Well readers, Pelosi and co. are at it again.  As I said in my last post, 38 of the cosponsoring forty nine Democrats still have not signed the SAVE Act discharge petition, which would bring the SAVE Act to a vote.

            As if that wasn’t insulting enough to their constituencies, Pelosi’s cronies are devising even more ways to circumvent what should be both a compromise for them and an action mandated by the American people following the McCain-Kennedy debacle.

            On top of preventing the Act from ever coming to a vote, now Rep. Joe Barca (D – California) has proposed an amendment that would include amnesty!

            Not to worry reader, you are not the only one having flashbacks to that McCain-Kennedy debacle.  If this amendment were to be approved, we would be right back to square one – in other words, right where Democrats want us to be.  They want us to be back to square one because they know square one means no progress towards immigration reform. 

            Democrats won’t even discuss immigration reform until we conservatives concede amnesty.  That is absurd.  Amnesty has become the critical issue when it comes to immigration reform. 

After the Democrats took over both houses in 2006, didn’t they say they would put an end to partisan bickering and strive to accomplish things through bipartisanship?

            That campaign promise has turned out to be amusingly false.  Democrat Heath Shuler and Republican Brian Bilbray have come up with a bipartisan compromise on immigration.  The bill they wrote does not even deal with any of the illegal immigrants already here.  It merely strengthens border security and allots additional resources to enforce existing laws.

            To top it off, the bill was cosponsored by 157 members of the House, forty nine of which are Democrats.  That appears fairly bipartisan, right?

            But alas, thirty eight of those forty nine Democrats don’t want to vote on the bill they are endorsing.  Now Joe Barca has proposed the aforementioned amnesty amendment that would allow a 5 year temporary worker permit for illegal immigrants already here, rather than to allow our law enforcement officers to continue deporting people who break our laws. 

That buys the Democrats plenty of time to conspire on how to further circumvent immigration reform.  Five years is plenty of time to pacify the immigrants and their American cult following, and after those five years I’m sure the Democrats will have a way to keep the people who participated in the 5 year worker program here forever.

            As if that wasn’t enough, Barca’s amendment to the SAVE Act would also shield employers who have hired illegal immigrants in the past, irrespective of any statute of limitations.  That means we cannot prosecute anyone who has broken existing immigration employment laws, which is in direct contrast to what the SAVE Act sought to accomplish: enforcing existing immigration laws.

            So the Barca’s logic must be as follows:  I campaigned that we should compromise.  Ok, to do that we should at least enforce existing laws until we come up with a better solution.  But in the mean time, let’s not enforce existing laws.

            Barca’s Congressional website amusingly purports that, “The American people demanded a New Direction: to make America safer, to help restore the American dream, and to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to the people's government.”

            That’s exactly right, Mr. Congressman.  The McCain-Kennedy backlash made it abundantly clear that Americans want to make American safer by securing our borders.  So in furtherance of Barca’s “New Direction,” I’m going to restore accountability by exposing his party’s manifest hypocrisies, particularly concerning the notion of bipartisan support when they are secretly scheming against it.

            It is also worth noting that although Barca’s website lists many of his proposals and accomplishments, the SAVE Act amendment is not among them.  I’m guessing that’s because the San Bernardino voters who put him in office would be pretty ticked off if they knew about his little amendment.  The southern California area has felt more of an impact because of illegal immigration than most other parts of the country.

            For those that don’t know much about the makeup of the California constituencies, if you go anywhere east of the beach then you’re in a conservative zone.  Barca is a Democrat that managed to get elected in hostile territory.  I’m sure his voters would not be too happy if his little Pinky-and-the-Brain plan was publicized.

            Once again Congressional Democrats are showing why they are undeserving of the political majority they have received in both Houses.  In 2006, they said the American people had spoken.  The only thing is, the American people continue to speak.  They spoke after 2006 when McCain-Kennedy was introduced, and they continue to speak today through Congressional approval polls.

            Congress had a very low approval rating prior to the 2006 Democratic takeover.  Those numbers have not moved an inch since the Democrats have controlled Congress.  Not only is the party torpedoing itself when it comes to the Executive branch, now they are self destructing in the Legislative branch as well.  I, for one, cannot wait for the pendulum to swing back in our favor come November.

COPYRIGHT 2008 JOHN M. ROGITZ

Currently, there is an immigration bill being stalled in the House of Representatives and news agencies refuse to report it.  I’m appreciative of the American Conservative Union for notifying me via email because Fox News simply cannot be the whistleblower on every story our liberal main stream media chooses not mention.

            The bill is called “The Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act of 2007.”  In an apparent attempt at bipartisanship, it has been sponsored by 157 members of the House.  That number includes forty nine Democrats who are trying to prove to their constituency that they are worthy of reelection when immigration rises to the forefront of the 2008 general election.

            In essence, the SAVE Act is an “enforcement only” bill that focuses its attention on increased border security, employment enforcement, and further assistance enforcing current immigration laws.  For instance, one thing the bill would do is add 8,000 more Border Patrol Agents across the border states and increase the infrastructure they need to be effective.

            Another aspect of the SAVE Act is to make the E-Verify program mandatory for all employers.  Those news agencies that are reporting anything at all on the SAVE Act are labeling this as one of the more controversial provisions of the Act.  What’s so bad about making the E-Verify program mandatory?

            I’ve lifted this straight of the Department of Homeland Security website:  “E-Verify…is an Internet-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.”

            Controversial?  I don’t think so.  The E-Verify system is free to use and everyone has access to the internet these days.  Further, the mandatory program would be phased in over time, starting first with the Federal government and Federal contractors.  Private employers would have ample time to prepare for the change – up to four years.  Even if an employer were to not own a computer with internet access, he or she could just make sure they get their library card renewed in time and use one of those machines free of charge!

            In addition to the increase in Border Patrol Agents and mandatory use of the E-Verify system, the SAVE Act would provide necessary resources to enforce existing federal immigration laws and to penalize violators.  It would expand the investigative reach of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including the addition of more agents and more training.

            However, Speaker Pelosi and some of the other open-border Democrats are secretly trying to undermine this bill while publicly supporting it.  As the Washington Times observed, “The Democrats are putting together an elaborate con job: using tough-sounding rhetoric while working behind the scenes…to defeat a bipartisan bill that takes a no-amnesty, enforcement-oriented approach.”

            Do you think that commentary is a little skeptical?  Consider this:  Because Pelosi has buried the Act way down on the House agenda, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-California) and Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) had to initiate a discharge petition for the Act last week.  The signing of this discharge petition by a simple majority of House members would force the SAVE Act onto the House floor for a vote.

Currently, 181 members of the House have signed the discharge petition, leaving Bilbray and Shuler thirty seven votes short.  More astonishingly, of the 157 co-sponsors of the Act, thirty eight of the co-sponsoring forty nine Democrats have yet to sign this discharge petition!  This is political posturing at its finest.

One would think that a sponsor of a bill would be the first to sign a petition bringing it to a vote rather than to let it die without one.  Democrats can’t have it both ways.  They can’t act tough on immigration for their constituency by saying they support the SAVE Act and then also appease Pelosi and the rest of the amnesty/open-borders cult by not bringing the Act to a vote.

As Congressman Bilbray observed, "You've got Ms. Pelosi and the traditional Democrat groups basically wanting to see this population of 20 million illegals voting for Democrats.  They want to give them residency, citizenship, and register them to vote so they can use this illegal population as a political bloc that's behooving [sic] to them because they're the one who empowered them with the votes."

If Congress were to actually vote on the Act, it would pass with ease.  The only way the Democrats can win this battle is if they prevent it from ever being allowed to come to a vote. 

The American people spoke so loudly when the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill became a focal point last year that there is no way Republican or Democrat alike could vote down a bill that increases border security.  The people made it known that we want our borders secured first.  Further, this bill avoids the central issue that has been the point of heated contention regarding immigration – what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here! 

All that the SAVE Act does is prevent more illegal immigrants from coming, allows our immigration enforcers to do better jobs, and enforces existing immigration laws that include disallowing employers from hiring undocumented workers.  In essence, the Act accomplishes significant goals that Republicans and Democrats should, at a minimum, be able to agree on.

How could any Democrat in their right mind oppose such a minimal compromise in an election year?

So of course Pelosi has buried this bill way down on the House calendar.  It’s the only way to satiate her ultra-liberal open border advocates who would react with great distaste towards any positive step in immigration reform.  Our liberal Congressmen won’t discuss any immigration reform until conservatives concede amnesty.

I know they have professional athletes to question on the use of performance enhancing drugs, but don’t you think minimal immigration reform is a priority that should be a bit further up on the House totem pole?