some new legislation is signed, or to be able to properly administer a guest worker program. They just haven't proven that they have the ability or will to do any of this over the longterm.

With the AgJOBS bill that is proposed, the workers will be legalized, and then will move on to higher paying non-Ag jobs. Taxpayers will still be forking out billions to provide for them and their children so employers can have their cheap labor. Companies are already making enormous amounts of money and should not require taxpayer-funded corporate welfare.

Unless Congress is willing to take some drastic action to abolish birthright citizenship, require employers to provide benefits, and guarantee protections for American workers, I just don't see how any type of new guest worker program can work.

loservillelabor wrote:

imho These good conservative reps in the AG states can take a hit from some of the business lobby, but not the Ag lobby too. They need to be electable. We just can't expect these guys to cut off their own heads.

Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that those in the business community are also constituents of those in Congress. Of course that doesn't excuse any elected representatives failure to honor the "rule of law," nor does it make it accceptable to pander to the minority at the expense of the majority.

Flame suit on.

The suit isn't necessary. In reality, when all is said and done, neither side of the argument is going to come out with 100% of what they want. All we can do is keep fighting; determined to come out the overall winner. Furthermore, individual battles do not necessarily determine the outcome of the war. In other words, we're going to lose some battles, but it's extremely important that we get up, brush ourselves off, sharpen our weapons, buff our armor, and prepare for the next battle. We can't allow past losses to weaken our resolve in future battles because to do so will allow our enemy more wins and that just isn't acceptable.

Sen. Sessions has been a great weapon for us thus far and I'm not ready to give up on him just yet. Perhaps he just needs a little "buffing and sharpening." If concessions have to be made, I'm confident Sessions will attempt to ensure we are the "overall winners." Anyone that watched him work on the senate floor during the S. 2611 debate has to believe that. I'm convinced he knows our side is the righteous side and I don't think he'll trade us down the river in the end. We'll see..........