Default
2007 In Review: Immigration Patriots Demolish Treason Lobby "Sewer Rats"
Default author
December 21, 2007, 04:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

If the year in immigration reform 2007 were a football game, the final score would be Patriots 56-Sewer Rats 7.

We, not the NFL`s New England version, are the Patriots. And the "Sewer Rats", need I tell you, are them—captained by President George Bush and backed up by most of the U.S. Senate, dozens of ethnic identity lobbyists, churches, the mainstream media, etc., ad infinitum—what we at VDARE.COM call "The Treason Lobby".

Such is our dominance this year that, had there been fans in the stands, ours would have been headed to the parking lot in the middle of the third quarter while theirs would have been throwing candy wrappers and beer bottles onto the field in disgust.

We had a great 2007!

And especially so considering that we started on January 1st as a twenty-eight-point under-dog to the Treason Lobby—despite having established our strength over the last two years when we crushed S. 2611 and S. 1438 amnesties in 2006 and 2005 respectively.

This year, proving that the prior two years were no fluke, we kicked their sorry butts up one side of the field and down the other.

So-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" AKA, the "Grand Bargain", was throttled in the U.S. Senate three times this summer, taking down in flames with it the arrogant "Gang of 12" Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Jon Kyl, (R-Ariz), Arlen Specter, (R-Pa.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fl.) among others.

Finally aware by early fall that their subversive game plan was going nowhere, the "Sewer Rats" regrouped to try to pass amnesty one piece at a time.

Another big bomb!

First up was the DREAM Act—the proverbial bad penny of amnesty legislation that grants illegal aliens in-state university tuition rates even though out-of-state Americans cannot qualify for the same reduced fees.

I can`t remember a time when the DREAM Act wasn`t lurking somewhere. I first wrote about it more than five years ago. VDARE.COM editor Juan Mann alerted readers about the extent of its treachery in October 2003!

This year it`s the pet of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Those two tried—unsuccessfully like all the rest of their efforts—to bring the bill to the floor without debate by using the obscure Senate Rule XIV.

Their duplicity got Reid and Durbin nowhere. Even a watered down version of the DREAM Act failed.  The final adaptation of the proposed bill made significant changes from earlier drafts, most notably by adding an age limit of 30 for applicants.

This last-minute maneuver narrowed, but did not close, a gaping loophole in this amnesty—because any illegal alien up to age 30 could still walk into any U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, declare fraudulently that he is eligible, and be granted amnesty with minimal documentation.

With the realization that the potential for massive fraud in the DREAM Act still existed, in October the Senate fell eight votes short of the necessary 60 to obtain cloture.

After the DREAM Act defeat, California`s senior pro-immigration crone, Senator Dianne Feinstein, tried again to stir up support for her beloved AgJOBS amnesty.

Feinstein has been attempting for two years, without a shred of success, to ram AgJOBs through either as a stand-alone bill or as part of separate "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" measures.

Finally giving up, at least for now, Feinstein reluctantly admitted:

"When we took a clear-eyed assessment of the politics of the farm bill and the defeat of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, it became clear that our support could not sustain these competing forces."

What the suddenly "clear-eyed" Feinstein should focus on is that any kind of agricultural worker program would doom those already picking crops to a lifetime of poverty.

If Feinstein would take the time to study the economic Law  Of Supply And Demand, understood so fully by labor leader Cesar Chavez, who fought against cheap Mexican labor, on behalf of his Mexican-American union members,  she would realize that the more workers are available, the more stagnant wages become.

Now, you may wonder, how did the other side score its seven measly points?

By the only way possible for them—acting in the dead of night, behind closed doors and under the cover of a 3,565-page $555 billion Omnibus spending bill—to gut the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that would have provided two-tier fencing in certain areas along the U.S. border with Mexico.

As cowardly as this Congressional behavior is, we weren`t doing so well on the fence to begin with. Last year, the fence bill—at that time calling for 700 miles to be constructed—passed overwhelmingly in both Congressional houses.

Bush signed the bill, with great fanfare, at the White House. But the original 700 miles of fence was soon reduced to 370.

But to date, only five miles have been built. Read Michelle Malkin`s detailed analysis of the border fence fiasco here.

New York Rep. Pete King, a sponsor of the Secure Fence Act, called the behavior of some of his Congressional colleagues "disgraceful" but could still find good things in the bill.

King, defending his vote to CNN`s Kitty Pilgrim, said:

"There was language in the bill that`s going increase the amount of money for border patrol agents, immigration enforcement, veteran`s benefits, things that were needed. In my mind this balanced out 51/49."

And King promises to "re-start" the fight.

Unquestionably, losing (for now) the border fence is a sour note to end the year on.

Like Malkin, Brenda Walker (who blogged on the fence here) and most of you, I`m not surprised. As Malkin wrote in her column, "so totally, totally predictable."

Honestly, I never expected that the fence would be built. I knew it would always be some bureaucratic nonsense that would stall the project—environmental concerns, budget issues or destroying our "good will" with Mexico.

We didn`t get a shut out in our toe-to-toe with the other side. But I certainly wouldn`t trade having the fence constructed for an amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens.

Whatever may lie ahead in 2008, we`re well positioned to stay on our current roll and to stave off all further efforts at amnesty regardless of the outcome of the November election.

Joe Guzzardi [e-mail him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor. In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM.