[N.S.: To my fellow New Yorkers: Our U.S. Senators are bad and worse. Bad: Kirsten Gillibrand; worse: Chuck Schumer. Schumer is the de facto ringleader of the Gang of Eight traitors, and Gillibrand is his devoted student, but I will still call both traitors' D.C. offices tomorrow. Gillibrand was moderate to conservative, like her congressional constituents, before she was named to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, and the sinister Schumer turned her out, teaching her how to pick constituents' pockets, and stab them in the back. She might, however, yet have some sentimental memory of her life before she went over to the dark side, a conscience that can be pricked by enough constituents' calls.
Gillibrand's D.C. Senate Office number is 202-224-4451; Schumer's is 202-224-6542. However, those are toll calls. I recommend using the toll-free number NumbersUSA has graciously paid to set up: 888-978-3094, which will connect you to the Capitol Switchboard, and tell them to vote "NO on the motion to proceed on S.744."
Here are some suggestions for what to say to get you going, inspired by Paul Nachman:
I'm calling from New York about the immigration bill, S.744. The bill is so bad that it is beyond saving with any number of amendments.
And so, I want Senator Gillibrand (Senator Schumer, LOL!) to vote against Tuesday's motion to proceed, against cloture. This is a crucial vote.]
S.744 Battlefront: More Calls to Our Senators Needed, and Perhaps for Another Week (Montanans for Immigration Law Enforcement)
To All:
Tomorrow (Tuesday, June 11th) the Senate will hold its first vote on S.744, the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill. Call your two Senators now at 888-978-3094, which will connect you to the Capitol Switchboard, and -- using the following words or their equivalent -- tell them to vote "NO on the motion to proceed on S.744."
That toll free number is paid for by NumbersUSA for this precise purpose. Numbers has also set up toll-free lines specifically for Montanans to use that connect directly to Baucus's and Tester's DC offices (i.e. not going through the Senate switchboard).
The latter two numbers are 888-995-2041 for Baucus and 888-995-2045 for Tester. To confirm that they're working, I used these two numbers today in making my calls. They are, indeed, working; interestingly, both offices asked who I was and where I was calling from, implying to me that caller ID doesn't show up for calls made using the toll-free numbers. (Whereas when I use my regular long-distance service to reach the DC offices, they already know who's calling when they pick up. The usual direct numbers to our two senators' DC offices are 202-224-2651 [Baucus] and 202-224-2644 [Tester].)
Here's the very brief script I used in my two calls today:
I'm calling from Bozeman about the immigration bill, S.744. The bill is so fundamentally flawed that it can't possibly be amended to be good. It doesn't even merit being brought up for debate.
So ... I want Senator Baucus (Senator Tester) to vote against Tuesday's motion to proceed, against cloture. This is a critical, supremely important vote.
If at least 41 senators vote our way -- vote against cloture -- the bill goes away.
(But this isn't necessarily final -- in 2007, despite our success against cloture in mid May, the two-bit "statesmen" running the Senate brought an equivalent bill up in late June. They lost again on cloture, and that's the famous time that we citizens crashed the Senate switchboard with the volume of our outraged calls. For encouragement and inspiration, you can listen to Senator Jeff Sessions [R-Alabama] noting this as it happened back then in the 36-second sound clip here.)
If we lose on this vote -- meaning at least 60 senators vote for cloture -- this doesn't mean that all is lost. Instead, they'll debate and vote on amendments to the bill on the Senate floor for about another week. Then when they want to end this process and have a vote on passing the whole bill, there will be a second cloture vote. (To be clear, this second cloture vote happens only if cloture won -- meaning our side lost -- on the Tuesday, June 11 vote.)
For this bill and for us, the amendment process isn't interesting, because the bill S.744 is so fantastically bad that it can't possibly be amended into acceptability.
But .. if we lose the June 11th cloture vote and they drone on about amendments for another week, then those are days for us to keep pounding our senators with phone calls against the bill as a whole, pointing out over and over that no amendments will suffice with this vulture -- not turkey! -- of a bill.
Once you have some experience making such calls, it isn't a big deal to keep doing it. However, you'd probably like to say something different each time you call. So I'm pasting below the full text of an op-ed Senator Sessions had in the Monday, June 10th Los Angeles Times. It's chock full with descriptions of S.744's horrors, each one something you can incorporate into another phone call opposing the bill.
So ... send any NumbersUSA faxes to the senators that remain on your Action Buffet page and then hop to the phone calls!
Best to all,
Paul Nachman
p.s. This is a very expensive campaign for NumbersUSA and FAIR, but they're pulling out all the stops, since S.744 puts the future livability of the country for us citizens at great risk. So if you've never donated before or if you've donated before but could step up your level of help, I strongly encourage you to participate on this front, too. Better to dig deep and draw down your resources to help save the country than to live in the ruined country that will result if we fail.
p.p.s. If you want to make an "easy" call to the Senate -- for "practice" -- before calling our senators to instruct them on what they need to do, why not phone Senator Sessions's DC office, 202-224-4124, to thank him for his ongoing heroics against this bill, on top of his brilliant service back in 2007? If you're shunted to his voice mail, just record your thanks -- he's worth cherishing.
p.p.p.s. [!] This email's content is specific for Montanans, and I encourage Montana recipients to forward it to other Montanans if they think that would be helpful. But some of the recipients, including some I've added this time only, are in other states; I'm hoping that they'll find the content useful and will consider distributing it further, after modifying it appropriately for their states.
Sen. Sessions: S. 744 Would Ensure the End of Immigration Enforcement in America
Op-Ed
Sen. Sessions on immigration bill's broken promises
The plan proposed by the 'Gang of Eight' fails on every major front.
By Jeff Sessions
June 10, 2013
The so-called Gang of Eight immigration plan now being considered by the Senate fails to live up to every major promise made by its sponsors. Far from improving the immigration system, their 1,000-page proposal would exacerbate many of its flaws. It would dangerously undermine future enforcement while imposing substantial burdens on taxpayers and taking jobs and pay from U.S. workers.
Indeed, the two unions representing our nation's immigration and customs officers and those who process immigration applications have strongly urged opposition.
The sponsors' promise of enforcement first was broken when lead sponsor Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared: "First, people will be legalized.... Then we'll make sure the border is secure." About 11 million immigrants who are here illegally —which includes 4 million who have overstayed their visas — would receive work permits, Social Security numbers and access to state and local benefits within six months of passage. The Department of Homeland Security merely has to submit a border plan, not accomplish that plan. Those legalized will then be free to compete for jobs at a time of low wages and high unemployment. It's amnesty first, not enforcement first.
Moreover, the bill allows the DHS or an immigration judge to stop any future deportation for humanitarian reasons, the public interest or family unity. Such open-ended waivers would all but ensure mass litigation and the end of immigration enforcement in America.
The sponsors promised that back taxes would have to be paid, but under the bill, if the IRS doesn't audit someone working off the books — which it isn't required to do — there will be no taxes to pay. There is no requirement that immigrants pay state or local back taxes or that employers pay back taxes.
The sponsors promised that people here illegally would have to learn English and civics, but the fine print reveals it will be at least 10 years before this is put into effect. And even then, the bill only requires those applying for permanent residency (a green card) to be pursuing a course of study "to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding" of civics. Furthermore, the secretary of Homeland Security can waive these already loose standards in many cases.
The sponsors promised that those "with a serious criminal background or who pose a threat to our national security" would be ineligible for legal status. But the bill allows the Homeland Security secretary, under certain conditions, to grant it to gang members; those with major misdemeanor criminal convictions (including felonies pleaded to misdemeanors) for serious crimes, including drug offenses, sexual abuse and prostitution; those with arrest records of any length; fugitives from deportation orders; or those who have been deported and illegally reentered.
The sponsors promised that people here illegally would not be eligible for public benefits. But, after the immediate grant of legal status, the legislation confers permanent residency within 10 years after passage (in many cases sooner), guaranteeing eligibility for federal benefits at a staggering long-term cost. In the short term, many would become eligible for state public assistance programs upon receiving the initial amnesty.
The sponsors promised the bill would prevent future visa overstays. The Government Accountability Office said in 2007 that without a biometric exit system, the DHS "cannot ensure the integrity of the immigration system by identifying and removing those people who have overstayed." The 9/11 Commission has said such a system is essential to national security. Congress passed six laws mandating the implementation of such a system at all air, land and sea entry points. But instead of finally requiring enforcement of these laws, the bill merely calls for a pilot system at a small sampling of airports, and excludes land ports of entry.
The sponsors promised that the bill would not significantly increase legal immigration. However, it will grant legal status to at least 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years if you add up the proposed surge in legal arrivals, approval of 4.5 million previous green card applicants, plus work authorization and legal residency for an estimated 11 million here unlawfully today. The number grows higher if you take into account the removal of annual caps on migration for immediate family members.
And, despite promised protections for U.S. workers, the bill would double the number of guest workers admitted annually. Such a large influx would be disastrous for the wages and job prospects of U.S. workers.
On every major front, this legislation fails to deliver on its core promises. It delivers only for the special-interest groups who helped write it. Should it pass, it would represent the ultimate triumph of the Washington elite over the everyday citizen to whom Congress properly owes its loyalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment