Chambliss, Isakson send letter to Bush re: immigration.

Here’s an excerpt:

As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our constituents,the message from a majority of Georgians is that they have no trust that the United States Government will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and secure the border first. This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about
future immigration reform.

We believe the way to build greater support for immigration reform in the United States Senate and among the American public is to regain the trust in the ability of the federal government to responsibly administer immigration programs and enforce immigration laws. There is bipartisan agreement that we need to secure our borders first, and we believe this approach will serve as a platform towards addressing the other issues surrounding immigration reform.

To that end, we believe that you and your administration could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the border and interior security initiatives contained in legislation currently pending in the Senate, as well as any outstanding existing authorizations. Such a move would show your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It will also work towards restoring the credibility of the federal government on this critical issue.

Click here to read the entire letter.

13 comments

  1. CHelf says:

    I’m not sure how being very cozy with this bill one week and distancing oneself from it the next week makes them any more credible.

    I find it curious that the “secure the border first” argument does not get ellaborate on how this will be accomplished. I read in the news this morning how National Guard members are assisting illegals in crossing the border. There are incompetent idiots like the one in VT who let red flags go allowing someone in the country who needs to be pulled aside. There are people already tunnelling (many successfully) into our country with a wall not even up across the southern border. Looking at our border you would have to wall up the entire nation to “secure” it. Putting a wall up to the south still leaves Canada and it still leaves the ports up and down the east and west coast and to add the Gulf coast as well.

    I’m not sure what devil is in the word “comprehensive” but clearly the ones who are using it have the sense to realize that a wall by itself in a bill by itself will not resolve the issue. Clearly there are other factors that seriously need to be addressed very soon or this little wall to the south will only be something to post local art work. I applaud those who are actually trying to resolve as many facets on this as possible. I’m shocked that Isakson has bolted from logic and reason and is now on the one issue response bandwagon.

    So by all means, go rush to the south and build the little wall thinking it will do wonders to the issue. Don’t pay any attention to the many other factors of the issue like “why the illegals come here in the first place” or the way to handle either the loss of 12-20 million workers or the legal integration of them. Clearly a wall didn’t stop the tunneling. And clearly the stacking of guards didn’t help when some are actually working to help illegals enter. What does it do for the Americans needing jobs? What does it do for the illegals riding the entitlement system? What does it do for schools? Or the ‘massive’ gang and drug problem caused by illegals?

    We either solve much at one time or think one wall and a few more bribable guards will somehow resolve an issue with 12-20 million still in this country AND being a part of the labor force holding up the nation.

  2. Mike-El says:

    Was this letter measured precisely before it was sent? It does, after all, need to cover both of their pert backsides.

  3. CobbGOPer says:

    Typical political answer, though: “The best thing we can do is throw more money at it, Mr. President.”

    Yeah, we’ve seen how well that works in myriad other government activities.

    The reason our current immigration laws aren’t being enforced is not tied to lack of funds, folks. It’s for lack of a spine. If we enforced the laws we have on the books, without regard for the political fallout that inevitably comes from the Left, our immigration problem would be a lot less serious, IMO.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    Craig,

    It is apparent that you were either misinformed about what actually happened originally, or you chose to interpret it the way other, more lazy-minded people chose to interpret it.

    The fact is that several weeks ago, what all of the media hoopla was about was reporting on something that hadn’t actually happened. There had been no bill written, even though the news folks had reported it as such.

    All that had happened was discussions had taken place, and Isakson and Chambliss were allowed to participate.

    At the conclusion of the discussions in preparation for writing a bill, the media pounced on the Dems’ side of the story that “Hey, we’re going to get this bill passed, and we have some Republicans onboard.”

    But, the Isakson office sent out a press release stating that “The bill has not been written yet. All we have agreed to is IF these things are included that we’ve specified that the future bill needs ARE included, we will support the bill.”

    But, WHEN the bill was ACTUALLY written, it didn’t contain the mandatory provisions Isakson and Chambliss had required.

    So, after Harry Reid didn’t allow their amendments to be voted on, Isakson and Chambliss voted against cloture and turned to other methods for communicating what they thought had to happen.

    Got it straight now?

  5. AlanR says:

    I’m rather impressed. For once congress came home and listened, and got the message. Hope it continues.

    As to the concept itself I would urge the measure twice, cut once approach. The purpose of the wall is not to end immigration, but to control it. I would not be against more immigrants from Mexico, but not illegal immigrants. You have to admire someone who is willing to travel thousands of miles to work for chump change to get a better life and send something home. Is it too much to ask that our government figure out who they really are, and where they are going on the way in?

    I guess I’m pro immigrant but anti immigration.

    CHelf, you raise an interesting point. You gotta wonder what’s up when so many, many hard working people are abandoning home. Aren’t these the kind of people you need to keep?

    I have always thought we should have taken care of regime change in Mexico before Iraq.

  6. CHelf says:

    Sorry Bill. Not misinformed nor lazy. Discussions did take place and key provisions were laid out. Certain people made it clear they were friendly to what was offered and discussed and over these past few days their tone has stepped backwards on that. They were both cozy in the photo op. You don’t go into a photo op with Dems unless you are little more involved than just participating in the discussions as you put it. Saxby himself said he was “committed to the concepts”.

    To quote him from 5/19:
    “Before we just throw cold water on this bill, give it a chance. Let us educate you about it.”

    Reading the rest of the speeches etc. from then and looking at this now, you will see a whole new tone between the two concepts and what these two are more openly endorsing.

    So call it lazy or misinformed but I call it for what it is – moving from being cozy with comprehensive to being in the borders first camp.

  7. CHelf says:

    AlanR,

    I’d say many of these are migrant. They are not long term. They are seasonal workers who come here, get a decent paycheck, and then head back home. So there is obviously a need for less bureacracy processing seasonal type visas. Obviously many just bypass the “legal” method when they can just skip the paperwork and come here much faster.

    Back in 2001 I went on a mission trip to Honduras. in the 10 days I was there I met several dozen Hondurans who actually recently worked in GA. Two men actually stayed off of Jimmy Carter Blvd in Gwinnett and knew exactly where I was from. They told me they went up there about 4 months a year to work, save money, and then come back home. They cared less about citizenship. I doubt many of those 12 million would as well. Why stay here when they could go back home to the rest of their families and live like royalty with the higher wages they acquired here in the US.

    The key is that very few in this debate are actually understanding what this whole issue is about. There are American citizens and businesses out there willing to hire under the table to avoid payroll taxes and paperwork and avoid benefits issues. So right there your fellow citizens are the source of the ‘problem’. Because of the need, people come. People are willing to pass an imaginary line to get better wages. Many return home. As this builds our labor force becomes dependent on this. This is more complex than building a fence. There are many other dependent factors that are involved as well and that if are not addressed this problem will become greater. And a fence never stopped ANY event. It does not address the millions here already or the millions who may want citizenship from pouring across before a wall is built. But as I said before, go ahead and address the narrow minded and narrow sighted part of this and see what comes of it. Having a border first solution with a wall that will take months, if not a few years to fix will only let the other issues linger and more to pour across before the door is shut.

  8. jsm says:

    “Typical political answer, though: ‘The best thing we can do is throw more money at it, Mr. President.'”

    I agree in principle, Cobb, but spending money on enforcing current laws and building the fence will save money used to pay hospital bills, Social Security, and other undeserved entitlements. Maybe my glasses are rose-colored, but I think deporting illegals is cheaper than paying them to stay.

  9. Rick Day says:

    I LOL’ed at the part where a secure border is touted as the silver bullet to stopping the flow’ of some drugs.

    Except…homegrown co-ops in the mountains and basements of GA, bathtub gin, er meth labs, clandestine DMT and LSD labs, mushrooms growin in the fields and good ole Cold Medicine,

    Then..there is Canada…and the coast. My god we must secure the coast from brown peoples and their demon weeds!

    Sheesh.

  10. Paladin8 says:

    Stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at a bad bill?

    Or get involved to try and make a bad bill better?

    Georgians didn’t elect Saxby to throw rocks, they elected him to dive in on the tough issues and represent our views.

    Glad to see that he is continuing to say what he always has: SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST!

Comments are closed.