“SENATE COMMITTEE SUPPORTS GUEST WORKER PROGRAM FOR IMMIGRANTS” and loses millions of American votes while securing more dollahs for crime. What is the matter with these people on the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee? Could it be corruption? Could it be poor academics? Could it be corruption?
(1.) Corruption (bad ethics)
(2.) Poor academics, impaired reasoning
(3.) Corruption (bad ethics)
(4.) ALL OF THE ABOVE: The Facts of Guest Worker Programs which the woeful Judiciary Committee has just rattled forward as if it was the good end of great big snake.
A few defensive — and losing — arguments today is that, “to economists, illegal labor is beneficial to the economy”: U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee decries a time-clock for to arrive at decisions (not enough time to service usery, it appears, as if this issue of ilegal immigration has only recently become visible, as if the U. S. Senate has not been indulging this problem for many decades and denying the growing, explosive problem of illegal immigration during the approximate last seven years and yet it all has remained unremedied).
But, at least they’re being required to take some action. Problem is, the Senate Judiciary Committee does not speak the language that the rest of the United States does.
“Illegal labor is beneficial to the economy“: I heard that statement moments ago by an irreverant, blurting guest on FOX News, who also said, “…in fact, I think we should just open up all the borders and allow anyone in — well, except criminals and those with infectious diseases, but…”
The legal immigration process requires a health screening for those who applying for entrance to the U.S. and it also requires identification and accountability by which those with criminal behaviors and dubious ethics are weeded out (either at application time or afterward, but the point is that legal immigration requires an applicatoin process and a screening process while “open borders” and illegal immigration requires nothing but incentive to walk, fly or float across a national border and the ability to secret onesself to avoid being identified by the receiving nation — which, unfortunately, usually continues by way of identity and other document fraud throughout the illegal presence).
About pimps and the prostituion that benefits them, I read this article today in the Washington Post: “HELP WANTED AS IMMIGRATION FACES OVERHAUL“.
From that article, this curious information:
“…Brett McMahon, vice president of Bethesda-based Miller & Long Concrete Construction Co., one of the biggest concrete contractors in the country, with $300 million in annual revenue, [Ed. Note: emphasis added] said his concern is that the legislation would essentially turn his company into “an enforcer of who’s legal and who’s not.” McMahon said,””It’s nowhere near that simple to check.”
“In the past 15 years, the Labor Department has audited McMahon’s company five times looking for illegal workers — each time finding none, McMahon said. He added that the House bill threatens to bring his business to a ‘screeching halt’ because there is no provision for a guest-worker program or for dealing with the undocumented immigrants already working [Ed. Note: emphasis added].”
So, which is it? This man’s “business” employs illegal aliens (read the article), if not, as per this V.P., relies upon using illegal aliens for “cheap labor” and even funds their presence in the country, and yet he alleges none of those illegal aliens has been identified by the Labor Department, and, even more obfuscating, that “the House bill” (H.R. 4437) will result in his “business” “folding” if allowed to pass the Senate.
I know that pimps routinely decry law enforcement attempting to curtail their “employees” “business” and by that encoach upon the pimps’ “business” itself (Profits will plummet! Their business will fold if they don’t have access to an ongoing labor force!), so what’s the difference here?
The U.S. Senate Judiciary, by it’s we-need-more-wiggle-room atttempts to deconstruct H.R. 4437 today and throughout the past weeks, is displaying none of the ethics we the people have elected a legislative body to fulfill. They appear to want — if not need — so much to make any legislation as to “immigration” stone-washed away from the “illegality” of illegal immigration as to make themselves mere caricatures of what the U. S. Senate is.
Would the U.S. economy really “fold” if illegal aliens were not among our population? No, and most of us don’t believe it would. A company such as “Miller& Long Concrete Construction Co.” in Baltimore, MD, with it’s “$300 million in annual revenue” cannot possibly consider itself honorable and just if it has to defend it’s profitability based upon violation laws and a dedication to continue to do so, nor do other “business” efforts like them behaving similarly.
And the United States Senate is not honorable in even considering conjuring up (much less attempting) whisking ethics out of an immigration process inorder to accommodate illegal behavior. Is the U.S. now Mexico? I pose that question because, remarkably, our U. S. Senate is resembling the corrupt Mexican government model.
In the United States, however, to most Americans, illegal still means illegal. Most voters just don’t see that the U. S. Senate gets that. A pimp by any other name is still a pimp and prostitution by any other name of business is still prostitution. “Cheap labor” is still cheap labor and those who rely on cheapness get what they pay for: an expensive error, an ethical burden upon and a higher cost to society. The biggest puzzle is why the U. S. Senate would even be belaboring the point as to how to make that all possible bu the utmost insult to our nation is that the Senate Judiciary Committee has now deigned to adulate corruption.
I’m not holding my breath but what I think this means is that they’re commisserating on how to squeak more illogic past the voters. I am not advocating for the Democrats — hardly (and if anyone should ever so think, please read the contents of this blog, all several years of it) — but I do think that there is now a shared bombast from both political parties that is based upon devising new forms of manipulations of issues: what they say they are doing, they’re doing the opposite of that, and whatever they claim they are working toward, they are working against and vice-versa of both options. Moreorless like, to a person engaged in gluttony, it’s the food’s fault that they’re fat so they seek other foods or alternative food combinations but never consider eating less of all food; or like those who are hooked on cigarettes claiming that they can’t quit because there’s too much stress, while unable to acknowledge that it’s the nicotine dependence (and use) that creates all that anxiety about all that “stress” — the stress never goes away when you stop smoking but you no longer freak out about it when you aren’t addicted and using.
There’s now a food fight going on in D.C. while our elected smoke the rest of us amidst the Party. All that pimping has just gone to their heads. They want voters to respect and support their campaigns? Try putting the bombast down. Unfortunately for our neighborhood — allegorically, our nation — pimps never put the bombast down, they just change the neighborhood.
“The 12-6 vote Monday by which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a sweeping immigration bill that would allow illegal immigrants with jobs to remain in the country. The committee has 10 Republican and 8 Democratic members.”
Here are the pimps — four are Republicans, but eight of them are Democrats:
Voting in favor of the bill were:
Sens. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.; Joseph Biden, D-Del.; Herbert Kohl, D-Wis.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Voting against the bill were [Ed. Note: THANK YOU to these Senators] :
Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
I wanted to share what my experiences were, when I made calls last week to the D.C. offices of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for purposes of sharing my opinion.
I introduced all my calls with “I am a registered Republican voter in the state of California and I am calling you at this time to voice my opinions about illegal immigration and various guest worker programs currently in consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I understand that Senator ____ is a member of that Committee…”
The responses from each office. respectively, who I contacted were:
Those who voted today for the legislation:
(1.) Mike DeWine (R/Ohio)…by far, one of the two nicest offices I spoke with (too bad they both do not vote accordingly);
(2.) Lindsey Graham (R/SC)…it was as if the office person was holding their breath during my comments, disconnected without any response;
(3.) Sam Brownback (R/KS)…office disconnected my call after my third and fourth words, “guest worker…” but first they asked me to hold (I did, by about ten minutes), then came the abrupt disconnect when I said I did not support “guest worker…” (never got to say, “legislation”);
(4.) Arlen Specter (R/PA)…I tried all morning and then afternoon, only to receive busy signals; when my call was finally responded to, person listened but the hostility to my opinion was palpable;
(5.) Patrick Leahy (D/VT)…called twice, no answer to the continued ringing, finally responded, listened, I thanked them for listening to my opinion, call concluded;
(6.) Edward Kennedy (D/MA)…called twice, no answer, third call was answered after about forty rings, male voice said, “make it fast because we’re getting a lot of calls,” I did make it fast, man disconnected;
(7.) Joseph Biden (D/Del)…this experience competes for worst-ever with Senator Brownback’s office…I got as far as saying, after ‘hello’ that I was “calling to voice my opinion about the guest worker…” and the female in Biden’s office yelled, “Ma’am, MA’AM, I GOT to let you GO, I KNOW what your concerns ARE!” and she — an apparent mind-reader, abruptly disconnected the call;
(8.) Senator Kohl (D/WS)…No answer, both midmorning and midafternoon in D.C.;
(9.) Dianne Feinstein (D/CA)…woman sounded harried but listened but as soon as I mentioned, “guest worker program,” blurted out, “Senator Feinstein does NOT support guest worker programs” and I said, “I’m glad to hear that” but when I tried to voice an opinion about the various other plans Feinstein had going (and has since incorporated into today’s legislation — among that “Gold Cards” for to enable many thousands of illegal aliens in CA to “work toward citizenship,” and much more), I received an interruptive scoff from the office person, and when I attempted to complete my opinions, the woman interrupted, asked for my name, I provided it, she was then irritable and disconnected, saying that I “can write to the Senator;” Obviously, a problem of representation here;
(10.) Russ Feingold (D/WS)…this office was by a landslide the nicest, kindest, most considerate office I contacted, to my surprise;
(11.) Charles Schumer (D/NY)…my call went unanswered on the three attempts I made, midmorning and midafternoon;
(12.) Dick Durbin (D/IL)…noncommital but tolerant, listened but then disconnected without any response as did most of those who voted “for” this legislation today — obviously, their decisions were already made to support Kennedy.
Those who voted today against the legislation:
(13.) Orrin Hatch (R/UT)…listened, noncommital, disconnected after my comments in full were heard;
(14.) Charles Grassley (R/Iowa)…listened, noncommital, disconnected after my comments in full were heard;
(15.) Jon Kyl (R/AZ)…listened, noncommital, disconnected after my comments in full were heard;
(16.) Jeff Sessions (R/AL)…listened, noncommital, disconnected after my comments in full were heard but the office fellow was very well mannered and thanked me for calling;
(17.) John Cornyn (R/TX)…listened, noncommital, disconnected after my comments in full were heard;
(18.) Tom Coburn (R/OK)…listened, noncommital, disconnected after my comments in full were heard.
The sum experience was that, by far, the most intolerant and ill mannered on the phone were the offices of: Brownback, Kennedy and Biden.
Senator Mike DeWine’s office was by far, the very nicest and was genuinely interested in what I had to say, and was, in fact, quite kind. Senator Russ Feingold’s office was equally as nice, to my surprise, and equally sincere and considerate to and about what I had to express.
The Republican Senators who voted against this legislation today — these were the Senators who I anticipated would not regard my opinion well given that I was and am not a supporter of “guest worker” programs –these Republican Senators were tolerant of my call, provided all the time necessary for me to express my opinions (no “make it quick” interruptive directives as I heard from Senator Kennedy’s office) and there was not so much as a hint of negativity from any of them, which I appreciated.
Unfortunately, Senator Brownback’s office literally pulled the plug on the call and would not even listen to my opinion, nor would Biden’s by way of a related method to avoid hearing what I had to say.