From the June 7 2013 Congressional record, I have condensed, but not changed the wording, what Senator Sessions had to say as the full Senate began debate on S.744 (Immigration Reform) and added some relatively uncovered news afterwards related to what Senator Sessions presented on this day.
We did have a markup in the Judiciary Committee...Repeatedly Members of the Senate who agreed to an amendment say they must vote against the amendment because it upsets some deal? Throughout the bill we can see the influence these groups had on the drafting of it. Some of the groups actually did the drafting. Big labor and big business were active in drafting this legislation, with the entire deal obviously hanging on, it was reported, their negotiations.
Wall Street Journal, March 10:
Competing interests abound. The Chamber of Commerce and businesses it represents are locked into negotiations with the AFL-CIO about workers in industries like hospitality and landscaping. Meanwhile, farm-worker unions have been quietly negotiating with growers associations about how to revamp short-term visas for agricultural workers. And senators on both sides of the aisle are weighing in to ensure their state industries are protected.
Washington Post, March 10: ``Hush-hush Meetings for Gang of 8 senators as they work on sweeping immigration bill.''
They are struggling on the question of legal immigration and future workers, and are trading proposals with leaders of the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce to try to get a deal.
Roll Call, March 21:
Talks led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO over a new guest-worker program for lower-skilled immigrants are stalled, prompting members of the bipartisan group of eight senators to get personally involved to try to nudge the negotiations on to resolution.
Who is the agreement between? It is between the unions and big business, which are representing the American worker, effectively.
New York Times, March 30:
The nation's top businesses and labor groups have reached an agreement on a guest worker program for low-skilled
immigrants, a person with knowledge of the negotiations said . . . Senator Schumer convened a conference call on Friday
night with Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Richard L. Trumka, the president of
the AFL-CIO, the nation's main federation of labor unions, in which they agreed in principle on a guest worker program for low-skilled, year-round, temporary workers.
We know there is one group not included in these talks...The national ICE union, the customs and enforcement organization, pleaded with the Gang of 8 to consult them. They were shut out of every meeting and never have been consulted. It is interesting to note, however, that others weren't shut out of the meeting.
The Washington Post, April 13:
While Obama has allowed Senate negotiators to work on a compromise that can win approval, a White House staff member attends each staff-level meeting to monitor progress and assist with the technical aspects of writing the bill.
Who is influencing the White House, President Obama?
The Daily Caller, on February 6, notes this:
On February 5th, Obama held a White House meeting with a series of industry leaders, progressive advocates and ethnic
lobbies, including La Raza, to boost support for his plan that would provide a conditional amnesty to 11 million
illegal aliens, allow new immigrants to get residency for their relatives and elderly parents, and also establish rules
for a ``Future Flow'' of skilled and unskilled workers. The invitees included the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, Motorola,
Marriott, and DeLoitte.
Also, we know participating in a lot of these discussions was the American Immigration Lawyers Association. This group obviously was involved in writing the bill, and I have to tell my colleagues that they will be the biggest winners of this legislation. Time and again, rules that were fairly clear--and probably should have been made clearer--are muddled, provisions were placed in that will create litigation and encourage lawsuits, delays, and will increase costs. What does ``hardship'' mean? It means a trial. That is what it means. So the Immigration Lawyers Association was substantially involved in the meetings.
Politico, on March 9, said:
In a bid to capitalize on the shared interest in immigration reform, a budget deal and new trade pacts, the
White House has launched a charm offensive toward corporate America since the November election, hosting more than a dozen conference calls with top industry officials--which have not previously been disclosed--along with a flurry of
meetings at the White House. Participants on the recent calls include the heads of Goldman Sachs, the Business Roundtable, Evercore, Silver Lake, Centerbridge Partners, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the heads of Washington trade groups representing the banking industry, such as the Financial Services Roundtable.
Even foreign countries have had a say in drafting our law
The Hill, on February 7, reported:
Mexico's new Ambassador to the U.S., Eduardo Medina-Mora, has had a ``number of meetings with the administration''
where the issue of immigration has come up since he took office last month, said a Mexican official familiar with the
process. He is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form. ``Probably like no other
country, we are a player in this particular issue,'' the source said.
So in case anyone doubts the role of special interests in drafting the legislation, pay attention to this quote by Frank Sharry, executive director of the liberal pro-amnesty group, America's Voice, in the Wall Street Journal, April 17:
The triggers are based on developing plans and spending money, not on reaching that effectiveness, which is really quite clever.
The National Review, on May 29, reported:
A number of immigration-activist groups, such as the National Council of La Raza, would be eligible to receive
millions in taxpayer funding to ``advise'' illegal immigrants applying for legal status under the bill.
So money will go to these activist groups, such as La Raza. La Raza is responsible for advocating, not enforcing, our laws. So La Raza is in the meetings. La Raza is an open advocate for not enforcing laws involving illegal immigration. They are active participants in advocating for amnesty.
The National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant group, has been involved in some of these discussions.
The Huffington Post, April 16, headline: ``Senate Immigration Group Turns to Keeping Fragile Agreement Intact.''
It goes on to quote Senator McCain as saying:
We will pledge to oppose, all eight of us, provisions that would destroy the fragile agreement we have.
They have an agreement with the unions and big business and the agribusinesses and the food processors and La Raza
and the immigration lawyers. In discussing an amendment that would require workers to make a good-faith effort to hire American workers first, Senator Whitehouse said
this--this is what happened in the committee--I'm in a position which I'm being informed that this would be a deal breaker to the deal. I, frankly, don't see how that could be the case, but I'm not privy to that understanding, and so I'm going to vote in support of the agreement that has been reached.
In other words, Senator Whitehouse says: Well, I do not understand this. I would like to vote the other way, but I am told you have a deal and this would damage the deal and so I cannot vote for it. He was not even in the Gang of 8 but went along with that. Related to that same amendment, Senator Franken echoed the remarks, saying:
I really just want to associate myself with Senator Whitehouse's remarks...I don't want to be a deal breaker.
In discussing an amendment that would increase family-based immigration, Senator Feinstein noted:
I think it's been a unique process because those people who are members of a group that put this together have stood
together and have voted against amendments that they felt would be a violation of the bipartisan agreement that brought
both sides together.
In reality, the special interests--La Raza, the unions, the corporate world, the big agriculture businesses, the food processors--they are the ones that made the agreement in this process, and the Senators merely ratified it, and they cannot agree to a change because they promised these special interest groups things.
The ICE union has voted no confidence in John Morton, their supervisor. What a dramatic event. I am not aware of that ever happening in my 14 years-plus as a Federal prosecutor--the actual employment union declaring that they have no confidence in their supervisor. And what did they say? They said he spends all his time advocating for amnesty and not enforcing the laws. He is directing us to not follow legal requirements we took an oath to follow.
The ICE officers have filed a lawsuit in Federal court attacking Secretary Napolitano, or at least the conduct of her office. They have asserted she is not above the law, she is not authorized to direct them not to follow plain requirements of Federal law.
Nobody is even talking about it. It has been the position of this administration, everybody has to know, to see that the law is not being effectively enforced, particularly in the interior of America.
Okay, so now that we know what Senator Sessions had to say. It was reported by John Hill, Executive Director of Stand with Arizona, that a federal judge has ordered DHS to enforce current immigration laws, a victory for the ICE union.
Also, check out ICE Agent union president Chris Crane, blast the Gang of 8 in his testimony.
And finally, with out any mention of the ICE Union vote of no confidence, the Washington Times reported Monday, June 17, 2013 that ICE Director John Morton is resigning to take a position at Capital One.
Feinstein, Franken, McCain, Schumer and Whitehouse. If you voted for these Senators then you are just as guilty as they are for selling out America.
This means you CALIFORNIA, MINNESOTA, ARIZONA, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND