In her Breitbart piece yesterday, Governor Palin referred to the bribe in the Obama-Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill piece to secure the votes of Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich. I can’t figure out why the bribe was even necessary. Murky was going to vote for amnesty all along, and Begich is, well, Begich. As a liberal Democrat whose party stands to gain millions of new voters via amnesty, he was never going to oppose it. And yet the powers that be in the corrupt political class gave it to them anyway.
As people read through the 1200 page Corker-Hoeven Amendment, more such examples of subterfuge, cronyism and outright bribery are coming to light. First, much has been made of the requirement to build more fences and hire more border agents under Corker-Hoeven. That’s a sham. Even if you’re naive enough to believe that Obama has any intention of enforcing that provision, he doesn’t have to. As Mathew Boyle notes, there’s a clause in the law that allows Big Sis to basically ignore the requirement to secure the border with no penalty whatsoever:
On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.
The “paragraph (1)” that new waiver refers to is the one that supposedly “requires” the construction of a fence along the border.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a strategy, to be known as the ‘Southern Border Fencing Strategy,’ to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing), infrastructure, and technology, including at ports of entry, should be deployed along the Southern border,” that paragraph of the bill reads.
This could allow illegal aliens to be granted amnesty, or legalized “Registered Provisional Immigration (RPI)” status, once Secretary Napolitano submits a fencing (and border security) plan to Congress. However, this provision allows Napolitano to decide against building the fence after doing so, with no legal ramifications.
So basically, the "requirement" to secure the border in the latest version of the amnesty bill is no requirement at all. But there’s more. In another article, Mathew Boyle exposes the flagrant kickback in the "immigration" bill which will go to benefit the Las Vegas Casino lobby:
(R-NV) have inserted a provision that amounts to little more than a handout to Las Vegas casinos into the repackaged immigration reform bill, Breitbart News has learned. This provision, a brazen example of crony capitalism, was inserted into the immigration law enforcement section of the bill despite the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "immigration" or "law enforcement."
On page 66 of the repackaged bill, the following provision appears:
“CORPORATION FOR TRAVEL PROMOTION.—Sec- 9(d)(2)(B) of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (22 U.S.C. 2131(d)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘For each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015,’’ and inserting ‘‘For each fiscal year after 2012.”
The Travel Promotion Act (TPA) of 2009 allows the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury to spend up to $100 million on promoting travel to specific areas of the country. If the provision Reid and Heller inserted into the proposed immigration reform legislation becomes law, the benefits of the TPA would be extended indefinitely.
Not only is the bill loaded with kickbacks and bribes (using your money, I hasten to add), but more stimulus as well (presumably because the last stimulus worked so well). Byron York uncovered another government jobs program contained in the bill that, like Dingy Harry’s casino kickback, has absolutely nothing to do with amnesty:
Opponents of the Gang of Eight immigration bill have spent the weekend looking for hard-to-find changes in a piece of legislation that was substantially re-written by the Hoeven-Corker amendment. But there’s one big change that’s right out in the open — impossible to miss, in fact.
The original Gang bill ended with a section designated Title IV, which was headlined REFORMS TO NON-IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAMS. The Hoeven-Corker version of the bill added a Title V, with the headline JOBS FOR YOUTH. The measure would provide $1.5 billion in the next two years to provide jobs for Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. It was originally pushed by Democratic Sen. Bernard Sanders, who wanted to come to the aid of young workers who were “hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession.”
Sanders’ amendment is entirely consistent with positions he has taken over many years. The only odd thing is that his proposal would be included in an amendment offered by two Republicans, John Hoeven and Bob Corker. Do they endorse Sanders’ policy positions?
Apparently so. And that’s another $1.5 billion down the drain. I understand that this is peanuts in the Obama era of trillion dollar deficits, but it we can’t even resist the urge to waste money on boondoggles like this, what does that say about the government’s ability to ever get the nation’s fiscal house in order. More broadly, as Governor Palin asked yesterday, did Congress learn nothing from the Obamacare "pass this bill before we know what’s in it" debacle? There will be plenty more of these kinds of revelations coming to light over the next few days and weeks. I would expect Democrats to act this way because this is what they do. But Republicans? John McCain was famous for his crusades against wasteful government spending on such things as earmarks and legislative kickbacks. Now he’s one of the Gang of Eight pushing to rush this abomination through the Senate. Does that mean all that previous pontificating against wasteful spending was just talk? It certainly appears so.
One more thing: And I don’t buy the Chuck Schumer argument that we need to pass amnesty so that the Republican Party can survive. Last I checked Chuck Schumer was a highly partisan Democrat who has zero interest in the Republican Party’s survival. And beltway Republicans think we should heed his advice? Or Obama’s? Why? Law abiding citizens of any race, gender, or religion will support that party which has respect for the rule of law. Those who don’t respect the rule of law will support the party which shares that belief. We now have a significant number of Washington Republicans who believe the future of the GOP depends on their joining Democrats in their support of amnesty. If that were to occur, both of America’s major parties will have, to one degree or another, endorsed lawlessness. Leaving aside the future of the Republican Party, what does that say about the future of our country?