Dear Ms. Tindol :

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. It is good to hear from you.

Illegal immigration is a problem in this country that must be solved. I became involved with the immigration reform bill because it was clear to me that this issue touches the lives of Georgians on a daily basis. Moreover, I believe the people of Georgia elected me to represent them and to work constructively to meet the difficult challenges facing our nation.

From the early development of this legislation, I fought for the inclusion of a border security first provision. I felt strongly that this issue should go to the floor of the Senate for a free and open debate with all Senators having the opportunity to offer amendments and have them voted on. That has not happened. For that reason and because certain amendments have been adopted that make the bill unacceptable, I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Due to the tremendous response from Georgians, I am now convinced that many people do not believe our government will enforce the border security provisions in the legislation. Therefore, Senator Isakson and I communicated to President Bush that Congress must pass, and he should sign, a supplemental appropriations bill to fully fund the necessary expenditures to secure our borders.

I will continue to approach this issue by tackling border security first and separately from any other immigration measure and I will oppose comprehensive reform unless and until that is done. That is why I voted against cloture twice on the immigration bill.

This is the most important domestic issue facing our nation today. The Senate should not limit the traditional amendment process or the custom of unlimited debate. We should take as much time as necessary to openly and thoroughly debate the bill.

Immigration reform is a process and we are nowhere near the finish line. The President and Congress must work together to secure the border first. Once this is done , we can work to resolve the collateral issues. I believe we can get there, but we are not there yet .

I can't embellish on this. Just a few statements from President Ronald Reagan. I hope they inspire you as they have me.

"Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government. The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people."

"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people, and they knew that when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."

"And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather that your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you – and especially for young people – is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here. May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill."

"I've thought a bit about the 'shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, [a Pilgrim] who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness toward home. We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all. And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."

Letter to President George Bush

Mr. President:

I have one question and two statements for those who support the reconstruction of illegal immigrants, after which I will address your recent speech in Brunswick, GA.

How many of you would allow someone to walk into your house, take up residence, eat your food, use your utilities, sleep in your bed, reimburse you for one-third of the costs they incur, then proceed to plop down in your favorite chair, take command of your television remote, traffic in pornography from your computer, turn your garage into a crack pharmacy, physically assault you, rape your daughter, murder your son, scream in protest at your every objection; all the while demanding that they have the same right as you to live in your house and do as they please?

The first and most obvious problem with the proposed immigration reform is that it requires compliance with a law by people who have demonstrated no desire to comply with the law in the first place.

The second is that border security should not be dangled as a reward for establishing a reconstruction program for illegal immigrants. Providing for the defense of the citizens of the United States is a primary Constitutional responsibility of Congress. Border security is too vital a necessity not to stand on its own. Any member of Congress who does not realize that has no business legislating for the people he or she has sworn to protect and serve.

From your speech: "We have ... a vital mission to protect our country."

I’m glad you and Congress realize that. I hope y’all follow through and put your backbone where your mouth is. How long will that take? What about the current illegal immigrants who do not come forward? How many of them have outstanding criminal warrants? How naive can we be to expect these people to come forward and willingly comply with penalties when they have heard time and again that our law enforcement has no intention of finding them and sending them home? When state and local law enforcement agencies refuse to enforce federal immigration laws and knowingly allow illegal immigrants to remain free? All the odds are in their favor.

From your speech: "[W]ill elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place that makes it more likely we can enforce our border and ... uphold the great immigrant traditions of the United States of America."

Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Senator Mel Martinez, and the class president of the Coast Guard Academy, are all admirable and accomplished individuals, and assets to this country. They are terrific role models for young Americans. Their lives are success stories of which they and all Americans should be proud. But, they DO NOT "represent what the immigration debate is all about." The debate is not about immigration, but ILLEGAL immigration and what to do about the 12 to 20 million, depending upon who you’re listening to, who are here illegally; whose very presence is a violation of our law. Persistent refusal on the part of yourself and your current liberal bedfellows to grasp and acknowledge that can only mean:

(a) your intent is to paint Constitutionally licensed dissenters as bigots, racists, and xenophobes, instigate ethnic animosity, and spark racial conflict in order to gain support for your proposal,

(b) you aren’t interested in hearing us,

(c) you’re incapable of hearing us, i.e. deaf and blind or,

(d) you hear us but are incapable of understanding what we’re saying, i.e. dumb as dirt.

As I’m sure you know, the Institute for Intergovernmental Research is a non-profit organization that provides federal law enforcement research and training in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, a federal taxpayer funded division of your Department of Justice. IIR reported, through the National Youth Gang Center, the following ethnicity statistics related to criminal gang membership:

Other - 7 %

Caucasian/White - 10 %

African American/Black - 35 %

As one can plainly see from information supplied through organizations of our own federal justice system, our Hispanic/Latino population accounts for the largest ethnic segment of gang membership. MS-13, Latin Kings, and the Mexican Mafia are known to be the most vicious and violent gangs in this country, to the point of intimidating "Made in America" gangs. So don’t you dare insinuate that we’re demonstrating irrational xenophobic sentiments when research from your people in Justice validates our concerns. You’re talking to the people who are working, paying our taxes, providing for our families, and raising our children to be responsible, law-abiding, and productive citizens; all of which become increasingly difficult each year. People whose daily lives are consumed by these endeavors while watching our social environment continually deteriorate into a steaming pile of violence and perversity. People whose work and spirit are taxed into oblivion for the support, education, and medical care of illegal immigrants who have no respect for us, our work, or the laws we have established; who simply grab those benefits with one hand and flip us off with the other.

From your speech: "There’s something great about a country that welcomes people ... who uphold our laws and realize the great blessings of America ... giving people a chance to succeed ... give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that ... treats people with decency and respect."

That’s all great and wonderful, but what about the taxpaying citizens of this country who have spent, and continue to spend, their lives producing and maintaining those great blessings of opportunity and liberty? Aren’t we worthy of decency, respect, and confidence in our children’s and grandchildren’s opportunities for success? Where would you be if those taxpaying citizens collectively said, "I’ve had enough of a government that has no respect for me, my work, my needs, or my desires," and simply shuts down? If 12 to 20 million citizens decided to stop paying their income taxes would you refer to finding and prosecuting them as "simply unrealistic. It won’t work." I think not, because you would be motivated to make that happen, on an individual basis, regardless of how much time and effort it required. How can you describe the deportation of current illegal immigrants as "unrealistic" in one sentence and the "comfortable" choice in another? If deporting illegal immigrants is unrealistic for y’all it’s only because y’all just flat don’t want to do it; so come forward, admit it, and accept the consequences. Don’t insult our intelligence with political double-talk. What’s unrealistic is the expectation of collecting a dime in fines or back taxes. The majority of illegal earnings have no documentation and you can’t get blood from a turnip. The only unpaid taxes you can conceivably collect are from the few who have been processed through a payroll system that issued W-2s. That’s assuming that the Social Security number is legitimate and hasn’t been stolen from John H. in the Poconos. Otherwise, you’ll have to find a way to get the President of Mexico to pick up the tab because that’s where most of it’s been sent.

You said in your speech that because this is a non-election year, "Congress has a historic window to act." Why should that matter? In that one statement you have confirmed every ounce of distrust the average American citizen has in our federal government. We look at y’all and see our elected employees making decisions about our lives and our country motivated by the impact on your ability to be reelected. For that matter, how much of your current policy direction is motivated by popularity polls and concerns over your personal historical legacy? Tell me, who’s really lacking in patriotism and the desire "to do what’s right for America?"

I don’t want to hear another word about "jobs Americans aren’t doing." Our federal government has only itself to blame. Americans aren’t doing those jobs because they don’t HAVE to. They get enough to get by from federal and state taxpayers so they can sit on the porch or roam the streets until time to pick up the next check. Why can’t they pick peaches in Georgia in exchange for their paycheck from taxpayers? How many are currently drawing unemployment compensation? Why can’t minimum security prison work crews be hired in exchange for their taxpayer funded room, board, television, and library privileges? How many people in homeless shelters need work? Is it your intent to propagate the attitude that Americans are too superior a species to engage in temporary manual labor? America was built by people who weren’t scared to get their hands dirty or go to bed with sore muscles.

My daddy grew up picking cotton and pulling peanut samples. He worked as a painter and later in construction up until the day he went into the hospital at the age of 71, where he spent his last month on this earth. I’ll stand his quality up against yours or anyone else’s in this country and you’ll all come out on the short end. Don’t tell me Americans can’t pick peaches or anything else, especially if their sole means of support is taxpayer funding.

Broad, irresponsible, inflammatory characterizations such as those you made in Brunswick only serve to alienate the very people you need to succeed in anything you attempt from this moment forward. You are turning this into an emotional personal issue rather than a rational legal one. How dare you cast aspersions on our patriotism, accuse us of nit-picking, and suggest that we "don’t want to do what’s right for America." Honey, we ARE America and you have delivered an unfounded, unconscionable personal insult to each one of us, especially those of us who have supported you and defended your policies for going on eight years; who want only for immigrants to respect the laws of the country from which they expect to receive better opportunities to improve their lives.

Keep the border security measures, kill the rest, get the illegals out of here under a Clean As You Go system, and demand that state and local law enforcement agencies support federal immigration laws as a condition of any federal funding which that state or locality receives for any purpose. ICE finds illegals, such as the 300+ in the recent raid in Massachusetts, load ‘em up and carry ‘em home. Public schools are closed for the summer so you’ve got plenty of available buses. How hard can that be compared to enforcement of a 326-page monstrosity?

Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara J. Tindol

Bronwood, GA

copy: Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Johnny Isakson

I went to see Jake after work today, my usual Friday treat for surviving another week of insanity. When I picked him up he wrapped his little arms around mine (as far as they could reach), laid his little head on my chest, and the world made sense again. So for a couple of hours we played on the floor, read Hop on Pop, watched SpongeBob with KiKi and Ashton, and sang the Jake song.

I watched my son do Daddy things and show off all the new things his son has learned; remembering my own sons learning the same things and how proud I am of them and of the young men they have become. And I remembered why I get up in the mornings and do the things I do.

Tomorrow morning I'll make a few pots of coffee, do something constructive around the house, start on a quilt, and draft a response to the President's speech in Brunswick.

But tonight? Tonight I'm gonna work off my Jake buzz fooling around with my tunes, reflect on the excitement of a 10-month-old boy who has learned to clap his hands and pull himself up onto his feet, and marvel over his ability to create a universe around banging a three-note keyboard, secure and content that he has nothing else to worry about.

Come to think of it, neither do we.

Below is a letter Aunt Farise wrote to President Bush. She faxed it to me because she wanted to know what I thought. My first thought was "Go Reese!" My next one was that it needs a wider audience. I've read it five times and, I don't know why, but each time it brings tears to my eyes. Maybe it's because of our personal relationship, or maybe because it reflects the kind of attitude and spirit that has made America great. I asked for and received permission from Aunt Farise to pass this on. I intend to. These are the kind of people who should be quoted on national news instead of some of the bobbleheads that always seem to find a forum. I got kinda paranoid about kooks (outside of the ones I'm related to) and replaced some of the personal information with **.

Dear Mr. President:

I wanted to put my feelings on paper about the terrible mess our country is in. I realize you probably won't get this letter and if you do, you may not read it. It would be great if you would, so you and the rest of the White House could get some idea from the hard-working, middle class people of America on how we feel about our men and women overseas and a few other things going on.

I know we had to defend our country when they attacked us on 9/11. We should have gone over and stopped it THEN and not just hang on and on. As I watch the news, I see so many horrible things happening in our country. This is why I think our men and women need to come home for their safety and to protect our borders and airports from terrorists coming into this country. As long as they are there, I believe in sending them all the funds they need to stay safe and do their jobs. They are brave men and women and we need to lift them up in prayer every day. My heart goes out to all the families that have lost loved ones in this war. I am a Christian and I certainly don't believe in killing innocent people, but then I think of all OUR innocent people that have been killed by these terrorists and I know we have to put a stop to it before the war comes over here.

The awful shooting at VA Tech, so many children uselessly killed. I don't understand how he was able to buy guns without a background check. There are too many people over here that don't need to be. Mr. President, something needs to be done about so many foreign people coming into our country. All kinds of people! We have plenty of mean people of our own without so many coming from other countries! God made all the different countries. I believe for a reason. Have you thought we were made different because that is the way God planned? People need to work in their own country and try to make their country a better place to live. The U.S.A. is the best place to live because WE made it that way, although it is getting more dangerous everyday. Drugs are continuously being brought into this country every day and our children are getting mixed up in them. We are not safe in our own homes anymore. Companies are closing their plants down and sending our jobs overseas just to get cheaper labor. Mr. President, what do you think our own people, born and raised in America are going to do for jobs?

My husband, Merlin N**, was a WWII vet. He spent 2 years in the service, then came home to help his daddy farm (extremely hard work.) I am sure you know farming is the backbone of our country, even though it seems like everyone has forgotten that. The government is trying its hardest to put all the farmers out of business. I don't think any of you in Washington CARE or KNOW anything about farming or the working people in our country. It looks like the White House cares more about people overseas than you do for your own people.

I wanted to let you know about the situation with my family and husband. Merlin passed away on Oct. **, 20**. He was a hard-working man. He was also a Christian who lived a life for God and lived it! We were married for 56 years. He had a stroke Dec. **, 20**. Merlin was paralyzed on his right side and could not talk. We were in the hospital and rehab for 9 weeks. I brought him home to take care of him. It was hard but we would not have it any other way. We have 4 daughters and 1 granddaughter. Connie, our youngest daughter, quit her job and came home to help me with her daddy. It would have been hard for me if she hadn't. We wanted Merlin home. Some people told me surely there was someway I could get some help from the government to pay Connie for helping me. I went to Social Security and a lawyer. I was told I could hire someone off the street and the government would pay them. Because Connie was a family member, there was no help for her. Mr. President, does this seem right to you??? It seems terribly wrong to me. There's something wrong with a lot in this world. We have a farm which we would have lost to the government if we would have put Merlin in a nursing home, which I wasn't going to let happen anyway. This government would have take our farm that has been in Merlin's family for over 100 years!! His Granddaddy C**, his daddy, Merlin, and our girls have worked hard on this farm. We would have sold it before we let the government have it. What would you have done about your ranch? The government wanted our farm and would have left us with only the house and car. How can you explain this?? How is this right when my family has worked so hard for so many years, but the government keeps on giving money to people that won't work?? Mr. President, I am hoping you will see in this letter, there are so many people here that work for a living and take care of their family WITHOUT help from the government. Our country was founded with people who wanted to work. God planned for His people to work for a living. There are so many people that are able to work but don't BECAUSE the government pays them not to.

I read in the paper that the government is cutting more funds from the peanut program. When our money is cut, it's hard to afford to grow food for our people and animals. I don't know what we will do if more is cut. This is for our farmers. I really get upset about how the farmers are treated by our elected officials! Do you know there are people (some may be in the White House) that think all they have to do is go to the grocery store for food? Well, let me tell you, if there are no farmers, there may not be any groceries at the store! Do you want everything you eat to come from overseas?? We would like to help the people in the world, but when it takes all we can make to take care of our family, then something is very wrong with the system. Just seems like it's corrupted to me. I believe some of the money we spend overseas and things at the White House could be spent wisely helping out over here. As I said, there are people that get money from the government who don't need it and there are people that do need help and can't get it. I saw on the TV about all the kids from Africa sick and starving and we sent them money and medications. I am thankful they got the help they needed, BUT kids are sick and starving here too.

I am from S**, A** and I think it's time to think about our own country. God's plan was for us to love one another. You know, God, family, and the Church (which is the people.) I think we need to stop and turn around and include God in our lives and ask Him to help us in making our decisions. I hope someone will read this letter and think about what they've read. Pray for our country, our men and women that are fighting for our safety, and the people that are supposed to be running this country. You know, a lot of people (including me) believe if all men running for president would work on what good they can do for our country and stop trying to dig up dirt on each other, we might be in better shape. That would really be nice for a change.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Sincerely,

Farise N**

Following is a reply I received by e-mail from Senator Saxby Chambliss concerning the proposed immigration legislation. What's your impression?

Dear Ms. Tindol :

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about immigration reform. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important and emotional issue.

Our current immigration system is broken and needs reform. Any reform Congress enacts must meet our national security needs and our economic interests; it must also manage the number of people we admit into the U.S. to ensure American workers and families are not negatively impacted by our immigration system.

Moreover, all individuals living in the United States must respect and obey our nation's laws. There are times when old and current laws must be reviewed, revised and ultimately strengthened. The time is now to appropriately reform our immigration laws.

The recently announced bipartisan agreement on immigration reform is a step in the right direction toward reaching a final and comprehensive immigration bill. This legislation is a significant improvement over last year's bill, which I opposed, but this is not a perfect bill. For me to support any final bill, it must contain the following principles that are important to Georgians:

Guaranteed border security first .

No amnesty and no new path to citizenship

Temporary means temporary - guest workers must go home at the end of their authorized temporary work period

End chain migration - replace family-based immigration system with a merit-based system.

Eliminate the job magnet for illegal immigrants by implementing a simple, secure employment verification system.

English should be the official language of the United States and everyone should speak it.

Our nation's immigration problem has been in the making for many years and there is no easy fix. I have chosen to be proactive and engaged during the negotiations because my involvement is the right thing for Georgia and the right thing for America 's future. As the debate progresses, I will continue the fight to ensure that our nation is secure and our economy continues to thrive.

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please do not hesitate to be in touch if I may ever be of assistance to you.

Letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss - Sen. Johnny Isakson - copy President George Bush

I am still digging through this draft copy, have new thoughts, and wish to reiterate previously expressed thoughts.

The most obvious problem with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill is the fact that it requires compliance to established law by people who have demonstrated no desire to comply with established law in the first place. Upon what does Congress base its expectation that criminal entrants will come forward and plead guilty to anything that will result in any type of action taken against them, no matter how lenient?

Securing our borders should not be a reward for accepting current criminal entrants. It is too vital an interest not to stand on its own.

I do not want to be dependent upon foreign food sources and would prefer that all food traffic from China and any other like-minded country cease and desist.

I do not want basic foodstuffs priced out of the market for the average American family but given the choice between that and a gazillion dollars spent for the support of criminal entrants, I could live with it. Of course, reimbursement of those dollars to the citizens would help tremendously.

As I understand it, our borders must be secured before any type of criminal immigrant reconstruction occurs, consisting of the following:

1. Increase border patrol to 18,000 agents

2. 200 miles of vehicle barrier

3. 370 miles of fencing

4. 70 miles of ground radar and camera towers

5. Four unmanned aerial vehicles

6. Detention accommodations for up to 27,500 criminal entrants

7. Replace the current Catch and Release with Catch and Return

8. Strict identification tools to prevent criminal entrants from obtaining work, including photo, biometric data, and/or compliance with the REAL ID requirements.

9. Federal and state databases that include digitized photos to verify employment eligibility and prevent ID theft and the use of false Social Security numbers

10. The processing of applications for present criminal entrants to be reconstructed, including background and security checks.

11. Progress reports to Congress every 90 days

Within what time frame do you expect this to be accomplished? If it operates anything like the Department of Transportation, they've been trying to get U.S.19 four-laned for 10 years.

What happens in the meantime? Allow criminal entrants to continue doing their thing? A large portion of their thing appears to be continued criminal activity. Less than a year ago, at the request of Congress, a study of 55,322 criminal entrants by the Government Accounting Office revealed that they had been arrested a total of 459,614 times for approximately 700,000 criminal offenses. I may be in a minority but, if that's the kind of folks Congress intends to reconstruct, low-priced fruits and veggies ain't a fair trade. Criminal entrants who have committed subsequent crimes, down to and including any type of misdemeanor should be denied any form of reconstruction. Criminal entrants who are known members of criminal gangs such as MS-13, even in the absence of a police record, should be denied any form of reconstruction and should be immediately returned to their home country. What baffles me is why 55,322 criminal entrants who could be located long enough to study weren't immediately sent back home. Our federal government appears to be extremely knowledgeable about these people, but clueless as to how to get them out of the country. I would suggest a rotating duty roster of Congressional members serving as Designated Deporters. If it's your turn, load them in a minivan and head south. They should not be supported by our strained prison system. If they have suspected terrorist connections, they belong in Gitmo.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that criminal entrants created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002 alone and, because of their low income status, this deficit would rise to about $29 billion if they were granted citizenship and as such eligible for government benefits they don't currently receive as criminals, unless of course they have acceptable fake IDs. The Mexican government should be liable for costs incurred by their citizens who are in this country illegally, in the form of trade concessions, cash compensation, or confiscation of Mexican property, beginning with that of President Fox. I don't know why we don't just take over Mexico and make it a state. Two-thirds of their citizens live here anyway. We could turn it into an upscale resort and pick up some serious tax revenues from high-dollar vacationers.

So far, I am not pleased with this proposed legislation. I don't understand why common sense should feel the need to sell out to what amounts to a suicide pact. I think we need to stand our ground against rewarding criminal activity, address the critical issue of border security on its own, and force each member of Congress to stand for or against their sworn Constitutional responsibility to protect the citizens who chose them as their representative.

Letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss - Sen. Johnny Isakson - copy President George Bush

I have checked your voting record and appreciate your consistent sensible stance concerning those who enter our country illegally. There was a popular song back in my day that went - "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." I understand your predicament. Our borders must be brought under control and, in the interest of national security, we can't afford too much quibbling. We didn't accomplish that when we had a majority, lost the opportunity, and that's a fact that can't be undone today. But party solidarity needs to be a big factor in proposing this legislation. We can't afford, financially or in the interest of national security, to allow any further liberal inroads into our federal government, and need to focus on undoing what damage has been done.

Concerning the issue at hand, we need a reformed immigration law ASAP. I believe one will be passed by the current Congress. The question is, "How much rational input can we get included?" I totally support "secure borders first," otherwise we'll be fighting this same problem, if not worse, 10 years from now. I absolutely do not want to be dependent on foreign food sources. That would be a national security nightmare, not to mention digestively suicidal. I also don't want basic foodstuffs priced out of the market for the average family. So, where does that leave us?

I have a draft copy of the proposed legislation and am in the process of reading it, but it is slow going. I haven't gotten into the meat of it yet, but I had some thoughts I wanted to share with you while the matter is still in debate.

Attaching consequences to current illegal residents makes sense. However, I think a $1,000 fine is too low, and I think collection of those fines will be impossible unless receipt of legal work papers is contingent upon payment in full, which could result in illegal activity to get the money. The only other viable choice is some form of payroll deduction which places the burden on the employer, in addition to those of child support, legal garnishments, tax liens, etc. In that case employers should have a no-hire option for those who would require a payroll deduction for their illegal entry fine. Also, this group of potential workers should not have a higher priority over those who enter this country through legal means, especially after the law is passed. There should be some means of differentiating between the two and employers should have the legal option of preference for the legal entrant. Anyone discovered to be an illegal immigrant by anyone before coming forward, pleading guilty to their crime, and accepting the consequences, should immediately be placed in a squad car and returned to their home country. And under no circumstances should a probationary immigrant be allowed to bring additional family members into this country until all fines have been paid, the probationary period completed, and citizenship is attained. Potential immigrants who abide by the law and follow the legal process to enter this country should receive priority over family members of those who chose criminal entry.

Concerning the political phrase, "jobs Americans won't take," the current unemployment rate is approximately four percent. How many in that group are receiving taxpayer benefits in the form of unemployment compensation, medical assistance, food stamps, or cold hard cash? Why couldn't the receipt of taxpayer benefits be attached to the acceptance, if physically possible, of the temporary jobs that will be filled by guest workers? Temporary work is certainly better than none at all. I would support totally tax-free wages for any American citizens who fill these positions.

I am in favor of privatizing Social Security. I believe it was a misbegotten program to begin with and has done nothing but foster government dependence. I have no illusion that I will be able to rely on any support from Social Security when I reach retirement age and begrudge every penny of my 25+ years of contributions that could have been invested for my own retirement, for which I am working to provide as best I can.

I consider the taxation of income to be an economically constipating unconstitutional atrocity and contrary to the bedrock principles upon which the United States was built. Only the utmost restraint prevents me from throwing random objects at the television every time I see one of those advertisements bragging about their ability to help American citizens avoid paying huge amounts of their delinquent taxes.

Having laid that foundation, I am strongly opposed to, yea verily despise, the proposal that reconstructed illegal immigrants be forgiven of any unpaid taxes and allowed to participate in Social Security. Unless by some miracle both systems could be phased out into oblivion, the Social Security record of reconstructed immigrants should begin the day they have paid their fine in full, completed their probationary period, repaid every penny of past due taxes, and become United States citizens. They are in debt to every taxpaying American citizen for the benefits they have enjoyed while in this country illegally and they should be made to repay that debt. Freedom and opportunity ain't free and America was not built by moochers.

A minor victory, but we'll take what we can get. H.R.2093 died in committee so it will not reach the House floor for a vote, which is good. But it could still be reintroduced in the future so we'll have to keep our eyes open.

This bill is actually an amendment to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It would regulate paid attempts to encourage citizens to contact their elected representatives, a.k.a. "grassroots lobbying." The definition of "lobbying firm" would be broadened to include any organization that "receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend" $100,000 or more during any quarterly period for communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress. Such an organization would be required to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives as a lobbying firm and become subject to federal reporting regulations. That's pretty much a summary of the bill.

What it translates into is this. Organizations such as Americans for Limited Government, Americans for Tax Reform, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, ACLU, National Rifle Association, National Right to Life Committee, The American Conservative Union, and a whole slew of others, would be required to register with Congress and regularly report the monies they received and spent, along with the source of those funds and the purpose for which they were used. Keep in mind, this is not regulation of direct communication with a member of Congress or other elected official in exchange for a fee from a third party. That type activity is already regulated under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. This amendment would regulate organizations that advise the general public of governmental activity and who encourage the general public to contact their elected official and express their views. Private communication to, from, and among citizens, and encouraging those citizens to participate in their democratic process of government, becomes the evil "lobbying" that must be regulated by the omnipotent federal government lest the bobble-head public actually avail themselves of their Constitutional rights to assemble, petition, and say, "I don't like what you're doing," which I imagine is at an all-time high with the development of the internet.

For example, if I make a donation to the American Family Association and that organization receives or spends $100,000 ( which a single mass mailing could easily exceed) in any given quarter, AFA would be required to report my contribution to the federal government and the purpose for which it was used.  Personally, I wouldn't give a rat's hind end if the federal government knows what organizations I support or not. I've been tempted on numerous occasions to pick a Washington bozo out of a hat and spend the day calling him / her / it every time I go to the bathroom. The point is, (A) there are people for whom it might cause a problem with their job, business, or personal associations, and (B) it's none of their danged business. It amounts to further encroachment by the federal government upon the lives of the citizens who employ it and that is unacceptable, not to mention a violation of five First Amendments rights - speech, press, association, petitioning and religion.

The Supreme Court has twice shot down Congressional attempts to regulate communication with the general public. United States v. Rumely (1953) defined "lobbying activity" as "representations made directly to Congress, its members or its committees." McIntyre v. Ohio Election Board (1995) applied First Amendment protection to anonymous speech. H.R.2093 not only inhibits our First Amendment rights of access to government, it violates both Supreme Court affirmations of the protections those rights entail.

Which brings me to a prime example of the inherent flaw in this legislation and its mutant potential. It's ironic that the proponents of this bill - sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan, who incidentally is the same Marty the Flag Carrier for the Kill Pace Movement when General Peter Pace stated publicly that homosexuality is immoral – claim to be motivated by a desire to promote honest and open government.

I have in my hot little hands a draft copy of the Senate's proposed Immigration Reform bill. It was drawn up at 11:58 PM on Friday, May 18. I was able to download it from The Heritage Foundation on Tue, May 21. It's labeled "DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY." Meaning this may or may not be the final wording that is passed. A "bipartisan group" of whoever spent weeks putting this together in closed door sessions. I do know that Jabba the Kennedy was a major contributor, which is pretty icky. Word on the grapevine is that the Senate intends to have this legislation passed before Memorial Day - Monday, May 28.  I can't find where I read that so it may not be reliable.

The first paragraph of the proposed bill reads – "With the exception of the probationary benefits conferred by Section 601(h), the provisions of Subtitle C of Title IV, and the admission of aliens under Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)), as amended by Title IV," blah, blah, blah.

I could probably make this up but I promise you I am NOT. Here's the deal. There are 326 pages of that stuff. Count 'em – three hundred and twenty-six. The Senate plans to have this digested, debated, and voted on in a week?  Even if that time frame is inaccurate, back in April Sen. Reid had reserved the last two weeks in May for this issue, debate was to have begun on Mon. May 20 and the thing wasn't published by the Gang of Whoever until midnight Friday. That's all well and good, they've probably got the staff to handle it. But what about you, me and the rest of us work-a-day folks? I'm good but I ain't that good. So much for open government.

Us regular (read normal) people have commitments to jobs, family, children, church, schoolwork, grocery shopping, household chores, green beans, a few hours of sleep, yadayadayada – our time and energy are at a premium. My point is that if I want to offer my financial support to an organization that represents my principles and political views; one whose sole purpose is to monitor and analyze government activity (my staff so to speak) and present reports summarizing that activity and its impact on issues that concern me, my Constitution's First Amendment guarantees my right to such an association, free of governmental interference or even knowledge, as the Supreme Court established in McIntyre. An amendment designed to inhibit that association has the potential for amendment that stifles it altogether, resulting in fast-track-laws, immigration or whatever, shoved down our throats with no input whatsoever.

Oh yeah, except for what comes from the big-money clientele of the true lobbyist.

As I said before, it's none of their danged business.