Of course the answer is a resounding NO!
But, having these two—Grover Norquist and Janet Napolitano—as the poster children for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” is good for us (the side whose adherents see the rush, to legalize 11 million workers and dependents on the social safety net, as America committing suicide.)
Two stories over the weekend are worth mentioning.
First The Hill reports that the “gang of eight” would let the Secretary of Homeland Security determine if the border is sufficiently secure to grant what amounts to amnesty for the 11 million illegal aliens presently in the country.
Under a bipartisan Senate framework, Democrats say, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano would have final say over whether the border is secure enough to put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.
If Napolitano does not provide the green light for putting illegal immigrants on a pathway to citizenship, the responsibility for judging whether the metrics for border security have been met will be given to her successor. [And just for a minute imagine the stampede to the border this legislation would unleash if signed into law!—ed]
The early debate over immigration reform has yielded two thorny questions: What metrics will be used to determine whether the goals for border security and other safeguards against illegal immigration have been met? Who will decide whether the metrics have been achieved?
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the lead Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan immigration reform framework unveiled this past week, said Napolitano should decide.
“What we’ve proposed is that the DHS secretary, whomever it is, will have final say on [whether] whatever metrics we proposes are met,” Schumer said. “We think those metrics will be quite objective.”
(LOL! gotta keep my Norquist files up-to-date)
This story from the Daily Caller highlights Grover Norquist as one of the chief proponents of open borders and a corporate gun for hire.
Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist’s insistence that large-scale immigration is good for America and the Republican Party is attracting intense criticism from policy advocates who see him as a pawn of corporate interests.
“There are a whole bunch of people who are listening to loud voices, some of whom claim to be Republican … talking about [employers] who didn’t fill out the paperwork, about going after [an immigrant’s] aunt,” said Norquist, whose opposition to tax increases has made him popular among Republicans and a hate-figure among progressives.
Once advocates for tighter immigration are sidelined, the GOP will be able to win votes from Hispanics and other recent immigrants, he said.
“Removing that threat [of deportation] from millions of Americans will make it possible to have a conversation with [immigrants] about tax policy and spending, and all the other issues we have with legal Americans.” [Oh sure Grover, as soon as they are legalized they will want to sit down to talk about tax policy—hell, most won’t make enough money to be among the taxpaying members of the public. And, as for spending, they will be voting for candidates who promise a larger “safety net”—ed]
His critics are equally vehement.
“Grover is an extremely effective lobbyist … [and] the thing about Grover is that he has clients who make big money off of immigration,” said Roy Beck, founder of advocacy group NumbersUSA, which helped derail previous efforts to expand immigration.
“Grover is going to do everything in his power to prevent America having a middle class … it appears he thinks oligarchy is a better way to go. … You can’t have a Republican Party when you have a voting base that is impoverished and needs government assistance.”
Norquist has been pushing to rewrite immigration policy for years, and he’s got his arguments down cold.
The Daily Caller goes on to say Norquist wouldn’t care if the immigrants were Egyptians or Uzbeks (of course not, remember Norquist is an Islamist sympathizer). And, as we have pointed out on other occasions, the illegal aliens who would be allowed to stay are not just the friendly ones from Mexico and south, but they include Somalis, Iranians, Iraqis and the list goes on of OTMs (Other than Mexicans) coming across our southern and northern borders. Also, don’t forget, Norquist famously said Shariah Law is compatible with the US Constitution here.