Who woulda thunk it?
I have a modest proposal. I propose that in the future the sponsors of any bill that is introduced at more than 10,000 words should be horse-whipped on the Senate floor.
I’ll eventually close the circle, but give me a little time to get around to it.
Different conservative blogs have different pet issues — government transparency, federal judges, Fred Thompson, to name a few.
But no issue in recent memory has united conservative bloggers like the debate over immigration. Their frustration has culminated in a full-scale revolt against the Bush administration and a Senate bill that activists say does little to solve the country’s border security problems.
[…] Conservative bloggers make various arguments against the bill. Some say the bill grants amnesty to illegal immigrants who have already broken the law. Others say normalizing millions of new workers would depress wages and harm American workers.
Most conservative bloggers see border enforcement as the priority, an issue they say the president can enforce on his own without having to push a bill through Congress. (CNN)
And of course there is one other reason that conservatives and non-conservatives who care about the Counterjihad care about this issue. They look at the desultory way in which Bush danced around the case for an America-led, comprehensive global Counterjihad in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the US, Africa, and other places, while refusing to clarify issues and name the problem (Jihadism), they look at the growth of Hizballah and other forms of criminal Jihadism in the Americas, and they wonder why the American border shouldn’t be protected against Jihadists like Adnan Shukrijumah who want to kill us here.
Many bloggers said they are disappointed the president has pushed so hard for the immigration bill while letting the war and other issues conservatives care about fall by the wayside. (CNN)
Bush has also insulted his own supporters over this bad bill.
“The White House will go out and zealously promote Harriet Miers [the former White House counsel who Bush unsuccessfully nominated for the Supreme Court], defend [Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales, promote this bill, but will not take a firm stand on the war,” said Erickson. “I know people who are boiling with rage that the president has been beating up his own side over this bill but won’t take the bully pulpit to beat up Democrats over the war.”
Bush did little to help his relationship with bloggers on May 29, when he told a crowd in Glynco, Georgia, that critics of the immigration bill “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” (CNN)
What are the concrete problems that would lead people to oppose this very bad bill? Senator Jeff Sessions has released a list of Twenty Loopholes of the bill that nullify most if not all of the security aspects of the bill. One of the most egregious problems with the bill is the standard of evidence that immigrants are required to produce in their favor.
Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence:
Records from day-labor centers, labor unions, and “sworn declarations” from any non-relative (acquaintances, friends, coworkers, etc) are to be accepted as evidence that the illegal alien has satisfied the bill’s amnesty requirements. This low burden of proof will invite fraud and more illegal immigration – even aliens who are not yet in the U.S. will likely meet this burden of proof. DHS will not have the resources to examine whether the claims contained in the “sworn declarations” of the alien’s friends (that the alien was here prior to January 1, 2007 and is currently employed) are actually valid. [See p. 293: 13-16].
You mean, if I can find someone, even someone in a bar, a meth-lab, a brothel or a crack-house, to swear who I am and that I was here before February 2007 I can get into the country and get a tamper-proof ID that says I am whoever I want it to say? Say, if Osama Bin Laden were here illegally and presented someone who was willing to swear that his name was Juan Garcia or John Thomas then he’d get a tamper-proof ID proving it?
And this isn’t an invitation to identity fraud how?
All the major problems of this bill are hidden in one statistic. The bill is over 300 pages long. It was introduced into the Senate like a bombshell that was supposed to be debated and fixed in a day and then voted on. Yet nobody except a tiny, sinister cabal of staffers and their senators had seen it beforehand. We get one defender of the bill saying this about the bill, and another saying that, and they are all saying that the Sessions loopholes aren’t really loopholes.
If the bill says this and that, and it doesn’t open the loopholes, then why isn’t the bill shorter? Why doesn’t it say this and that, then stop? Instead it goes on for hundreds of pages, hiding all sorts of nasty loopholes, implementation details, earmarks, and bribes to various identity groups in the bill.
The Constitution of the United States is 4,612 words including the signatures at the bottom. The Bill of Rights is 936 words. All the other amendments together take 2,974 words. All the most important rights and laws of the United States take up less than 10,000 words. It is an insult to the nation and to its constitution that such important issues as immigration reform, which I agree is necessary and a public good for many reasons, are not presented in a clear way that can be understood by everybody, especially by the Senators and Representatives who are the people’s proxy in the formulation and implementation of our national will. Instead the bill blathers on for more than 300 pages of foolishness.
And that is why I propose that in the future the sponsors of any bill that is introduced at more than 10,000 words should be horse-whipped on the Senate floor.
Maybe we should start with this bill. Misters Kyl and Kennedy, please proceed to the front of the chamber.