Complex Washington Battle Reflects Massive Voter Anger About Elite`s Anti-Citizen Immigration Policies

On Wednesday, July 8th, the
Washington Post story, "Task
Force Recommends Overhaul of U.S. Immigration System
provoked this pithy letter from legal American

Yeh Ling Ling,
Executive Director,
for a Sustainable USA:


"Intelligent Americans know that once millions of illegal people are
amnestied, naturalized and become potential voters,
there will be no will for the Obama or future
administrations to enforce our immigration laws. By
requiring illegal migrants to pay back taxes, it will
cost taxpayers billions of dollars because many will
receive earned income tax credit. Is the Task Force
being ignorant or misleading?"

This open borders task force was
likely timing
the release of its report
counteract the actions of the US Senate, which that same
day adopted two critical immigration amendments to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations
Bill for the coming fiscal year (FY 2010).

These amendments were:

  • Senator Jeff Sessions`
    (R-AL) Amendment (#1371) on E-Verify, which, as the
    Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

    "permanently re-authorizes E-Verify and requires federal
    contractors to use the program. The Sessions Amendment
    ensures that good-faith employers will always have
    access to this successful, accurate tool – a tool that
    has been proven as an effective deterrent to illegal
    immigration. And, by making E-Verify permanent, the
    Sessions Amendment will prevent supporters of mass
    amnesty from using any further extension of E-Verify as
    leverage to try to pass an amnesty bill for at least 12
    million illegal aliens."

Of course the usual amnesty
advocates tried to keep that from happening. For
example, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led the fight
against the Sessions Amendment with floor speeches. He
argued that this amendment was
"moot" because
the Obama Administration had announced earlier in the
day that DHS would be

issuing a "new
rule" r
federal contractors to use E-Verify".

Again FAIR comes to the rescue on
the facts, saying,
"In truth, the
Sessions Amendment is a better approach because the
Administration`s `new rule` can be changed by DHS at any
time in the future, whereas the Sessions Amendment would
prevent DHS from watering down the rule in the future."

Then on July 8th, late in the day,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it
would move forward on a Bush-era regulation requiring
all federal contractors to use E-Verify.

FAIR notes,
"This announcement is welcome news, but it also
represents a last minute attempt by the Obama
administration to fend off a proposal to impose more
stringent standards that the Senate was considering on
the same day."

  • Senator Jim DeMint`s
    (R-SC) Amendment (#1399) on the border fence was also
    approved, requiring that the Department of Homeland
    Security complete the 700 miles of the Mexican border
    fence by 2010, designed to stop both vehicular and
    pedestrian traffic.

Again, efforts to stop this were
thwarted.  The
Fence where properly constructed has proved most
effective in stopping illegal immigration.

Well, this certainly was good news,
but of course the Senate version still has to pass the
House, so don`t get too enthused.

And while the Obama
Administration`s Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
announced it would move forward on a Bush-era regulation
requiring all federal contractors to use E-Verify, as
noted, this is not as good as the Session`s amendment,
because there is no reason, based on its record to think
the DHS won`t seek to weaken the use of E verify in the

Why? Simultaneously with the DHS
announcement on E verify, we learn, again from FAIR,
that the DHS announced its
"decision to abandon the "No-Match" rule, which would have protected
American workers. The No-Match rule requires employers
who are notified by the Social Security Administration
(SSA) that workers` Social Security numbers do not match
data in SSA`s database to take action to correct those
discrepancies in order to ensure their workforce is
legal. By rescinding the No-Match rule, the
administration is making it easier for employers to
retain illegal workers. Rescinding the No-Match rule
will help illegal aliens keep the jobs they currently
hold, despite the fact their employment violates U.S.
law, instead of freeing those jobs for legal American

Can you believe this idiocy? Of
course you can! It is apparently becoming standard
operating perfidy procedure.

You can easily see that the anti
citizen/pro open borders folks in Congress and the
Administration are ignoring the economic situation, the
Rule of Law, and common sense in their mad pursuit of
Hispanic fealty and corporate approbation. But in the
Senate, there are some people who have seen the light,
and others who felt the heat—the open borders crowd did
not get away with it:

"A series of Senate
floor votes this week seeking to toughen immigration
enforcement is giving the Obama administration its first
real taste of the chilly climate for overhauling
immigration laws.

On Thursday, the
Senate approved a measure that would effectively
overturn an immigration-enforcement decision announced
one day earlier by the Obama administration. The
Department of Homeland Security had said Wednesday that
it would rescind a Bush administration program aimed at
forcing employers to fire workers who are unable to
resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records."

Senate Resists
Changes on Immigration
 By Cam
Simpson, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2009]

Stay tuned, folks. The plot will
continue to thicken, and you can be sure that only
continuing citizen anger and involvement will result in
enactment of sound immigration policy represented by the
TWP amendments passed by the Senate.

Donald A. Collins [email
him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.