Republicans against Republicans on Immigration

Republicans talk much of putting a new face on the party to attract Latinos and other minorities; but that's about as far as it goes. Republicans want to make sure Democrats don't pass a Dream Act, so Republicans can propose and pass their own Dream Act. This might confuse people trying to be for and against immigration reform at the same time; but not for lawyers in Congress.

"Cornyn Revives Reputation as Hypocrite of the Year

 

Called DREAM Act Vote in 2010 a 2012 Political Stunt; Now Supports Idea of a GOP Version of DREAM Act in Run Up to 2012

Republicans are looking for a way to shore up their historically low standing with Latino voters.  Senator Marco Rubio is reportedly developing a more Republican-friendly version of the DREAM Act in part to do just that.

Enter Senator John Cornyn of Texas.  In 2010 he called attempts to pass the DREAM Act a political stunt.  The bill passed the Democratic-controlled House in the lame duck session and won 55 votes in the Senate, but failed to become law when 92% of Republican senators, including Cornyn, voted against it."

http://americasvoiceonline.org/press_releases/shotchaser-cornyn-revives-reputation-as-hypocrite-of-the-year/

.
"Cornyn said he has discussed his amendment with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a member of the "Gang of Eight" who signaled in a Tuesday evening radio interview that his crucial vote could rest on whether Republican concerns about border security are addressed. But Cornyn's proposal might also receive a boost from reports, confirmed by a GOP source, that the bipartisan House immigration working group negotiations toward a comprehensive immigration bill are on the brink of collapse."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-cornyn-tries-to-make-senate-immigration-bill-more-appealing-to-gop/article/2531219

.

"As outlined, his amendment would require the federal government to meet certain border security requirements before legalized immigrants would be able to apply to become legal permanent residents. That could mean that the decade-long immigration limbo currently proposed in the bill could stretch on indefinitely, if federal officials determine that border goals haven't been met.

The new approach to border security would likely create a showdown between the immigration bill's sponsors, the Republican and Democratic senators who make up the so-called "Gang of Eight."

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/stricter-border-security-kill-immigration-reform/story?id=19330068

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments

  1. gbakere

    I’d be curious to know…would it be our own personnel guarding the border, as in government employees? Or would it be independent contractors that would be guarding our borders – much like independent prison contractors who currently run our privatized prison system? Who stands to gain either way. Whether it’s the Democrat’s plan or the Republican’s plan, who gains, and how? Securing our border is likely not the reason behind the argument. One side or the other (or both sides) are likely arguing about whether or not someone will get to profit, who that might be, and how they will profit from the final outcome. My bet is that there’s money involved somewhere down the line. There has to be at least one or two big time security companies chomping at the bit to get their hands on our border security budget. Is Halliburton anywhere to be seen in this picture? Who are any of the private contractors that might stand to benefit? To me, it looks like another case of, “follow the money.” America is a regular cornucopia for corporations to tap into our tax dollars. All they have to do is buy a few politicians in America, the wealthiest nation in the world, and voila, they have access to the gold.
    .
    Obviously, this is pure speculation on my part, but hey, doesn’t money make sense of all of it? Think about it. What takes place in our government that doesn’t involve money? A few, if not most of our politicians are fighting for their own financial gain. Hell, one side is all about entrepreneurship after all. Why would we think that the issue of border security would avoid politics as usual? Why would we think this has anything to do with patriotism or the need to protect Americans when our legislators go into politics for the purpose of gaining wealth? They have manipulated the system so it works in their favor, regardless of the havoc their actions may wreak on society. I suspect the issue of border security is no different. There has to be a whole lot of money to be tapped into.

    June 11, 2013
    1. livelonger

      Border guards are a kind of police and military dealing with international borders, so I don’t think they’d function under a private corporate executive without direct government employment. Politicians don’t feel comfortable with security guards securing our streets, replacing police. Outsourced security is too independent of politicians; although politicians wouldn’t be blamed for mishaps, as they wouldn’t have control. Imagine control freak politicians giving away their power. They have enough problems with CIA and FBI looking at them, while worrying about assassination squads.

      June 11, 2013
      1. gbakere

        Yet we’ve hired mercenaries to do much of the fighting in our wars. I have come to believe that most decisions our government makes (more so on the Right), have to do with someone’s profit. It really is the only way I can make any sense of the unprecedented gridlock and division we’ve been seeing. So many of our politicians are beholding to sponsors – sponsors who could care less about America or Americans. In today’s world economy, no multinational corporations, nor the people who run them, or are controlling shareholders have any reason to be loyal toward any country. The only possible reason for having any loyalty toward a country would be strictly based on sentiment, and sentiment has no place in business. There’s no profit in sentiment. Money talks. Profit rules.

        June 11, 2013
      2. livelonger

        The Bush-Halliburton administration got away with hiring private contractors for the secret CIA military army-air force. That way they could tell media that there were half as many troops in Iraq as there really were. The private contractors could shuttle millions in cash across borders to favorites. The difference was that the contractors were outside the US; whereas border guards would be within.
        .
        Mercenaries outside the US mesh well with the international corporate military-industrial complex that is a large part of the secret US government hidden under the Top Secret and CIA classified web.

        June 11, 2013
    2. jillsthoughts

      If the republicans come up with a plan, it will cost our government twice as much because they will want companies like Halliburton to contract those jobs. If the democrats’ plan is enacted, then it will be seen as bigger government but will actually cost less, as government workers get paide less than those contracted workers and the companies that employ them.
      .
      I’d love to see a republican come to this thread and rebuke this.

      June 11, 2013