Senate Amnesty Sellout–An Attempted Coup Against America

Under the
leadership of

Senator Ted Kennedy
(D-MA), various
Senators and

Bush Administration
officials pulled an all-nighter
behind closed doors on Wednesday. By noon Thursday, the
bleary-eyed politicos had concocted an illegal alien
amnesty (a.k.a.,

"comprehensive immigration reform"

I presume
politicians don`t have

Smoke-Filled Rooms
anymore. So you could call
this the
Red Bull
-Filled Room approach to deciding
the fate of America.


committee hearings
are to be held on what
may well be the most important legislation of the
decade. As

Senator Chuck Grassley
[R-IA] correctly
pointed out:

"It`s disappointing and even ironic
how the deal announced today skirts the democratic
processes of Congress. It was cut by a group of senators
operating outside the committees of jurisdiction and
without public hearings on key components."
`Troubled` Immigration Reform Proposal
| President
Bush and the Democrats reach a compromise on immigration
, by Lorraine Woellert and Eamon Javers,
, May 18, 2007]

As of early
Saturday morning, May 19, the public has not even been
shown the text of the bill. The

ultimately failed amnesty

the Senate passed last year
was 118,277 words long.
This may well be more complicated. A

of the first draft shows it to be
almost twice as thick as a


So reading
the new bill carefully will likely take at least 10
uninterrupted hours, and quite possibly twice that, a
span of time that few Senators have readily available.
To truly understand

how the legislation would work

what its long term implications are
would take weeks
of questioning and debate.

Senate Majority Leader

Harry Reid
(D-NV) wants to have the entire bill
passed by

Memorial Day, a
week from now.

Even more
appallingly, Reid wants to hold the crucial "cloture"
vote to shut off the possibility of a

, the best chance to derail it, on

Monday, May 21!

It is
utterly impossible for the United States Senate to
exercise the due diligence commensurate with the
importance of major immigration legislation without
extensive hearings.

pro-amnesty Senate hearings spearheaded by McCain in
early 2006 aroused tremendous opposition among the
public. Although an amnesty bill passed the Senate in
May, House Republican leaders wisely refused to be lured
into a conference committee to reconcile their
enforcement-only bill with the Senate`s diametrically
opposed bill. Instead, they held additional hearings on
immigration last summer around the country. Foolishly,

Senator Arlen Specter
(R-PA) tried to hold his own
hearings in favor of the Senate bill, but the result of
the dueling hearings was the collapse of any chance for
amnesty last year.

From a good
government standpoint, what we are witnessing is perhaps
the most irresponsible and shameless attempt to hustle a
pig in a poke past the public in recent memory. Of
course, that`s the whole point of the exercise—to not
let us simple citizens in on the process of deciding who
our fellow citizens will be.

It`s only a
modest exaggeration to call this an attempted coup
against the American people.

Of course,
the Main Stream Media finds this elite putsch admirable.
U.S. News` Political Bulletin commented on
Friday: "Media
Revels in Bipartisanship Bliss

The bipartisan process that led to the Senate
deal is being celebrated in media reports."
press probably would have spun the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact
as a triumph of bipartisan bridge-building. Who cares if
the American people have to play the role of the
betrayed Poles?

Why this
obscene haste? According to the Boston Globe, [Adversaries
praise a relentless Kennedy
, By Susan
Milligan, May 18, 2007] the reason is that "an
immigration pact would need to be finished by summer or
it would collapse in the heat of campaigning."

In other
words, the government wants to

elect a new people
before the people start to elect
a new government.

the increasingly out-of-touch Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
and the

half-Hispanic governor Bill Richardson
(D-NM) were

only two
of the countless Presidential
candidates currently running to endorse the scheme

While many
of the candidates appear to

lack enthusiasm in their hearts
for rigorous border
control, they at least know what the voters want to
hear. Thus,

Sen. Barack Obama
(D-IL) noted that the Kennedy-Bush
plan would "replace the current group of undocumented
immigrations with a new undocumented population … and
potentially drive down wages of American workers."

Former Senator Fred Thompson said we "should scrap
this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the
American people that we have secured the borders."[
candidates line up on the immigration bill
, By Mark
Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2007]

The track
record of the principals behind the deal is not
reassuring. The last time Senator Kennedy and President
Bush teamed up, the result was the absurd

No Child Left Behind
act, whose mandate that every
child in America be "proficient" (i.e.,

above average
) in reading and math by 2014 can be
met only by

on the most colossal scale.

If Kennedy
is successful, this will be the third generation of
Senators that the

Massachusetts Democrat

into passing a bad immigration bill,
beginning with the epochally disastrous 1965 immigration
act, and continuing with the laughable

1990 Diversity Visa law.
Despite (or possibly
because of) this history, the Bush cabinet secretaries
gushed about their night with Senator Ted. "He`s
exclaimed Homeland Security supremo

Michael Chertoff
. Commerce Secretary

Carlos M. Gutierrez
effused that it was "a real
to work with the Democratic warhorse.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has claimed
that she would only pass comprehensive immigration
reform if President Bush delivers 70 Republican House
members to her side, Slate`s Mickey Kaus

wisely counsels:

"Opponents of the

GOP cave-in on immigration

would be fools, I think, to rely on Nancy Pelosi`s House
to kill the legislation. … What are the bill`s
opponents going to do when Pelosi decides that, hey, 20
or 30 Republican votes are enough?"

As I`ve
pointed out

, the Age of Ideology—when the big
questions were simple ones, such as


—is over. We live in the Age of the Fine
Print, where the devil is in the details.

We saw that
with the

1986 immigration compromise
that mandated both
amnesty for current illegal aliens and workplace
enforcement to discourage new ones from entering.

While most
of the participants in that fiasco were reasonably
sincere—unlike now, after

21 more years
of immigration

degrading our political culture
—they were
confounded by the difficulty of anticipating the
consequences of their legislation. Thus they failed to
set up effective enforcement mechanisms to prevent

employers of illegals
from demanding that the

to whom they gave
campaign contributions

badger the INS
into ignoring lawbreaking at their
factories and farms. So, due to

rampant corruption,
the 1986 compromise ended up in
practice being amnesty-only.

The 2007
law`s employer enforcement clauses would likely be as
ineffectual – but for even more cynical reasons.

Only a
massive and absolutely immediate response from an
outraged public will stop this week going down as one of
the most shameful in American political history.

[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic

The American Conservative
His website
features his daily