Illegal Immigration, Hillary Clinton, Democrats
The Road to Amnesty:
by J.B. Williams
Liberals Want a Lot More
Thursday, June 8, 2006
The US Senate recently voted 62-36 in favor of amnesty for 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living and working in America illegally. President Bush is taking it on the chin from his conservative base, as he should, for promoting illegal immigration through this effort. Senate Republicans who support the measure will find at best lack-luster support in their mid-term re-election campaigns this fall. But just in case you are thinking that the people would have been better represented under a Democrat controlled senate or White House, you had better think again
Leading Democrat frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential election Hillary Clinton has been as some say, "outspoken" about failed border security and illegal immigration plaguing the Bush administration. But when speaking before a May Day rally for illegal immigrants, she promised to fight for the rights of the good illegal alien constituency, and fighting she is
Senator Clinton sponsored an amendment, "To establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to States and local governments for the costs of providing [free] health care and educational services to non-citizens [illegal aliens], and to provide additional funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program." The amendment was defeated 43-52, but she had some interesting bedfellows in her effort to provide open tax-payer funded entitlements to people who don't belong in America at all. And some think Hillary should be President?
Forty of the 43 "yea" votes came from fellow democrats, 1 from so-called "independent" Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, and 2 from Republicrats Chafee (R-RI) and Specter (R-PA). Is there any doubt what the outcome of this vote would have been with a democrat controlled senate? Is there any real question as to how a Hillary Clinton White House would solve the illegal immigration problem? Come one, come all?
Senator Clinton had an equally interesting cast of clowns as her co-sponsors for this failed amendment. She had five co-sponsors, rising DNC star and recent recruit for his own Presidential bid Senator Barack Obama (IL) was first to sign on, followed by Barbara Boxer (CA), Ken Salazar (CO), Charles Schumer (NY) and Joe Lieberman (CT). Whether Clinton or Obama in 08', is there any doubt about the intentions of these people? Yet you really think Democrats should be considered for leadership in 06' or 08'?
Across the aisle is another failed amendment, "To prohibit the granting of legal status, or adjustment of current status, to any individual who enters or entered the United States in violation of Federal law unless the border security measures authorized under Title I and section 233 are fully completed and fully operational."
In other words, no discussions of amnesty until after the borders have been successfully sealed and the tide of illegal immigrants has been halted. This should be called "the people's amendment" since the notion supports the view of the vast majority of Americans who simply want the borders closed and existing laws enforced before any offers of amnesty be considered.
This amendment was the brainchild of Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson (R) and co-sponsors Saxby Chambliss (GA), John Cornyn (TX), Lamar Alexander (TN), Pete Domenici (NM), Rick Santorum (PA), Wayne Allard (CO) and John Thune (SD). The measure was defeated 40-55, by 36 Democrats, 18 Republicrats and 1 so-called "independent", Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, who never fails to vote against the will of the people at every opportunity.
Of the 40 who supported the failed measure, only 6 were Democrats. Still wondering if we should put Democrats back in power?
But perhaps most interesting on this topic, is the voting record of Republican frontrunner for the 08' Presidential election, John McCain (AZ). On the Republican measure to force closed borders and enforced laws before considering amnesty of any kind, McCain didn't vote at all. On the Clinton measure to provide additional entitlements, McCain voted "nay". However, on the measure to allow Social Security benefits for illegal aliens, McCain voted "yea" and on the "amnesty" bill itself, McCain co-sponsored the effort with Senator Ted Kennedy (MA), along with five other well known Republicrats, Specter (PA), Graham (SC), Hagel (NE), Martinez (FL) and Brownback (KS).
It's no wonder American voters are considering all alternatives in the 06' mid-terms, when the current climate in Washington is so anti-America and anti-American voter. The US Senate has clearly lost its collective mind, or at a minimum, it's collective respect for the will of legal American people across the board.
But in case you are one of many considering a change of power structure in Washington as a result of the mammoth border security problem that threatens our very existence today, you had better take a close look at how things would have turned out if democrats were in control of the senate during these vitally important votes.
And if you are one of many considering some third party protest vote, you had better do the math. These votes were way too close for comfort, as were the last few national elections which very easily could have gone Democrat, obviously making matters much worse than they already are.
Don't make the mistake of misinterpreting the undeniable fact that we clearly have too few pro-America conservatives in Washington, with the silly idea that we have too many Republicans or the notion that anti-America Democrats would somehow be better.
We can no longer deny the overwhelming evidence that we have far too many liberal leaning Republicrats in Washington. But the answer to this massive problem is not to replace them with even further left leaning Democrats. The answer is to protect and preserve conservatives where ever we find them, and replace modern liberal Republicrats with good old fashioned conservative Republicans.
Does it really matter which side of the aisle anti-American votes come from? If an elected official charged with the responsibility of protecting, preserving and defending American borders and principles of law, refuses to abide by that obligation, they need to go. We should all agree on that and we pretty much do.
The question remains, replaced by whom, Democrats? Better read this piece again and again until you wipe that insane idea from your mind
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Recent articles by JB Williams