First, I spoke with representatives in Henry Waxman's office. Yes, the same illiberal Congressman who forced Obamacare on this country, who shut me down in an open forum in Redondo Beach, and who has decided to run from office rather than seek another term. Within seconds, I was reminding the Congressman's personnel (he actually had an individual assigned to immigration issues in his office!) that panga boats with illegal immigrants have landed along South Bay shores. The last thing that this country and the South Bay in particular needs is more illegal immigration.
I then tried to contact Congressman-elect Ted Lieu's office, and got no headway. Aside from a number which directed me to no one in particular, I was told that Lieu has not assembled a Congressional team yet.
Then I contacted my Senators.
 |
| Barbara Boxer |
US Senator Barbara Boxer's office shared that she had released press releases supporting bipartisan reform, but through Congress. As of now, she has offered no statement on President Obama's proposed executive orders, otherwise referred to in this post as "Obamnesty".
I am impressed (somewhat). The junior senator with approval rating below 50% in her home state wants Congressional action on this policy. Still, every Senator, Republican or Democrats, who has enough self-respect and respect for their institution should demand that President Obama back off and allow Congress to pass needed legislation for border enforcement.
| Dianne Feinstein |
California's Senior US Senator Dianne Feinstein's office was less sympathetic to my concerns. The spokesman for her office brought up the bipartisan legislation from the US Senate, which then died in the House. He gave the impression that the House leaders were responsible for killing the legislation, and therefore the President had the authority to act unilaterally. Appalled at such disregard for the Constitution, I fired back that the President has no authority to do anything aside from the directives from Congress. After the little lesson in Constitutional authority, I reminded the staffer that Feinstein's claim to fame is national security, and amnesty would only frustrate basic security measures for the country.
 |
| Kevin McCarthy |
After speaking with my direct representatives in Washington, I contacted California Congressman Kevin McCarthy, our new Majority Leader. His spokesman about the House's resistance to the bill. In reality, the heated opposition of the American People opposed immoral amnesty. With the explosion of illegal immigrant youth populations along the Southern border, the prior majority leader Eric Cantor lost his seat, and Republican leaders backed off on proposing any legislation.
Congressman McCarthy's office was the most helpful. The Major Leader is clear on his opposition to amnesty. Because President Obama has proposed nothing yet, the House leader has not released detailed plans on their response. Despite conservative blogger demands for immediate impeachment, the staffer affirmed that impeachment would be the last thing to do, since the measure would give Obama victim status, and set up the impeachment charges for sure failure in the US Senate. In order to remove a President from office, sixty-seven senators must vote guilty. Even though Republicans will (very likely) hold fifty-four seats, there is no certainty that they will get even every member of the caucus to vote for impeachment. Maine's senior senator voted against conviction in 1999, and because of the liberal bent of her state, she will likely do it again.
McCarthy's personnel then told me that they would discuss prohibiting funds for any executive amnesty measures. I approve this policy, and I also believe that passing legislation which is popular with the people would force Obama's hand. If he vetoes Keystone, despite the wide support of Democrats and Republicans, he will be the obstructionist, not the Republicans. If Congress passes border security measures and increased funding for immigration court hearings, and Obama vetoes that legislation, then Republicans will point out that he is not interested in the best interests of the country, the court system, or the rule of law.
Either way, Obama will lose the fight, become the biggest obstacle to reform and progress, thus further poisoning future Democratic prospects in 2016, while positioning Republicans to win big in 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment