A GOP “strategy” on amnesty
We’ve learned that there just might be a crony capitalism angle in the amnesty fight for at least one powerful House Republican. 
We’ve also heard about a letter, circulated by 50 House Republicans, urging that ONLY a short term funding measure be passed and that NO funding for amnesty prep be approved. (Walter Jones is the only local pol signed on to that letter.)
Now, we’re getting word of an alleged strategy being considered by congressional Republicans against Obama’s plan to issue an executive order on amnesty:
[…]
The key point is that no matter what package emerges, there seems to be a consensus emerging among Republicans on Capitol Hill: There will be no funding for Obama’s planned executive amnesty. There’s a number of different ways that can happen.
First, there could be a short-term Continuing Resolution passed that funds all of government from Dec. 11—when current funding measures end—until shortly after the newly-elect Senate GOP majority takes office in early 2015. At that point, the Senate and House Republicans would block Obama’s planned immigration executive order in some fashion—either in a bill that funds all of the rest of government except for that or by splitting various Appropriations bills into different packages that separates funding the Department of Homeland Security out from the rest of government.
Another possibility is that there may be some kind of effort to cut the funding for Obama’s planned executive amnesty in the lame duck session of Congress now, but that effort would likely be thwarted as one of the last acts of outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“House members are looking for a way to stop executive amnesty while passing a partial omnibus that contains some appropriations bills already passed by the House,” a House GOP aide close to the negotiations told Breitbart News. “The approach would separate the agencies involved in executive amnesty from the rest of the government funding, perhaps through a short-term CR combined with an omnibus, or a ‘cromnibus’ as it’s been coined in recent days.”
In statements to Politico, both incoming Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn and incoming Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) affirmed that is likely to be the pathway forward for Republicans.
“I think there is a growing momentum to the idea that Congress would be acting responsibly and modestly if it funds the government but simply bars the president from executing policies that Congress believes shouldn’t be executed by denying funding,” Sessions, one of the loudest and most aggressive proponents of Congress asserting its authority here, said.
“It seems to me the two options are to do a temporary CR, for everything and to revisit it at all early next year — or to do something longer term on everything other than” the DHS appropriations, Cornyn said. “But I know there will be controversy about that as well.”
One of the best parts of this strategy for Republicans is that they can have their cake and eat it too—have the government funding fight, and have no risk of a government shutdown at all.[…]
The GOP is complaining about the borders not being closed. I have heard that they may have some ideas on how to “close” the border though I doubt any plan will actually seal the border. Most interesting is that I don’t hear ANYTHING about how much these plans will cost the taxpayer. I am sure the GOP is concerned about sticker shock if they try to put numbers on these plans.
It is interesting that the Party of Ronald Reagan is so against President Obama’s consideration of amnesty when nobody batted an eye when Reagan did the very same thing.
What far left fractured history! President Reagan did not ”do the exact same thing”. The 1986 ”comprehensive immigration reform” was an initiative of Congress, which Reagan signed, and as one of his closest associates later revealed Reagan considered the biggest mistake in his presidency. That comprehensive approach had all sorts of promises of border security that Reagan believed but which Congress later welched on, so that the country got all of the amnesty but almost none of the border security that was supposed to go with it. That shows the fraud of ANY ”comprehensive” approach.
The 1986 bill also set up the problem we have now. It created a magnet for border crashers, while doing nothing to stop them. Obama’s threatened dictatorial decree would be an even bigger magnet, and the so-called ”border children” (mostly teens or older) would be a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of border crashers that would then come.
Yes, defending the border would cost money, but not nearly as much as taxpayers are paying now to subsidize the illegal aliens with education, welfare, food stamps, health care, etc.
We need to get very tough on our southern border where the problem is. We need to tell all those countries where the illegals are primarily coming from that their foreign aid will be reduced by how much we have to spend to defend our borders from their nationals trying to crash it, which should probably zero out their foreign aid. That should motivate them to help contain the problem.
Sometimes countries have to get really tough and use or threaten deadly force to protect their borders. A few years ago, Morocco got get up with Africans farther south sneaking in to then try to sneak into the Spanish enclaves on their coast. The Spanish fired rubber bullets regularly to discourage these illegals attempts to rush the border, but that was only so much help. Then one day, the Royal Moroccan Army showed up, and the bullets in their M16s were lead instead of rubber, and they, too, opened fire on the illegals trying to rush the border. Then they rounded up the camps of illegals, put them in military trucks, dumped them over their southern border, and told them never to come back to Morocco.
Then there is Italy during a local election a few years ago where illegal immigration was a big issue. At the time, most of their illegals were coming in by cigarette boats crossing the Adriatic from Albania. Umberto Bossi, head of the Northern League political party, then part of the national governing alliance, declared in a speech that while the Italian navy and coast guard had nothing that could catch the cigarette boats, the cigarette boats could not outrun the missiles and artillery shells the navy and coast guard vessels carried, so the policy should be to sink the smuggling boats first and ask questions later. Of course the leftwing media howled, but the Northern League’s poll numbers jumped upward. The result was that it got the attention of the Albanian government, which then adopted and enforced laws to limit engine size on the cigarette boats, so that they could no longer outrun the Italians.
We need to use whatever level of force is necessary to stop this invasion of America. One measure I would support is making it a capital felony to act as a ”coyote” or human smuggler and put a price on their head, say $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of each one.
Pars the Reagan Amnesty any way you like but if he was the strong leader the Right claims he was he would not have taken such a major step if he didn’t agree with it.
You agree that closing the border will cost a lot but, like everyone else on the Right, will not give us even a ball park figure to work with.
As for killing people just because they want a better life for their families, now that is a solution a so called Christian nation would employ, right??? Why don’t we actually go after the American businesses who can’t get enough of the cheap labor? But please don’t suggest we mow them down with a machinegun as well.
People who break other laws, like say bank robbers, often also want a better life for their families. That is simply not an excuse for lawbreaking. And by mooching off of the American taxpayer, the illegal aliens are making worse lives for American families, not to mention the diseases they bring over the border with them.
My specific suggestion for the American context was capital punishment for the human traffickers, the coyotes, and a bounty on their heads. Lets give them an incentive to close up shop.
Short Term CR is realistically the ONLY way to stop this: light up the Capital Hill Switchboards: (202) 224-3121
Virginia Foxx just caved, now supports long-term funding bill. Oh boy, she will not be the last.I remember her speech on the floor about Obama’s tyranny with the ACA, Now shes’ all in to fund it, amnesty, EPA, DOJ, and everything else.
IT’S TIME FOR CONSERVATIVES TO GO WAR.. Until the Establishment GETS the message that WE ABSOUTELY DON’T WANT a Long term spending bill.
Virginia Foxx needs a primary. She has declared herself a Vichy Republican, a collaborator with the Obama regime.