Bob Barr says your wrong about the immigration bill.

In the AJC today former Congressman Bob Barr says:

If, however, those who so discourteously booed a sitting senator of their own party on Saturday took the time to actually read and understand the legislation to which not only Chambliss, but also his colleague, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), have tentatively lent their support, they might discover the bill contains a number of other measures that used to enjoy GOP support.

For example, those currently in the country unlawfully would not be eligible to apply for a green card —- itself a prerequisite for any eventual citizenship application —- until the huge, current backlog of lawful immigrants with pending applications are taken care of. In other words, rather than “going to the head of the line” as some previous immigration plans proposed, under this latest version, candidates currently here without authorization would have to “go to the back of the line.” This process alone might take up to eight years (followed by five additional years to complete the track).

Another important —- and for Republicans, one would have thought, positive —- aspect of the bill Chambliss and Isakson have tentatively agreed to support, is that applicants would be required to submit to a federal government background check, and any raising security concerns or possessing criminal records here or in their home country would not be eligible to proceed with the process. Moreover, all applicants would have to return to their home country —- for the vast majority, Mexico —- from where they would file their application. And, in a move that has upset many Democrat supporters, preference would be afforded those with higher education and job skills. Even sweetening the pot by providing a special category of temporary workers to assist employers with significant labor needs, including many Georgia farmers, was not enough to shield Chambliss from the wrath of his fellow Republicans.

17 comments

  1. Bull Moose says:

    Well said Bob Barr. Is the world coming to an end soon, I just agreed with Bob Barr?!?

    This is the best step forward on real immigration reform and needs to be embraced. Let we all forget that the other option is the status quo of doing nothing and NO ONE should be in support of that.

    We can all find various elements to improve or make PERFECT this proposal, but guess what, it has to pass to actually become law.

    This is a realistic proposal and Isakson and Chambliss should be proud of their support for an immigration bill that Senator McCain has championed that really addresses our fundamental problems.

  2. jsm says:

    I guess it’s easy for Barr to sit on his high horse and criticize people who haven’t even had the chance to read this bill for booing at the mention of a guest worker program. All they know is what they’ve heard over the last several years about allowing illegals to stay here and work while being given legal identification and access to entitlements. I wonder when these folks were supposed to have the chance to read the 300+ pages of the bill before reacting to the esteemed senator who has already shown his lack of esteem for conservative principles. These people exercised their first amendment right to express their feelings for the words they heard from their elected representative’s mouth, which purported the necessity of “guest worker” labor for South Georgia agriculture.

    I wonder if Barr has read the bill.

  3. Jas says:

    Just like the religious right lunatics in the party, the anti-immigration xenophobes are using misinformation and hysteria to launch a misinformation campaign on a good bill.

  4. SpaceyG says:

    I wish I could make a career out of telling people they’re wrong all the time. Women just get called a bitch when they do that; men get quoted and hailed as great thinkers.

  5. Skeptical says:

    Nothing pisses me off more than actually agreeing with Bob Barr. I wish he would quit making sense and go back to trying to impeach Big Dog.

  6. patriot says:

    I beg to differ on several points…

    When it comes to “the back of the line”, I don’e equate that to having only the “head of household” return to “country of origin” to APPLY, and undergo a 1-day security check, and then he rejoins his family “BACK

  7. patriot says:

    (oops!)

    “BACK IN THE USA” WHILE WAITING FOR APPROVAL, where they continue to enjoy “THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE” – largely at the expense of Americans.

    When the 12 – 20 million already here ILLEGALLY get to STAY, with the OPTION to apply for Z-visas, if they DON’T, are we REALLY gonna “track them down and mark them “RETURN TO SENDER?” (that is what I’ve been told by Sen. Chambliss’ office)

    Since they are here WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, how are we gonna find them and track them down, “send them a pkg. via UPS, and use THEIR tracking system?”

    Sen Isakson’s “Trigger mechanism” was just compared to ROY ROGERS’ STUFFED HORSE” on the Senate Floor. ( I believe the horse and the bill are equally DEAD !)

    WE DO NOT HAVE ONLY 2 OPTIONS…
    1)adopt this monstrosity and say “we gotta do SOMETHING”
    2) “DO nothing”…
    what about the preferred option::::
    3) ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS, SPEND THE MONEY TO BUILD THE APPROVED WALL, MONITOR EMPLOYERS AND PENALIZE THEM, SHUT OFF BENEFITS TO ILLEGALS.

    What about the “rule of law”?
    These illegals thumb their nose at our law – coming here, staying here, working here, driving w/o license or insurance, stealing identities, and “harvesting” benefits that need to take care of the AMERICAN CITIZENS, and the LIMITED number WE choose to admit.

    What makes us imagine that they will pay anymore attention to these myriad new laws??

    Sen Isakson has distributed written opposition to the DREAM act (In-state tuition for illegals, in p reference over AMERICAN CITIZENS who may live LEGALLY in the State next door. it is my understanding that the provisions of the DREAM act are a part of the “BS+IRE” bill.

  8. Doug Deal says:

    When he is touting a bill that the Senator has not read and therefore cannot possibly understand is completely worthy of a chorus of boo’s.

    Why was the bill not committed like EVERY other bill? Why was the original plan to rush it through before the public could digest it? If it is so great, why is McCain and Kennedy for it?

    Every bill should be opposed until reason is given to support it.

  9. Jmac says:

    Every bill should be opposed until reason is given to support it.

    That’s sorta the opposite of every man is innocent until proven guilty. I would disagree with your assertion Doug. All legislation should be treated with skepticism and go through the appropriate vetting process, but a bill to ‘help children’ should have the initial philosophical backing unti one can determine that it will or won’t help children.

    The actual bill regarding immigration, I think, is a solid compromise. It’s partially terrifying that I agree with Barr’s column, and I think Bull Moose makes good points on it.

  10. Jace Walden says:

    Doug is absolutely right.

    The burden is on our elected officials to (1) clearly identify the problem and (2) prove to us why their bill will solve the problem.

  11. Doug Deal says:

    JMAC,

    You are confusing philosophical ideals with practical realities.

    The question “Do you support children’s lives better?” is meaningless in the context of legislative action. Who defines better?

    Some people think that children need to be ruled with an iron fist to instill discipline, while others believe just as strongly that children should be left to their own to discover their own values. Also, 75 percent of a child’s life is lived in adulthood, so isn’t it actually anti-child to compromise adult freedoms for the benefit of children?

    This does nothing to settle what should be enacted by a bill. Plus, all legislative action boils down to the government using its guns to tell people to contribute money or perform a certain action regardless of their will in the matter. (If you do not believe this is true, refuse to pay your taxes, refuse the summons by the IRS, and then refuse to allow yourself to be arrested.)

    I would hope that our representatives would first ascertain whether a bill is reasonable, constitutional, necessary and prudent before support such action.

    It seems this is beyond the compression of our current Senate delegation.

  12. Overincorporated Fulton says:

    Gah…I know it’s already been mentioned (thanks, Bill), but can we PLEASE correct the title of this thread? That sad excuse for English is forcing me to avoid Peach Pundit in my favorites list.

  13. debbie0040 says:

    I am disappointed in Bob Barr, and I have never been more thankful that John Linder taught Barr a lesson in humilty. Barr was so full of himself he thought he could move into Linder’s District and win. Linder cleaned his clock…

    Provisions were put in the bill to appeal to conservatives. They were hoping we would not bother to check out the other provisions and would support the bill. We paid attention and the public outcry was not expected by those pushing the bill..

    Check out the price tag the Heritage Foundation put on the cost of the bill. 2.5 Trillion Dollars.

  14. The Comma Guy says:

    I would have loved to read the legislation over the weekend. So would members of the media. So would other members of Congress. What did the politicians in Washington think was going to happen? A bill on the biggest issue to the public, which does not advance the will of the people, gets introduced in secrecy but no one can read it to learn more. Folks are going to respond and it’s not going to be positively.

Comments are closed.