To say that I like this guy, Trey Gowdy, would be pretty much of an understatement. He's kinda what I thought I was getting when I voted for Marco Rubio. Little did I know that instead, all I was going to be getting for my effort was Chuckie Schumer, Jr. But I've learned from that mistake and will make sure not to repeat it the next time around. Anyway, back to Mr. Gowdy, after all he 'is' the subject of my little piece here. So after hearing 'Chuckie' Schumer Sr. make the claim that the House would, indeed, be passing the Senate's disastrous version of immigration 'reform', Gowdy joked that he was "moved almost to the point of tears by Sen. (Chuck) Schumer's concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party." He also said, on Sunday, the immigration bill passed by the Senate is dead on arrival in the House.
Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday," "The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House. It's not going to pass for myriad reasons." He went on to elaborate, saying, "I'll support immigration reform. I think the current system is broken. But our framers gave us two legislative bodies. And I assume they did it for a reason. And the House runs every two years with the theory being that we will be closer to the will of the people." Gowdy noted that the House has passed four separate bills addressing different facets of the immigration issue, such as enforcement. "So, we are making progress and we will continue to do so. I'm more interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer's schedule," Gowdy said. Well, I can't argue with that. Now if only our supposed leadership will show itself to be of the same opinion.
I'm sure many of us heard Schumer as he told "Fox News Sunday" that he thinks the House will pass the Senate immigration bill by the end of the year, partly because if they don't, Republicans will be the minority party for many years; and partly because "the bishops, the evangelicals and business leaders" want immigration reform. "And, finally, and very importantly as well, we're not going to let this issue go away." Chuckie also said. "The strong supporters of immigration are going to be at the town hall meetings of Republican congressmen. They're going to be visiting them in their offices. They're going to be traipsing in the halls of Congress. We have seen the power of the DREAM Act kids." But many of those who Schumer describes as being strong supporters of immigration, also support the breaking of U.S. laws.
House Speaker John Boehner has promised to pass a House immigration bill through regular order -- sending it through committee before a floor vote. "And it will be legislation that reflects the will of our (Republican) majority and the will of the American people," Boehner said. Ya I know, I don't trust the guy either. Gowdy has said that the difficulty with the Senate bill lies in its details: "I cannot sell in South Carolina a border security plan where the security comes after the legalization. I can't sell a border security plan where Janet Napolitano gets to tell us the border is secure. I can't sell a border security plan where the executive can turn on and off triggers for political expedient reasons. Nor would I try to sell any of those plans." Yup, I'm with him on that, it just don't make no sense!
Gowdy's primary reason for insisting upon border security before legal status, was really a pretty simply one, trust in government: "There is a diminution of trust among our fellow citizens. And the notion that I can tell them, we're going to provide legalization but trust us on the border security, trust us on the internal security, trust us on E-Verify, that's not going to fly in South Carolina. I doubt it's going to fly in Arizona or New York." Putting security in place shows respect for the rule of law, Gowdy said. "I'm fine with showing humanity. But the order in which it's done is important," he added. And that's the point 'I thought' that my senator understood. But by his choosing to side with Chuckie Schumer, Little Dick' Durbin, and a couple of RINOs, he made quite clear the fact that he doesn't.
Gowdy also noted that the estimated 11 million people who are in the U.S. illegally are not a homogenous group: Some don't want to become American citizens and some couldn't pass a background check. "All of the 11 million are not similarly situated," Gowdy said. "You would agree with me you should have a different level of scrutiny for a child who's been here for 10 years and was brought through no will or no action of his or her own, as opposed to a 30-year-old who's been here for three weeks. You would not want the same scrutiny or the same level of analysis for those two groups. He added, "So, I know it's tempting to think of them as 11 million, as this all one group with the same characteristics. But the reality is, there are a number of subgroups that frankly are worthy of different levels of scrutiny and I hope the House plan will have that." And that, to me, sounds like the right approach.
Gowdy also noted that the House immigration plan would allow state and local law enforcement to help federal agents enforce immigration laws. "Well, that's a non-starter in the Senate," he said. "The Senate is fine with law enforcement enforcing every other category of crime, from child pornography, to murder, to narcotics trafficking, the bank robbery. But heaven forbid they get involved in immigration." This all makes a lot of sense, which should make you wonder why, anywhere in it's over 1000 pages, the Senate bill fails to address most, if not all, of these areas. That's because the goals are different, and makes it all the more important for the House to steer well clear of the Senate bill. The House bill, as currently described, would be intended to address what has been called a broken system, the sole purpose behind the Senate bill is to do nothing more than to create more Democrat voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment