How Immigration Died–Part 1

Russell Berman, The Hill, November 12, 2013

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez’s phone was ringing. It was President Obama’s chief of staff.

Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) was part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the middle of May that was on the cusp of a breakthrough agreement on immigration reform.

Denis McDonough told Gutiérrez that Obama opposed a key concession that Democratic negotiators had made to House Republicans.

Sen. Charles Schumer later called. The New York Democrat, the architect of more liberal legislation from the Gang of Eight that was advancing in the Senate, delivered an even blunter message.

“Stop the progress on the House bill,” Gutiérrez described Schumer as saying. “I want you to stop. You are damaging the Senate proposal moving forward.”

The White House and Senate Democrats did not want a more conservative House plan—designed to pass muster with a Republican majority—to emerge before the Gang of Eight’s proposal had passed on the Senate floor.

Lacking support from party leaders, Democrats in the House group suffered from internal divisions over how far to bend in their bid to reach a deal that could set up a compromise with the more favorable Senate bill.

Tempers flared frequently between Gutiérrez, the colorful Chicago lawmaker revered by immigration advocates, and Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), a Los Angeles liberal who had risen up the ranks of the Democratic leadership.

Immigration reform is widely seen as dead in this Congress, and the finger-pointing has already started.

Both parties are responsible for the effort’s demise.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, refused pleas from GOP negotiators for a commitment to move the House bill. Republicans could never give Democrats a clear sense of how many GOP lawmakers might support the proposal if it ever reached the floor.

Inside the House Group of Eight, momentum toward a deal slowed as negotiations became bogged down in a dispute over healthcare. By the end of May, the group had lost its self-described conservative hardliner, Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), who quit despite pleas from top Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), that he stay at the table.

The remaining seven met through the summer, but their moment had passed.

{snip}

The group’s collapse after more than four years of talks left the House without a bipartisan immigration proposal to rival the Senate bill that passed in June, and a year after Obama’s reelection, the prospects for his top second-term domestic priority are bleak.

{snip}

But in a series of interviews with The Hill over the past two months, Democratic and Republican negotiators said the group’s failure stemmed from divisions among Democrats over strategy and policy, as well as Boehner’s refusal to put his weight behind the bill and help steer it through the House.

This account is drawn from extensive interviews with six members of the group and several of their advisers. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity to reconstruct, for the first time, private negotiations that occurred over several years.

{snip}

Leaders in both parties, including Boehner, once had high hopes for the group, which formed before Obama took office in 2009. The Speaker had made clear in public and in private that the House needed to tackle immigration reform after the 2012 election, and he told Republicans he thought the group represented the chamber’s best chance for success.

{snip}

Gutiérrez had been a co-sponsor of bipartisan House legislation during the last major immigration push in 2006-2007. He attended early meetings of the new group, but when he saw the discussions moving to the right, he bolted.

At its peak, the group included more than 20 members. Its hallmark was secrecy.

Meeting over take-out dinners in House conference rooms, the members kept their deliberations hidden not just from the public, but also from the Obama White House.

While Democratic negotiators occasionally updated senior officials and the president was aware of the group, Democrats refused to tell the White House which Republicans were at the table. And even after they drafted and reviewed a 500-page bill earlier this year, lawmakers never showed it to senior White House officials.

In the early months of the Obama presidency, immigration reform fell down the list of priorities, and when the political environment turned toxic over healthcare, Democrats pulled back.

When Republicans won the House majority in the wave election of 2010, the bill was shelved.

{snip}

For the next two years, members of the group had only informal conversations, but after Obama won a second term in November 2012, he signaled that immigration reform would be a top priority in 2013.

{snip}

As winter turned to spring in 2013, the House negotiators—still working nominally in secret—were racing against their much more public counterparts in the Senate to lay down the first marker on immigration reform.

Once the members had settled on a path to legalization, the talks advanced quickly, and some in the group wanted to go public with a framework for legislation, if not a complete bill.

{snip}

Ultimately, the Senate Gang of Eight finished first, unveiling its 844-page bill with fanfare on April 16.

The concessions made by Schumer and fellow Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.), spilled over into the House talks, where Democrats were forced to drop demands for provisions favored by liberals, such as a diversity visa program prized by the Congressional Black Caucus and by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

{snip}

To win conservative support, Republicans demanded a “hard trigger” to tie the path to legalization for immigrants to progress in implementing either the border security or interior enforcement parts of the bill. One idea that Democrats rejected was to give immigration enforcement power to state and local law authorities, similar to controversial Arizona legislation that the Supreme Court had partially invalidated.

Democrats instead agreed to a trigger on the employment verification system, known as E-Verify, which could have resulted in immigrants losing their probationary legal status if the new program was not implemented within five years.

{snip}

The E-Verify trigger remained in the bill.

{snip}

Neither the White House nor Senate Democrats were happy. The Senate bill contained no such hard trigger, and with that proposal advancing steadily toward a floor vote, party leaders worried that the introduction of a more conservative House proposal would scare off Senate Republicans—particularly Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.)—or cause them to demand similar concessions in the Gang of Eight plan.

“If this proposal had moved forward before the Senate bill passed, there would have been no bill in the House, and no bill in the Senate, period,” a Senate Democratic aide said.

McDonough called Gutiérrez and Lofgren to voice the president’s opposition. Schumer and other Senate Democrats followed suit, urging them, at the very least, to hold off on any announcement before the Senate bill made it off the floor.

“The request wasn’t that the House never move forward, the request was that the House wait,” the Senate aide said. “Democratic senators, the White House, and Leader Pelosi believed that pushing a proposal to the right of the Senate bill before it had even been passed would have sent Republican senators running from the bipartisan process, and would have all but eliminated any hopes of having a path to citizenship at the end of the day.”

The House Democrats refused to make that commitment, but despite pressure from Republicans—including Boehner—to speed up their bill, the negotiations dragged through May and June.

{snip}

Multiple Democrats in the House group said they understood the concerns of McDonough and Schumer, but said the White House never took seriously their warnings that the House GOP would not accept the Senate bill and that the lower chamber needed its own bill to set up a conference committee.

“It is clear to me that there was no strategy on the White House’s part post-Senate victory. Because the Senate victory was the strategy,” Gutiérrez said.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Sorry, not biting this bait even for one second.

    As long as plutocrats want amnesty and open borders, it will never truly be dead, at best it will be comatose. And even to get it comatose, we’re going to have to find some way to have a political scorched Earth policy relating to people, both elected and non-elected, pushing for or benefiting from open borders.

    However, the article still a good read, because of these two major takeaways, one obvious, one subtle.

    The obvious: Like I have been saying in AR and elsewhere for most of this calendar year, what’s more likely to kill any “comprehensive” piece of legislation before our phone calls and letters (which we should still be doing) is red team-blue team partisan wrangling.

    Left to their own devices, the typical establishment Republican’s ideal immigration bill would be to grant work permits to illegals but no path to citizenship or much of anything else, so they can be a new class of cheap labor serfs for the EL CHEAPO labor lobby that’s a big part of the Republican donor base, but with no path to citizenship ever, they could never endanger red team at the ballot box.

    The Democrat ideal on immigration is full citizenship for all illegals right away, purely to harvest votes for blue team.

    Then there are the populist Republicans, who are a significant minority but not a majority among Senate Republicans and probably a numerical majority among House Republicans. The latter fact is crucial because of the Hastert Rule, and the chances of Boehner breaking the Hastert Rule to pass any sort of immigration bill went down the crapper when he had to break it to end the most recent budget impasse.

    There was just no way that any sort of deal was ever going to be struck that made all three sides happy. It was going to be hard enough to get something to make both the blue and light red teams happy, but it’s virtually impossible to craft a bill that the bleue team, the light red team and the dark red team like.

    Sometimes, the Democrat Party is also the Stupid Party. If I was advising them, I would have them support a Republican establishment bill, unqualified in private but “with reservations” in public to placate their base that might be upset for one reason or another that it’s not amnesty and open borders enough. If such a bill makes it out of both the House and the Senate and Obama signs, it still amounts a demographic ticking time bomb that will eventually benefit blue team, mainly because of the invented birthright citizenship doctrine of the 14th Amendment. Too, just because they’re not citizens doesn’t mean they can’t vote, because there are lots of illegal aliens registered to vote and actually voting (or someone else is voting in their stead). Why wouldn’t a person who is somewhere between illegal alien and full citizen, quasi-amnestied by an establishment Republican immigration bill, be able to register to vote and actually vote in many jurisdictions? FOB Jose walks into the BOEC office to register to vote, and the particular BOEC office he walks into is run heavily by Democrat-leaning constituent groups. Do you think they’re going to check Jose’s immigration or legal status, or just go right ahead and sign him up to vote? Right.

    The subtle revalation: All these “gangs of eight” or “gangs of whatever” didn’t just materialize out of nothing earlier this year. In reality, the attempt to use “gangs” to forge a compromise, as well as some of the membership of the “gangs” themselves, goes back to the time between Obama’s first election and his first inauguration. What does this mean? Amnesty and open borders was alive before it was apparently alive, which is why I say it’s not dead when it’s apparently dead.

    • Pro_Whitey

      Agreed. I don’t know when this amnesty crap will ever be killed off, but if they get it through, whites are toast. We would have to start the dropping out/self-segregating process, which is neither easy nor cheap.

      • DaveMed

        But it is the future. Does anyone here really believe that, in 100 years, America will be “one nation, indivisible…”?

        • NM156

          Sez you it’s the future. Stop whining and start acting. Those who complain about how amnesty is inevitable and how we’re going to be the minority in a few decades do nothing about it. The public has done it’s job in obstructing every amnesty or quasi-amnesty in the past 13 years, so activism works, and it works well. With more action maybe we can finally get some traction on reining in legal immigration and ending other egregious policies such as birthright citizenship.

          • DaveMed

            I meant that (self-)segregation is the future. Certainly, I support opposition to amnesty through every possible venue.

          • Xerxes22

            We could also use some wealthy patrons on our side, something which the enemy seems to have in droves. Not one of the mega rich is willing to support us in our fight, even though it is also their fight.

          • Sick of it

            Consider the people who have the money and power today versus those of yesteryear. Consider how so many of the old wealthy were bankrupted during various engineered depressions and wars.

          • MikeofAges

            The wealthy think about themselves, their children when they are younger and their grandchildren when they get older, and finally ahead to their children’s grandchildren. They think about the glorious past if their wealth is hereditary and their family has a history. They think about their enterprises if they have any they have founded, but generally are willing to take them public and then bail out entirely. They think about their own subculture (social set) and how to maintain its continuity and exclusivity.

            The rest of the world to them is just a mass — throbbing, roiling coruscating as it will. They care little for its composition and only want to keep themselves separate from it. Over the ages they fail in that too. If the population is homogeneous, then it matters little. If it is not, you end up with India.

      • NM156

        The unamended, unmodified 1986 IRCA was drafted in 1980. It raised its ugly head only when the political winds changed and lobbyists lying in wait for 5-6 years had the opportunity to get it passed. Lobbyists make their living by selling amnesty to Congress, and they won’t be going away after the temporary death of the Gang of Eight bill or its mutant offspring, but neither will we. Immigration restrictionists will ultimately need to ditch the defensive anti-amnesty routine and aggressively pursue comprehensive immigration reform including a drastic reduction of Third World immigration. If the NRA can win a concealed carry victory for Illinois, immigration activists can put an end to the ongoing invasion. It only requires public opinion and resources.

    • bigone4u

      Yours is a better analysis than the MSM ever provides. I hope that your comment is picked up by the blogosphere and gets widely read. I’ll add that there’s one more factor you didn’t bring up, which is the desire by some to genocide the white race through miscegenation. Make no mistake, whites and Mexicans are pairing off and marrying en masse in Texas. Mexicans are far more attractive than blacks, which has a lot to do with it, as does Mexican promiscuity. Sex is always on the mind of a Mexican and whites are crossing the color line in response..

    • sbuffalonative

      Immigration reform (aka blanket amnesty) is not dead. They’re only re-grouping to find new ways to re-frame the con that’s it’s good for America.

    • MBlanc46

      It’s certainly not dead. And even when not quiet alive, the Mexicans are pouring across the border in the thousands. The status quo is fine with the corporate elite (as you point out) and it gives the Dems something to organize the Mexicans (and others) around. The mainstream parties will never resolve this to our satisfaction. Extra-electoral action is our only hope (and a rather dim one at that).

      • Bossman

        Is immigration only about Mexicans? Mexicans are not going anywhere. North America is their continent and they know it. Sooner or later, the USA will have to adopt a sensible immigration policy. A sensible immigration policy (to me) would be one where preference is given to West Europeans and Latin Americans as it was in the old days.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          I disagree, the whole of N. American was never theirs to begin with, we and the North American Indians before us were here first in that order. Their traditional homelands are in present day Mexico. Do you know the Apache and Comanche tribes hunted down and killed Mexicans stupid enough to intrude into their homelands? I would say they were very much like the Cossacks, who also hunted down and killed alien invaders, often beheading them with swords. Both were famous for their horsemanship. You can bet your last dollar the N. American Indians don’t want the Mexicans here anymore than the vast majority of middle and lower class whites do.

          • Blue-eyed Devil

            Geronimo’s family were murdered by Mexican soldiers. He HATED them.

          • Zaporizhian Sich

            Exactly, make no mistake you can be sure the N. American Indians do not want them here.

          • Bossman

            That was a tribal affair. Many of the present-day USA Indians have their reservations right on the southern border and right on the northern border as well. Do you know why that is? Also many American Indians act as facilitators for illegal Mexican migrants who pass through their reservations.

        • MBlanc46

          No, they’re not, but because we share a long border with Mexico, they’re probably a good majority of the border jumpers. With 7.5% unemployment (and that’s the official lie), I think a sensible immigration policy for the foreseeable future is no immigrants (and deport all the illegals of whatever nationality who are already here). If that were the policy and I were an immigration official, I might turn a bit of a blind eye to illegal Irish and Poles, but that’s just my prejudice and it shouldn’t be the law.

          • Bossman

            The USA is the premier country in the world and is at the center of world trade and commerce; it cannot have a zero immigration policy. That doesn’t make sense from any angle that you look at it. As for Mexico, it is the neighbor next door and the USA has entered into all kinds of trade agreements with her. Migration and trade go together, one follows the other.

          • MBlanc46

            So you say, without argument or evidence.

        • Blue-eyed Devil

          Are you suggesting that European Americans return en mass to Europe? I’m willing to do that but we’re going to employ a scorched earth policy before we board all those planes.

          • MikeofAges

            I’ve always been influenced by the 18th Century and the Enlightenment. That’s how things worked out. Even though I have a critical view of the philosophes, I ended up being one myself, so to speak. Makes me think of a sign I saw once in a neighborhood bar. “Be the best at what you are, even if what you are is no good”.

            Anyway, I thought that “On the Plausibility of Sending Everybody Back Where They Came From”. Right up there with my other unwritten essay, “American World Policy in the 20th Century: Will the United States Survive Until 2001?”

            It did but died shortly after the 9-11 attack, when the self-absorbed American elite decided, “If we change, the terrorists win”. What a difference one little word makes. Actually, it should be “If we don’t change, the terrorists win.” And we didn’t, except for the worse in some specific ways.

            Isaiah 9:8-10 (RSV)

            8 The Lord has sent a word against Jacob,
            and it will light upon Israel;
            9 and all the people will know,
            E′phraim and the inhabitants of Samar′ia,
            who say in pride and in arrogance of heart:
            10 “The bricks have fallen,
            but we will build with dressed stones;
            the sycamores have been cut down,
            but we will put cedars in their place.”

  • borogirl54

    From what I understand, there are a group of hardcore illegal alien activists that are staging a hunger strike to get an immigration reform bill to pass. I wonder if they will starve to death?

    • bigone4u

      We can pray for them. Exactly what that prayer will be I can’t say.

      • Erasmus

        How’s this?

        “Dear Lord, make them die fast.
        Amen.”

    • Erasmus

      I wonder if they will starve to death?

      I hope so. Guess what, beaners: The lawful citizens of this country wish you would all starve yourselves to death.

    • Greg Thomas

      Have you ever seen a starving mexican? Neither have I.

      • Blue-eyed Devil

        Most are fat fucks with beer bellies.

    • WR_the_realist

      They already had that “illegals stay home from work day” to prove their importance to the economy. When the economy got on just fine without them, they had to think of some other approach. I’m all in favor of illegal immigrants starving themselves to death, although I’m not optimistic they’ll carry through to the bitter end.

    • NM156

      Let’s hope some anti-amnesty activist shows up with a Weber grill and a big fan to blow in the direction of the starving.

  • ZeitTrash

    What happens to jobs “that Americans won’t do”? The wages for those jobs go up to the level at which they can attract workers. But we can’t have that, can we?

    Conversely, what happens when the ruling American plutocracy imports illegal immigrants to do those jobs instead of raising wages? The wages remain low, the American middle class is destroyed, and the Dempublican and Republicrat elites grow wealthier as America is “fundamentally transformed.”

    The people are bought off with food stamps and government jobs and thus they grow weaker and dumber and fatter as they lose their drive and vitality. Soon, they are no threat at all to the ruling class.

    • Sick of it

      I just recently found out that several positions I had applied for were filled by muslims who had never before lived in the area. I grew up around here. They can marginalize us pretty well via economic warfare, such as the denial of employment.

  • bigone4u

    The economics of “immigration reform” are so obviously anti-white middle class that only a fool or a knave would think otherwise. As important as the issue of black crime is, immigration is my litmus test for whom to support. Between shipping jobs overseas and importing workers to the USA, big business deserves nothing but contempt, as do the politicians who are their lackeys.

    • MBlanc46

      And stopping it would require the ending of the political influence of big business.

      • NM156

        The NRA needs not much business support to bulldoze their way over the opposition, which is formidable, but it does have enormous public support. Would you have predicted 10 or 20 years ago that Illinois would ever have a concealed carry law on the books?

        • MBlanc46

          Who is the NRA of the anti-immigration movement? And there won’t any support from the Supreme Court support in stopping Mexicanization.

          • NM156

            We don’t have one, but the numbers must exceed the numbers of those who support the NRA both directly with dues, donations, and activism and who support the NRA at the polls.

          • MBlanc46

            I suspect that you’re right about the numbers. But how do we get them mobilized so that we’re not tens of millions of separate individuals, but a political force tens of millions strong?

    • mobilebay

      Hear! Hear!

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    This is what happened among law-makers. And it is interesting. We will never know, however, what happened between law-makers and individual constituents.

    My guess is that the longer S. 744 or some variation of it was visible to interested constituents and law-makers, the uglier it came to look. House GOP members are, for the most part, not fools. The possibility this “immigration reform” atrocity might be their legacy had to look less and less appealing.

    One-time “Gang of Eight” amnesty-cheer-leader Marco Rubio’s collapse in the polls and subsequent steady incremental abandonment of all his once firm “immigration reform” positions make the GOP back-tracking, retreating process visible.

    Angry informed constituents played a very large role in dodging the immigration reform weapon of mass destruction.

    • bilderbuster

      The fake “Tea Party Conservative” Cuban pretty boy Marco Rubio’s reputation took a massive hit with his Gang of Eight stunt. But he still has the party establishment backing & the media loves him.
      That POS had “Central Casting” written all over him when he showed up & I knew he could never be trusted.

      • Sick of it

        I have been told that he pushed immigrant friendly legislation when he was in the Florida state legislature. After all of this started of course.

        • bilderbuster

          That wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
          One thing you can count on in FL is the senators will always suck up to the Hispanic & Jewish voters in S.Florida no matter how destructive their selfish racial politics are to the United States as a whole.

    • DaveMed

      Random question – dies your handle grammatically “make sense” in Latin? Because, if it does, I’d like to use it as a status on other sites.

      I really like it.

      • Brian

        In Latin it would be ‘ e pluribus plus’ I think… neuter singular nominative case, 1st/2nd declension.

  • Larry Klein

    The only thing saving the GOP from their own suicidal stupidity was the wild and arrogant demands from and within the Democratic Party. The notion that they “bent” on anything is beyond absurd. The legislation produced by the senate was the most horrific POS since the movie adaptation of the Dukes of Hazard

    • Jackryanvb

      Very well said.

      Dukes of Hazard TV show and Andy Griffith show are the best, almost sacred White Southern American folk popular art. Thanks for standing up for our people/culture.

  • JohnEngelman

    The question ought to be: how do Americans who already have the legal right to be here benefit from more immigration?

    • NM156

      Once in a while, JE produces a gem from his pocket.

    • Bossman

      A lot of innovations in American culture have been created by legal immigrants. Historically, the USA has benefited greatly from immigration.

      • JohnEngelman

        “Innovations in American culture have been created by legal immigrants” with high IQ’s. If you have read many of my comments you know that I am partial to Ashkenazi Jews and Orientals because they have higher IQ averages than white Gentiles. Orientals also have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy. I suspect Jews do too, but I have not found statistics on the topic.

        I see no reason to admit Negro immigrants. What blacks have contributed to popular songs does not begin to compensate for the cost of black crime and a criminal justice system expensive enough to keep the Negro race under control.

        • Bossman

          I agree with you that Blacks remain an underclass in U.S. society and bringing in more would not be a good idea. However, in these discussions about immigration, the focus is always on so-called Hispanics. Personally, I think attacking so-called Hispanics are a waste of time because most of them are already near-white if not white. The term “Hispanic” itself did not even begin to be used as an ethnic classification until the 1970s.

          • JohnEngelman

            Hispanics are a hybrid race composed of American Indians, Caucasians, and Negroes. That is why they tend to be more intelligent and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than Negroes, and why they tend to behave and perform less well than most whites.

          • Jefferson

            If the majority of Hispanics in the U.S are White, why do predominantly Hispanic public schools in America perform so poorly ?

            If the majority of Hispanics in the U.S are White, why do Hispanic youths join street gangs at a much higher rate than Gringo youths ?

            if the majority of Hispanics in the U.S are White, why do Hispanic females become teenage mothers at a much higher rate than Gringo females ?

            The “stereotype” of your people is that the average Maria already has 2 or 3 kids by the time she is 18.

          • Bossman

            I didn’t say that they are white. I said that many of them are near-white. Most so-called Hispanics are racially mixed people with indigenous Indian in their background.

      • Blue-eyed Devil

        From immigration from Europe, yes.

  • Spartacus

    Cleptocrats want immigration because they can fire the mostly-White middle class, and replace them with muds who work for less, and put the rest of the money into their bottom line. Marxists want immigration because they want muds to outnumber Whites. But which tribe do most cleptocrats and most marxists belong to.

    • bilderbuster

      The Amish!

    • zek

      The reptilians!

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      A growing number knows exactly who they are, and where they are. And no, it is not merely one tribe, but several even though one does draw more condemnation than the others.

    • Sick of it

      There’s no telling.

  • Larry Klein

    It’s downright depressing how little a voice most Americans have in this process. Seriously who in the world is asking for “diversity” visas ? I know the answer, and it ain’t regular black folk.

  • Jefferson

    Millions of right wing voters in America will NEVER vote Republican again if the GOP helps Obama pass this shamnesty bill.

    So the GOP better tread lightly on this. You stab us in the back and WE ARE GOING TO HIT YOU WHERE IT REALLY HURTS and that is on election day by sitting at home.

    • WR_the_realist

      Republican Kelly Ayotte is already on my “dump” list. She voted for that horrid immigration bill precisely because it increases the number of H-1b workers so as to put more Americans out of jobs. I will vote for her opponent in the primaries, whoever he is. Of course it is a given that my Democratic senator voted for it too.

      It is far more important to vote in the primaries for whoever is not the turn coat incumbent than it is to stay home on the general elections. By the time the general election begins, the important decisions have already been made.

    • Blue-eyed Devil

      I already did that when that bozo Romney ran for office.

    • Bossman

      What percentage of GOP voters are rabid xenophobes? Is being a Republican the same thing as being anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant?

  • Anon

    You would truly have to be a fool, at this point, to believe this is even an issue.

    We have, right now, unlimited, open borders with easy forging of any and all identity documents, no questions asked by any government, law enforcement or financial institution and near immunity from any and all crimes, no matter how serious when committed by non-whites. Anyone who wants it, can instantly become a citizen but why bother since most simply collect welfare under numerous identities and the main occupation of greedy foreigners are various quasi-legal scams by which most welfare is converted into drug money.

    Amnesty? The very idea is ludicrous…..an object of derision and laughter by those raping our culture. What exactly does “amnesty” mean when the very rule of law has so clearly broken down.

    Amnesty implies permission. Or, at least some token control over the situation. There is none. Our government stopped its legitimate functions quite some time ago. It isn’t even entirely clear if rapists, murderers or other serious criminals from other countries are even being prosecuted anymore when caught.

    Amnesty is, in no way a legitimate issue. It’s a red herring to avoid discussing the imminent loss of the entire SW territory of the United States…..and all that implies.

    Our government is no longer functioning in the most basic manner in such things as maintaining our borders. Which is another way to say, it has collapsed. It is still leaching incredible amounts of money….until people realize there is no point to funding it anymore…since it is no longer doing anything even remotely related to legitimate government.

    What [white] people should be discussing is what new borders will apply once it people recognize the old government and way of life is gone.

    What one thinks about amnesty, immigration, non-whites in general, and while we are at it, welfare, socialism or anything you think our government supplies in return for all that money they are (for now) taking from us….none of that matters in the slightest.

    We have bigger fish to fry, so to speak…as a people. But also, individually, these issue just don’t matter anymore. What matters? Where you currently live. How you make your living (more to the point…how dependent are you on our zombie government). Are the people who live around you self-sufficient and white?

    No….then you have some hard decisions to make and quickly.

    • DaveMed

      “We have bigger fish to fry, so to speak…as a people. But also, individually, these issue just don’t matter anymore. What matters? Where you currently live. How you make your living (more to the point…how dependent are you on our zombie government). Are the people who live around you self-sufficient and white?”

      You are absolutely correct that these are the core concerns of any sane white. But, it does not hurt to simultaneously fight in the more public political arena, in whatever ways we can.

  • Jackryanvb

    Well, I am proud to say I did everything in my power to kill or delay this hideous treason/murder.

  • Greg Thomas

    These traitors are wasting taxpayer time and money on crafting a bill to extend amnesty to illegal invaders; who violated our immigration laws,as well as sovereignty. How is this even possible!

    • mobilebay

      Well, Greg, seems most anything is possible in this brave, new world. A few years ago who would have thought our government would not defend our borders, or that it would not only ignore our sovereignty, but aid and abet the destruction of the greatest nation on earth. We are no longer a nation of laws, only unenforced promises. Not the first one to start the process, this President warned us that he would “fundamentally change our country.” A lot of people didn’t seem to care and chose him anyway, so now we can expect anything in the next three years. It should be an interesting ride.

      • Sick of it

        Who would have thought that we would openly support al Qaeda a few years back?

  • Jackryanvb

    Please some one confront this horrible Liberatarian loon, traitor WI Rep. Paul Rryan. The GOP has been cursed with immigration loon, traitors in the VP nominee a few times Paul Ryan and Jack Kemp.

    • Watch out for another big open borders threat coming down the pike, and by “big,” I literally mean “big.”

      Aside from being for open borders generally, the CAIR has given him awards for being against “Islamophobia,” (“Islamophobia” = Noticing things), and he’s also big into rubbing shoulders with Desis for the outsourcing/insourcing one-two punch against white people.

      • NM156

        Governor Cheeseburger think’s he’s going to be the next President by running as a centrist, which is another word for open-borders advocate, corporate lackey, and amnesty supporter. The idiotic GOP Inc. electoral machine will no doubt spent tens of millions to put him in the White House, only to suffer another loss a la 2012.

        • I generally frown on polling, and especially polling this far out, but…

          HRC > Christie in… Georgia.

          Catastrophic debacle if Christie is nominated.

  • WR_the_realist

    I hope (but have no confidence) that somebody put a knife through the skull of “immigration reform”. That flesh eating zombie keeps arising again and again.

    • NM156

      I liken it to The Thing more than to a zombie. Amnesty bills just rest for a while, then mutate into forms that resemble non-threatening bills. Only when the proposals are actually put to a vote does the public get the tentacle in the eye and respond with a flamethrower.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        Yup that is indeed what immigration is for us. It can disguise itself for a while, but sooner or later it’s true nature must surfaces, just like the aliens in The Thing movies.

  • kjh64

    Immigration didn’t die. Immigration is like the Friday the 13th slasher horror movies. You have Friday the 13th one, two, three and so on. In each movie, you think Jason(the slasher) is dead only to come back in the next sequel. Same for immigration. It didn’t die. It just keeps coming back under different guises ie. amnesty, pathway to citizenship, etc. Immigration, the sequel will be back with a new name and new bogus reason why it’s good for America.

  • mobilebay

    Luis “Benedict Arnold” Guiterrez is the biggest traitor this country has seen in some time. How about a proposal no one has yet mentioned… a demand that all illegal aliens be out of this country in thirty days or face hard time in prison? This nation has successfully fought off all enemies since its inception. Why, now, should we surrender to every third world inhabitant who feels entitled to sneak in? The most shameful part of this surrender? It is aided and abetted by our own government with people like Guiterrez whose only goal is to turn us into the next third world where they can rule the masses like dictators.

    • Jackryanvb

      He’s not a traitor to our White race, because he is not of our race. He’s mestizo, Latino, ‘Rican with aspirations of being an international “Che” leader of the third world, brown masses, all the time enjoying the perks of being a US Congressman or higher for life.

      Our race is our nation, long since time to give up fantasies of non Whites in US assimilating, becoming loyal to our country, Constitution, some sect of Christianity.

      Yeah, Guiterrez and Rep. Paul Ryan supposedly share religious affiliation – it’s the religion of dispossing the historic White British American people by non White masses, Paul Ryan has some Libertarian loon spin how our dispossession by Third World gang banger mud people is somehow “Good for America”. Don’t bother trying to find some “we’re both Catholic” way out of this mess.

      Guiterrez knows which side he’s on, Paul Ryan and his Libertarian loon cult followers – simple traitors.

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      How about Quisling? Anyone who has Norwegian ancestry knows what that is synonymous with.

  • Marc Zuckurburg

    We need comprehensive immigration reform.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    • Blue-eyed Devil

      F**k Zuckurjewburg

    • WR_the_realist

      Great troll.

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    In this case, negotiations are akin to Dr. Faustus challenging the Devil to a game of chess in a futile effort to save his soul. For whites, this is a Faustian bargain, because one can always make a deal with the Devil and always will end up on the wrong side of the very same deal. In other words, these Latino, Jewish and other non-white members of Congress can be counted on to stab white Americans in the back every chance they get, and are not to be trusted with our freedoms, well being and very lives. They are the Devil incarnate when it comes to us having any future other than slavery and death.

  • Sick of it

    Ahh but notice that the same people still control the mines of South Africa, even after the black Communist took over, and make tons of money off of black labor there. We are the hardest racial group to control when you really think about it.

  • Jackryanvb

    I highly recommend the Black and White early Andy Griffith Show – best ever and not always safe and wholesome, though White good always triumphs in the end. Check out the episode of “the stranger”.

  • MikeofAges

    Amnesty means very little. Under current case law, as we all know, anyone born on United States soil is a United States citizen by birth. This will not be changed in the courts, so it can only be changed by statute. And that will not happen either. Most of the people affected by an amnesty law will fall into one of two categories, people who have been here a long time and consequently are beyond the age where they will produce any more children or people who have been brought here as children. The former, older people that is to say, are not going to be sent back in any case, while the latter, people brought here as children, are not great in numbers. Focusing on opposing amnesty is not, under these circumstances a fruitful idea. What is more important is to focus on locating people who have arrived recently and sending them back home before they become settled in the United States and, above all, to focus on closing the border to prevent future mass illegal entry.

    Supporting amnesty, if it is designed merely to provide legalization rather than quick citizenship, is a way to make border control and a strong program of deportation of recent illegal entrants more politically palatable. Contrary to what most people think, amnesty will not alter the demographics of American society any more than letting the current situation fester would.