McCain, Kennedy introduce Open Borders, Open Wallets bill

Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy have introduced the "Open Borders, Open Wallets" bill, informally known as the "2005 Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act".

Do I really need to provide details, aren't the involvement of those two senators enough?

Anyway, their cohorts are Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). This is a massive amnesty program that could lead to not only transforming the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. into citizens, but will most assuredly lead to millions more illegal aliens coming here to take advantage of this and future amnesties. As can be expected, Kennedy specifically denies that this is an "amnesty", but any difference between SAOIA and amnesty is purely semantic. Expect semantics - or, more properly, doublespeak - to be a major part of the debate on this bill.

Read more in "Bill would tighten border security, increase information sharing" and "Bills could grant legality to 10 million immigrants".

The complete details are in this detailed description of the bill.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) issued a statement opposing the bill, including this:
...If recent history is an accurate guide, and I believe it is, this so-called guest worker notion would only encourage a new wave of illegal aliens and make America's uncontrolled and unacceptable immigration debacle even worse than it is now.

This legislation is a bad idea not only because it creates a transparent path to amnesty, but also because it would reduce work opportunities, depress wages, and lower worker protection for Americans. Further, it would be impossible to administer and even more unlikely to be enforced...
Those in favor of this legislation include:

FIRM ("Fair Immmigration Reform Movement"). FIRM is a project of the Center for Community Change, and their organizer Bhargava is the executive director of that latter group. One of the members of FIRM's organizing committee is Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. The latter especially is a group that sounds quite dangerous. Despite that, the City of Los Angeles uses them as a quote source: The "L.A. Opens Office of Immigrant Affairs" story just gets worse and worse

The Service Employees International Union issued a press release in support of SAOIA here.

The National Restaurant Association's press release is here. It includes a statement from "Lee Culpepper, the Association's senior vice president of Government Affairs and Public Policy and Chairman of the National Immigration Forum." The page "Organizations Supporting Amnesty for Illegal Aliens" contains a 2002 quote from Culpepper, which sounds similar to something you've probably heard many times from a "conservative":
...we believe that our nation's immigration policy should not only secure our borders, but also match willing employers with willing employees...
In an interesting twist, the Laborers' International Union issued a statement favoring the bill, but moderately opposing its guest worker provisions:
"In light of abuses that have historically occurred with guest worker programs, we believe the provisions in this bill for H5A visas should be improved to ensure that workers have legal recourse against unscrupulous employers and so that U.S. workers are protected from employers whose sole purpose in hiring H5A visa holders is to undercut existing workplace standards," [Terence M. O'Sullivan, General President of the Laborers' Union] said.
And, last but not least, the office of Mexico's Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez has issued a statement. From "Mexico eyes immigration politicking":
"According to the preliminary information that we have, this initiative...supports substantive elements and distinct aspects of the migratory problem that reflect a serious interest and a political determination to adopt a balanced and integral focus on the treatment of the migratory issue and to tackle the issue of security from a wider context."
With friends like these, should we really trust anything from Kennedy or McCain?


Please Support The Arizona, Utah Border Security Initiative; now being proposed by Governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Joh Huntsman of Utah.
Iam a Congressional Candidate from Arizona's 8th District, an OPEN SEAT FOR 2006;and have lived in Arizona my whole life,coming from a pioneer family who came to Arizona before it was a State in 1910;and see this plan as the only bi-partisan plan that YOU CAN SUBMIT IDEAS TOO RIGHT NOW ON MY WEB-SITE;UNDER "RESPOND TO THE GOVERNOR'S."
I want to get politics out of Immigration and Broken Border policy!

I could support rounding up all the illegal immigrants, as long as the date of entry is moved back to 1492.

Ah, this open borders fanatic "Ralph" I think must be the guy of the same name that posts on

His posts are always good for a chuckle if you have some idle time on your hands.

by the way "enforzable" means enforcible, i hope you go after the idea and not the person or the words..

Did you read at least once the provisions of the bill?
Did you know that this bill will make immigration law really "enforzable"?
If the (immigration) law is not working with 10 or 12 million people, dont you think there is something wrong with it?
READ THE BILL FIRST, it is a comprehensive immigration reform far away from a simple amnesty
(if you cannot read it ask a lawyer to translate it for you)

You said "Add to it all the social ills I read about and see around me with my own eyes every day -- growing poverty and 'barrioization', crime, gangs, the abysmal academic performance of Hispanics (who are by far the biggest population of illegals), etc"
Did you give them a chance? "no schools to hispanic children, no licenses, no university, no papers, no... etc etc..." what is going to happen? then you get what you paid for...

"radical anti-immigration fanatics"

Would it be fair to call you a 'radical pro-immigration fanatic', then?

"does not call for open borders"

Maybe not literally. But in effect, as we have seen after the last major amnesty, which also promised to increase enforcement, the practical reality does seem to approach an 'open' border more than a 'closed' one. A big reason for this is probably that it shows, again, that the US is not serious about enforcing immigration law, which only attracts more illegals. And when evaluating legislation, I'd much rather rely on experience than promises, especially when something as important as the human makeup of my community is at stake. Where else am I supposed to live?

Anyway, we have a fairly open border at the moment -- certainly what border and interior enforcement there is does not seem to present a serious barrier to a foreigner determined to enter and remain illegally. This is one reason there are so many here now -- millions.

"unable to make an argument"

Actually, this is fairly easy to do. At least in my case.

First, note that Americans are presented with a fait accompli: millions of illegals already here. In violation of US immigration law, without the prior, democratic consent of Americans. There is no serious talk of removing them, which is the remedy that would be judged suitable for most of them if current law was enforced. One reason Americans pay taxes is so that government can enforce the law. In this sense, it is blatantly unfair, even an insult, not to mention an open admission of their incompetence and dereliction, for members of Congress, which is responsible for oversight of the executive and judicial branches, to present Americans with a bill that would, basically, exempt illegals from the penalty required by law for the crime they have committed. Since I don't like to be insulted, this reason alone is enough for me.

Add to it all the social ills I read about and see around me with my own eyes every day -- growing poverty and 'barrioization', crime, gangs, the abysmal academic performance of Hispanics (who are by far the biggest population of illegals), etc etc -- and the issue is even clearer.

"influence public opinion"

Well, it didn't fool you, did it? Apparently, you are a condescending jerk who thinks other Americans are so dumb that they will be fooled by those who might call this an 'open borders' bill. Actually, I think the reality is and will be something quite different, and no such sleight of word will be needed: after an open and honest airing of the full meaning of this bill, American "public opinion" will be solidly against it. It remains to be seen if Congress will reject it, and -- finally -- do what it should've been doing all along: see to it that immigration law is enforced.

The bill does not call for open borders. But the radical anti-immigration fanatics call it an open borders bill because they are unable to make an argument against the real content of the bill. They know that only through false statements like this can they influence public opinion against the bill.