Thread: Special Alert Regarding Mel Martinez

From: Immigration Info <immigrationinfo@numbersusa.com
Date: 2006/07/18 Tue PM 02:30:14 EDT
Subject: FLORIDA: Tell Sen. Martinez NO to rewarding illegal aliens

From: Anne Manetas, Deputy Director, NumbersUSA
Date: 18JUL06 2 p.m.


Sen. Martinez needs to hear from Floridians who oppose rewards for illegal aliens

This is a special alert being sent to those of you in Florida. Your Senator Martinez continues to be one of the worst advocates of open borders in the U.S. Senate. The American people desperately need you to pressure Sen. Martinez to change his tune.

SEN. MARTINEZ CONTINUES TO REWARDS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

In a July 12 interview with Roll Call, a newspaper that circulates on Capitol Hill, Sen. Martinez is quoted as saying that "Deportation, in other words, is too high a price to pay because someone came across illegally or overstayed a visa." The implications of his statements to Roll Call were that anyone and everyone in the world should feel free to cross our borders - legally or illegally - and know that they may have to pay a fine, but that they would never have to leave!

Sen. Martinez is one of the chief architects of S. 2611 - a bill that would grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States and double legal immigration. His outrageous comment implies that he not only believes that the United States should grant amnesty to illegal aliens already living in the country, but that we should extend this preferential treatment to all illegal aliens in the future.

FAX AND CALL SEN. MARTINEZ TO ASK HIM TO CHANGE HIS OPEN BORDERS TUNE

Click here to send Sen. Martinez a fax:

www.NumbersUSA.com
Click here to go directly to a phone call request with numbers to call Sen. Martinez:

www.NumbersUSA.com

A PERSONAL VISIT TO SEN. MARTINEZ' OFFICE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL

If you have time, please make a personal visit to one of Sen. Martinez' offices.

Always be pleasant and polite. You should communicate Urgency and Conviction, not Anger. You may find it helpful to print a copy of Sen. Martinez' Immigration Voting Record or Immigration Gradecard and take it with you to refer to during your visit.

Find Sen. Martinez' voting record here .

Find Sen. Martinez' immigration report card here.

SEN. MARTINEZ OFFICE ADDRESSES

305-444-8332 800 Douglas Road Coral Gables, FL 33134
202-224-3041 317 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510
813-207-0509 5100 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609
850-433-2603 1 N. Palafox St. Pensacola, FL 32503
407-254-2573 315 East Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32801
305-444-8332 800 Douglas Rd. Coral Gables, FL 33134
904-398-8586 1650 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207

JULY 12 INTERVIEW WITH ROLL CALL

Roll Call’s executive editor, Morton M. Kondracke, interviewed Martinez July 12 in a Congressional hideaway. What follows is an edited version of their conversation.

ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE EDITOR MORTON M. KONDRACKE: What do you think the chances of getting the bill are before the election?

SEN. MEL MARTINEZ: I think they’re good, because I think there is a sense of responsibility by the party in the majority that we’ve got to get something done. It is our job to deal with the most important domestic issue facing the country. And I just don’t think we can walk away from it.

I’ve also been hearing in the hallways that the leaders have been talking and are hoping to do something in September. So I’m hopeful we are going to be able to get something. And I think there is also a pretty good commitment to doing something comprehensive — you know, beyond border security alone.

ROLL CALL: What have the rival Senate and House hearings over the recess done to the atmosphere here?

MARTINEZ: You know, I don’t think it has been as negative as I thought it would be, in terms of polarizing the atmosphere even more.

I was at a hearing [July 10> in Miami where [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman> Gen. [Peter> Pace gave a very, very emotional testimony, which I thought was riveting and really emotional.

I thought that the hearing was great, and it really highlighted the importance of immigrants to the military and things like that. So it was a good hearing. ...

I hear the House is going to have more hearings. I am going to encourage my colleagues in the Senate [that> we don’t need to have any more hearings. ... I think it is good that we did a couple of them and so forth, just to kind of keep the debate on an even keel. But I just think it’s sort of irrelevant. I think when they become rallies for a point of view, they cease to be serious hearings. I think that is what they will degenerate to, if they keep having them.

ROLL CALL: So what do you see as the timetable on this?

MARTINEZ: My hope is that they are going to do the hearings in August and whatnot, and we will come back in September for the serious purpose of getting a bill done.

I had one of my colleagues tell me today that if Sen. [John> Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. [Johnny> Isakson (R-Ga.) and I sat in a room for two hours, we would come out with a bill that would have 85 Senators supporting it. I think it’s that close, you know. I think it’s that close.

And I think Sen. Isakson is making a good contribution with his “trigger” — you know, the idea that you would have certain things be done prior to the ultimate provisions of the bill being part of it. In other words, doing border enforcement immediately. The other provisions are going to take some time to do anyway. I think as long as it’s not a certification of the border as sealed. That’s an unachievable goal.

ROLL CALL: Isakson has come off the certification ... .

MARTINEZ: That’s right. He is now talking about measures, you know, and I can go with that. I think that if it’s measures that are not designed to thwart the second part to the bill, ... I can go with that. I think that is going to be the basis of the compromise.

ROLL CALL: But will the House accept a, quote-unquote, comprehensive bill?

MARTINEZ: That’s a good question. I am talking with [Rep.> Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and I have been talking with other Florida delegation members. ... I am very hopeful that there could be a kind of group of Members of the House. There’s probably 25 or 30 that under no circumstances will go along with it. But I think most people I’ve talked to in the House don’t feel good about the criminalization part of it and all that. So I think there has been a little bit of a backing off under recognition of a more comprehensive approach.

The key to that, of course, I think is the president’s very clear position, and we are going to need his continued involvement in and his continued commitment to a comprehensive bill. And at some point, it is my hope that the House Members will recognize that the White House — the leader of our party — is a Republican and that we need to try to at least listen to his voice and his suggestions.

ROLL CALL: What do you hear about negotiations between Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)?

MARTINEZ: Not a lot at this point. But I am encouraged and I think that they are beginning to talk. ... I am going to try to speak with them as well. So I think this conversation is going on at a lot of levels.

ROLL CALL: Is it your impression that a majority of the House majority would go for a comprehensive bill now?

MARTINEZ: It’s my hope. I don’t know that I have a clear poll on that, you know. It’s my hope and I think that sounds more likely to me today than it did two or three weeks ago.

We would have to work on what is amnesty and what isn’t amnesty, “touchback” provisions, people leaving and coming back in — things like that, you know. I think those are the kinds of nuances that would make the bill all of sudden not be amnesty for those who said I cannot be for amnesty.

ROLL CALL: Does the Pence “touchback” provision make sense to you? In other words, having millions of people have to go across the border ... .

MARTINEZ: Only to come back.

ROLL CALL: Yeah.

MARTINEZ: No, I think the bureaucratic nightmare that that creates is horrendous. But it may be one of the key elements that some people have to have in order to support a bill that’s comprehensive.

You know, people criticize the two-year/five-year that [Sen. Chuck> Hagel (R-Neb.) and I came up with as being, “Gee, what’s the difference.” Well, that seems to strike people as being a defensible provision.

ROLL CALL: Explain that.

MARTINEZ: Well, basically people who have been here more than five years would be treated differently than those who have only been here a couple of years. And the idea there is that these people are more established, they have families, they have different schools, things like that. To put the burden of the touchback provision on them ... .

ROLL CALL: So, those who have been here for two years do have to go back before they can get on the road to legalization?

MARTINEZ: That’s right. But then that also diminishes the number tremendously to make it more manageable. But just think of the burdens we’re putting on the administration of this act by some of the things we’re throwing in there to satisfy the needs of someone to say, “Well, it’s not amnesty now.”

ROLL CALL: Let me have you answer some of the critics’ objections to the Senate bill. This comes out of the House Judiciary Committee. One, that we have to consult with Mexico before building any fences. They don’t think that that makes any sense. What do you say about that?

MARTINEZ: Well, I would say that Mexico is our neighbor. And Mexico is a friendly neighbor. And I’m not suggesting that we relinquish any sovereignty to any other country on any issue. But neighbors consult and neighbors cooperate and collaborate. And we do that with Mexico across the board on so many issues like drug enforcement and things like that. Why wouldn’t we go to a neighbor and say, ‘Listen this is what our plan is?’ Not to say you sign off on it before we do it. But it is to consult, to have a moment of good neighborliness with a country that is darn important to us.

ROLL CALL: Then they say that you are going to give amnesty to illegal immigrants who have committed Social Security fraud.

MARTINEZ: Well, what I think we have to understand that for any violation of law, the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime committed. The fact is, there are people who are here who have been part of an illegal system. And I would not only blame those who crossed illegally or got a fake Social Security card, but equally to blame are the businesses who employed them knowing full well that the documents they were receiving were also fraudulent.

And so I think we need to decide that we have to get over some of these notions that everything is going to be so pure, because at the end of the day these are important breakings of law, but at the same time the penalty should not be inconsistent with what the crime is. Deportation, in other words, is too high a price to pay because someone came across illegally or overstayed a visa.

ROLL CALL: Now they say that you are going to give amnesty to employers who are currently hiring illegal immigrants. Is that reasonable?

MARTINEZ: Well, I think what we have to do is understand that we have been operating an illegal system and that everyone’s been participating and benefiting by that. So what we have to do, I think, is to look how we get us back to a framework that is legal. I don’t think that we should give amnesty to anyone about any violation of the law. But I just think the punishment needs to be suitable to the crime committed.

You know, Mort, I would say to you that the Senate bill is not perfect in every provision. Very few bills that I voted on here I could say, “Boy, I like 100 percent of everything that’s on here.” There may be things that don’t sound right, don’t look right. We can work on those. That’s what the conference committees is for.

ROLL CALL: A Heritage Foundation analysis said the Senate immigration reform proposal would restrict local police from arresting illegal aliens for criminal violations but not civil violations and the results would be disastrous. What they’re claiming is that the [Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist> hijackers were grabbed for misdemeanors, but they couldn’t be stopped because they were only misdemeanors. So if a local law enforcement officer arrested a 9/11 hijacker for a speeding ticket or something like that, you couldn’t hold him or deport him.

MARTINEZ: I’m not able to comment on that specific thing. But if it’s something as silly as, you know, thwarting efforts of law enforcement to prevent terrorism, I wouldn’t be for it. But I don’t know specifically what they’re talking about.

Heritage also talks about the number of people that are going to come. I think that is building assumptions on top of assumptions, that everybody that is here today would become a citizen, which I think that is a hugely flawed assumption. I think of the 10 or 12 million of people that are here, maybe [60> percent would seek to become citizens. The others would not. They’re here, frankly, as temporary workers. I mean, if the borders would allow them to go back and forth, I think you would find a lot of them would go back.

ROLL CALL: On the point that immigration — specifically, expanded immigration — would put downward pressure on American wage laborers, what do you say about that?

MARTINEZ: You know, I’ve seen studies that show that only in the most extreme of circumstances. The fact is that we need the workers.

The state of Florida today is leaving 3 to 6 million boxes of citrus on the trees because there are no people there to pick them. When I talk to the tourism industry in Florida, they are desperate for more workers at the theme parks, at the hotels. The construction building trade in Florida is desperate for more workers. The fact of the matter is that if we make people legal, if we somehow regularize their status, and they are no longer working under the table, it will raise wages. And then they will be more competitive in the labor force with those that are here and are regular Americans.

ROLL CALL: Last question: If these illegal immigrants were not here, or even the temporary workers ... might not the wages for those jobs rise to the point where American workers would take the jobs? I mean, your argument ... .

MARTINEZ: Well, that presumes that we have huge unemployment. Where are they going to come from? Florida only has like a 2.7 percent unemployment rate, which basically means just about anybody that wants to work is working. And I just don’t think you’re going to get people off their rocker if they’re in that very small percentile of those who are not working today in this economy, because the wages are not high enough for picking fruit.

The fact of the matter is, spreading tar on the roof of a home in Florida in August for a roofing job — not a lot of people want to do that. That is a hot, nasty job. Any job is worthy, by the way, but at the same time you know how difficult it is for people to want to say ‘That’s a job I want.’ And these immigrants are taking those jobs.
Picking oranges is not pleasant work. It’s hard work. It’s backbreaking work. And for years, for generations, this has been done by foreign labor. That’s the facts. So that is why I think it is so important to have a guest-worker program as a component part of this.



This may be a good time for you to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas you are interested in. In order to further customize the type of alerts you receive click here http://www.numbersusa.com/survey?action=longlist

As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form: http://www.numbersusa.com/user

NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.

Martinez said,

I think it is good that we did a couple of them and so forth, just to kind of keep the debate on an even keel. But I just think it’s sort of irrelevant. I think when they become rallies for a point of view, they cease to be serious hearings. I think that is what they will degenerate to, if they keep having them.

IMHO -- In other words, if you disagree with me, I want to deny you your rights to freedom of speech.

Question, isn't that what Castro does

I reiterate: watch this man carefully; he's smart, slick and being groomed! IMO!

Sen. Martinez is quoted as saying that "Deportation, in other words, is too high a price to pay because someone came across illegally or overstayed a visa."

I heard about this a couple days ago and believe me he recieved a scathing letter from me...not that he cares

curiouspat wrote:

IMHO -- In other words, if you disagree with me, I want to deny you your rights to freedom of speech.

Question, isn't that what Castro does

This is typical of latin leaders. Their attitude is 'my way or the highway'. Unfortunately, our President has the same attitude, but in this country, that's grounds for impeachment. It's just that we don't have an Senators that can stand up to him and accuse him of what he has done wrong and bring impeachment hearings. Bush has got to go..he's destroying this country.

I would also post a statement in Craigslist in Miami as to his actions then send him the link. If you look at Craigslist Portland Oregon there is one there for Smith and Wyden. Just a thought.

"Deportation, in other words, is too high a price to pay because someone came across illegally or overstayed a visa."

No price Mel, it's a free ride home.

Craig's List Florida http://geo.craigslist.org/iso/us/fl

Dixie