The time-worn clichés of amnesty supporters

Representative Suzanne Bonamici’s constituent newsletter of November 26 reported on several issues before Congress. The first issue discussed was headed “Acting on Immigration.” Her newsletters are not on her website but any constituent can sign up to receive them by email. See the homepage of her website.

Rep. Bonamici strongly supports President Obama’s unilateral amnesty and in the newsletter she recites the same misrepresentatives, distortions, and untruths that have been refuted many times by those who follow immigration issues closely and with the public interest foremost in their minds.

Here, OFIR member Elizabeth Van Staaveren gives a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal to Rep.

Bonamici’s statements. Embedded links lead to source documents available for further information.

“Our immigration system is broken,” begins the newsletter of Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR1).

Our immigration system is not broken. The problem is that immigration laws have not been enforced adequately for decades, and President Obama has effectively crippled the whole enforcement operation. The result is that we have an officially reported over 11 million illegal aliens in the country with the actual numbers likely much higher. It should be obvious to all that if the immigration laws had been adequately enforced, we would not now have the problem of over 11 million illegal aliens in this country.

“A bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill passed the Senate more than 515 days ago, but House leadership has refused to bring the bill forward for a vote.”

The bill she refers to, S. 744, passed by the Senate on June 27, 2013, has never been sent to the House. It would not have been possible for the House to “bring the bill forward for a vote.” House Committees considered several House-authored bills on immigration, but because of strong public opposition to amnesties, none has been brought to a vote by the House so far. 75% of voters answering exit polls in the 2014 midterm elections rejected Obama's executive decree amnesty plans and 80% did not want foreign workers taking jobs from Americans.

“Without a vote by the House, President Obama took action.”

The President has no authority to make immigration law. The Constitution assigns law-making to Congress; the President is supposed to carry out the laws passed by Congress, not dictatorially make his own laws. If Congress refuses to pass a law that the President wants, the President must abide by the decision.

“His limited measures will strengthen border security, could give more than 4 million immigrants a three-year reprieve from deportation, and would make them eligible for a work permit; it does not make them eligible for citizenship.”

The “measures” of President Obama, which were simply a memorandum to his appointees at DHS, are broad and sweeping in their scope. They will give amnesty to unknown millions of illegal aliens, telling the world it’s o.k. to enter the U.S. illegally – all are welcome. New illegal immigrants will naturally expect another amnesty later. Our already-overcrowded country will be submerged in waves of illegal immigration. Competition for jobs and living space will decimate the quality of life for all.

“The President's action would provide an economic boost to the country.”

No, unfettered illegal immigration has already depressed wages across the board and resulted in widespread unemployment and underemployment, increasing the need for public assistance and further burdening taxpayers. Any economic benefits of amnesties go only to the illegal immigrants and their employers, and then only in the short term.

“…help keep families together …”

We have no obligation to keep illegal alien families together in the U.S. Families should decide which country they as a unit wish to live in, and then follow legal procedures to assure their being together.

“… but it [President Obama’s amnesty] is not permanent and it does not address many of the reforms that are needed. Congress must work to pass comprehensive reform.

"Comprehensive reform" is in reality a plan for open borders and the demise of the U.S. as a nation. The term has been around so long it has its own acronym: CIR, comprehensive immigration reform. The reason advocates want to have a “comprehensive” bill instead of addressing separately the specific problems of administering immigration law is that they can make the bill so long and tedious very few will read it through, as happened with S.744. That bill did not provide for good enforcement as claimed; it was loaded with amnesties for millions and impediments to law enforcement. It also contained loopholes for exploitation of immigration laws by those who profit from illegal immigration, and it served globalists who have no respect or concern for the national boundaries of the U.S.