Friday, January 31, 2014

GOP’s “Immigration Principles” are the Same Old Mass Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Scam the Gang of Eight Peddled: Sen. Jeff Sessions

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Sessions Remarks on

House Leaders’

“Immigration Principles”

Thursday, January 30, 2014

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following remarks this evening after House GOP Leaders released a set of immigration ‘principles’ / talking points:

“Once again, we have the same recycled talking points—crafted, it would appear, with the help of the same consultants and special interests. Each time, the talking points are followed by legislation that fails to match the promises—legislation that, at bottom, ensures only the amnesty and not the enforcement. The leadership talking points look like an attempted repackaging of the tired Gang-of-Eight-style formula that has been proposed, rejected, and re-proposed for years. It is no surprise then that Senator Schumer and former Speaker Pelosi are so encouraged by these developments. But while Democrat leaders and interest groups appear satisfied, this document was not voted upon by the GOP conference and clearly does not represent the consensus of Republican members. Is it not time we pushed aside the stale proposals stitched together in concert with the same lobbyists, and asked what is in the best interests of the hardworking American citizen—and the nation?

In three fundamental respects, the House leaders’ emerging immigration proposal appears to resemble the Senate plan: it provides the initial grant of amnesty before enforcement; it would surge the already unprecedented level of legal lesser-skilled immigration to the U.S. that is reducing wages and increasing unemployment; and it would offer eventual citizenship to a large number of illegal immigrants and visa overstays.

Rank-and-file House Republicans are the last line of defense for working Americans. Now is the time for rank-and-file House Republicans to claim the leadership mantle and to say, firmly: our goal is to transition millions of struggling Americans from welfare and joblessness to work and rising wages. The President has not only dismantled enforcement but has delivered for a small group of special interests and CEOs by forcing through the Senate legislation that drastically surges the future flow of new immigrant workers competing against unemployed Americans. There is a reason why these increases are never mentioned in the slick TV ads and radio spots: the American people reject them. Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin. Republicans have the chance to be the one party giving voice to the real-world concerns of the everyday worker whose wages have been flat or falling for more than 10 years.

House leaders should support—not ignore—the immigration officers pleading for help. They should stand with—not against—unemployed American workers. And they should expose—not join—the President’s campaign to pass an immigration plan that will hollow out our shrinking middle class.”


Anonymous said...

3898 2150Right, amnesty but no provisions for enforcement now or in the future.

20 million or so now and then 20 years from now another 20 million. And then just say, come one come all.

Anonymous said...

Session for President.

But I doubt that a man from Alabama would be allowed to be President, or even run for that matter.

Anonymous said...

Local media/police are still playing coy with race. A dangerous rapist is on the loose and the only reference to race is to describe the attacker as being: A light or tan skinned man.

A light or tan skinned what?

They said that on the TV news report so I looked up all three of our local "news" station reports, all of them repeat the same description with no reference to race. Without the reference point of race it's very difficult to make sense of the description. Hard to say if the police didn't mention race or the stations just chose to omit it, they all follow the same PC policy for reporting race (never mention it if perps are black, sometimes mention if they're white). It's clear the "diversity" age has made public safety a secondary consideration. Jerry

Anonymous said...

I already sent this in a previous posting but I just have to send it again, it's related to the comment I just sent re race and crime suspect descriptions. It underscores the lunacy and hypocrisy of not supplying race of crime suspects. Jerry

Oregonian writers or moderators will sometimes post this link in comments fields. It rationalizes their "race" reporting policy. It's utterly absurd of course but to the PC mentality I guess it somehow makes sense.
You could argue the same thing about age, size, tattoos, gender or even about the actual events that were witnessed. People could theoretically be wrong about everything they supposedly saw! If that's the case why does a newspaper even report anything at all? Why don't they just state: Something happened last night but we can't report any details because witnesses can't be sure of anything.
So they report everything they can EXCEPT race (unless they're whites suspected of victimizing blacks - then it's OK to mention race). Do they really think they're fooling everyone? They delete race to keep from offending one particular protected racial group. There's no other reason. Jerry