Read Sensenbrenner's views on immigration

[anindya1234]

Originally Posted by sreekanth

Dear Friends,
I am from Wisconsin. Senator Sensenbrenner holds periodical town hall meetings with the public.
I sent an E-mail to him last month about our issue but have not received any reply yet.
I called his office today and spoke to his associate (Mr.Bill) who was very friendly and helpful.
When I explained him about our initiative he suggested that I meet the Senator during his next town hall meeting on June 11th.
Here is what I need,
If any one of you could draft a letter that clearly states our request to support the bill from the Legal aliens perspective I can meet him in person and deliver the letter to him.
If we can quote in the letter , the specific sections of the Bill which we were are concerned about, I am sure he would take some time to read it and respond to us.
If we can add other statistics like how many LEGAL aliens and their families would be benefited by this law it might probably impress him as well.
As I said above I have already written a very generic E-mail to him about retrogression and how thousands of skilled LEGAL aliens are affected by it.
If you could send me a more professional letter with specific information and statistics I can talk to him on June 11th and let all of you know about his response.
Regards,
Sreekanth

I think this is a good idea....I am not sure whether the Senate-House conference will be over by June 11th (probably it will); but still communicating with the Congressman should not harm us....as regards the letter, you can get help from the Resources section of the site. I am not sure what the IV core group's views on this and they are in a better position to judge whether the proposed effort would cause any political/strategic line to be crossed in their lobbying efforts.

[spgtopper]

Hi Sreekanth,

This sounds good. But, meeting Rep. Sensenbrenner is a sensitive matter. We can get you the letter and the exact message, but before that please let us check/think over and draft the message we need to get across to him and his staff.

We will keep in touch with you about this.

S.

Originally Posted by sreekanth

Dear Friends,
I am from Wisconsin. Senator Sensenbrenner holds periodical town hall meetings with the public.
I sent an E-mail to him last month about our issue but have not received any reply yet.
I called his office today and spoke to his associate (Mr.Bill) who was very friendly and helpful.
When I explained him about our initiative he suggested that I meet the Senator during his next town hall meeting on June 11th.
Here is what I need,
If any one of you could draft a letter that clearly states our request to support the bill from the Legal aliens perspective I can meet him in person and deliver the letter to him.
If we can quote in the letter , the specific sections of the Bill which we were are concerned about, I am sure he would take some time to read it and respond to us.
If we can add other statistics like how many LEGAL aliens and their families would be benefited by this law it might probably impress him as well.
As I said above I have already written a very generic E-mail to him about retrogression and how thousands of skilled LEGAL aliens are affected by it.
If you could send me a more professional letter with specific information and statistics I can talk to him on June 11th and let all of you know about his response.
Regards,
Sreekanth

[gsc999]

Originally Posted by spgtopper

Hi Sreekanth,

This sounds good. But, meeting Rep. Sensenbrenner is a sensitive matter. We can get you the letter and the exact message, but before that please let us check/think over and draft the message we need to get across to him and his staff.

We will keep in touch with you about this.

S.

********************

I don't want to be negative but note the following:

1) House has already passed a bill. You can't influence that. The chief architect was Sesenbrenner. He has publically defied Bush on the Senate bill. I don't think he will listen to us. Politically he has nothing to gain from us and everyting to loose from his republican vote base.

2) Sensenbrenner is to House what Session is to Senate. In fact highlighting our cause, might make us a target

3) The house conference is not public forum, it would be difficult to influence republicans at this stage. Lets focus on pro-immigrant house members rather that on ultra conservative anti-immigrant members. Former would be more fruitful.

4) In the above quoted post, the idea was floated that we should tell them how many families will benefit. Well more the number of families that benefit more it will aggravate them. they want to "limit" immigration not "encourage" it.

5) Only people House member would listen to now might be Bush &/or lobbying firms and ofcourse their vote base.

[anindya1234]

Originally Posted by gsc999

********************

I don't want to be negative but note the following:

1) House has already passed a bill. You can't influence that. The chief architect was Sesenbrenner. He has publically defied Bush on the Senate bill. I don't think he will listen to us. Politically he has nothing to gain from us and everyting to loose from his republican vote base.

2) Sensenbrenner is to House what Session is to Senate. In fact highlighting our cause, might make us a target

3) The house conference is not public forum, it would be difficult to influence republicans at this stage. Lets focus on pro-immigrant house members rather that on ultra conservative anti-immigrant members. Former would be more fruitful.

4) In the above quoted post, the idea was floated that we should tell them how many families will benefit. Well more the number of families that benefit more it will aggravate them. they want to "limit" immigration not "encourage" it.

5) Only people House member would listen to now might be Bush &/or lobbying firms and ofcourse their vote base.

Can you name some of the representatives (pro-immigration) that IV has already approached and/or trying to influence?

[abimanyu]

I agree with the tone of the message from gsc999. At this stage, it would be counter-productive to publicize the potential windfall one is likely to gain from the Manager's Amendment to the Congress. All news report suggests that there are at least 100 congressional members opposed to any form Amnesty. Now the good news is that they are targeting illegals and not legals, but the temp is hot that they could turn on us quickly. Hence, it would good idea to use quiet back-door channels to get things done.

Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by gsc999

********************

I don't want to be negative but note the following:

1) House has already passed a bill. You can't influence that. The chief architect was Sesenbrenner. He has publically defied Bush on the Senate bill. I don't think he will listen to us. Politically he has nothing to gain from us and everyting to loose from his republican vote base.

2) Sensenbrenner is to House what Session is to Senate. In fact highlighting our cause, might make us a target

5) Only people House member would listen to now might be Bush &/or lobbying firms and ofcourse their vote base.

[raj3078]

I must agree with all the points mentioned below. Trying to convince Sensenbrenner is waste of time....and likely to bounce back....We should rather keep away from him and focus on others who are favorable to our cause. Please refrain from sending him anything or attending any of his meetings.....
my 2 cents

Originally Posted by gsc999

********************

I don't want to be negative but note the following:

1) House has already passed a bill. You can't influence that. The chief architect was Sesenbrenner. He has publically defied Bush on the Senate bill. I don't think he will listen to us. Politically he has nothing to gain from us and everyting to loose from his republican vote base.

2) Sensenbrenner is to House what Session is to Senate. In fact highlighting our cause, might make us a target

3) The house conference is not public forum, it would be difficult to influence republicans at this stage. Lets focus on pro-immigrant house members rather that on ultra conservative anti-immigrant members. Former would be more fruitful.

4) In the above quoted post, the idea was floated that we should tell them how many families will benefit. Well more the number of families that benefit more it will aggravate them. they want to "limit" immigration not "encourage" it.

5) Only people House member would listen to now might be Bush &/or lobbying firms and ofcourse their vote base.

[brb2]

I think it is a good idea to go talk to him. More of his constituents speaking out about it will moderate anti immigrant views. Though, looking at the way he is criticizing Bush is surprising. WI is not a conservative state - MN, IL are all moderately democratic, as opposed to SD/ND where the politicians are socially conservative and their performance in the senate showed up as anti-immigrant. I am amazed that these two states with sparse populations and no illegal immigrant issues are still so strongly anti-immigrant.

Anyway, talking in general about the issues is better than giving him any statistics how people are languishing. Giving him ANY reasons differentiating legal and illegal is fatal because he will use that reason to kill the bill itself. Tancredo himself an immigrant has already called the legal immigration issues in the bill the "soft belly" and shown his true colors. He opposed ALL immigration just like Lou Dobbs but hide behind illegal immigration.

[logiclife]

Whether you are in blue state or red state, in the House, it doesnt matter.

Over the last few decades, both Republicans and Democrats have created and re-drawn congressional districts in such a way that they favor the incumbant. The districts are now in such a state that they are either strongly Democratic or strongly Republican - to favor the Democratic or Republican candidate who is from that district. Sort of like job security increase.

As a result, the candidates, in order to win elections, have to energize the party base and party faithful and dont have to make an attempt to reach across the aisle to reach bi-partisan compromise on issues. All they have to do is rant and make soundbites and grandstand along party lines. That is the big reason why the House is so partisan.

Senate is a different story coz entire states vote for those seats. However, some house members, over the years have become senators now and they do carry the old baggage of partisanship and radical wingnut behavior - on the left or the right wing.

Sensenbrenner is not going to lose the next election no matter how Democratic or Blue Wisconsin gets. Coz his district, as a part of re-districting would be heavily Republican.

Too much job security creates an inefficient environment. That is exactly what we see in the US House of Representatives. Everyone is safe, so no need to reach bi-partisan compromise. Yell at the other side, and keep yelling.

[hydboy77]

I completely agree with most of the points you mentioned below. All the members of the House and senate who are opposing make an argument about the "amnesty" being unfair to legal immigrants. I know they are saying this not out of respect or love for law abiding legal immigrants but as an excuse against the CIR bill. Should we not try to bring the argument in favor of provisions in CIR that help legal immigrants to paint these members who use the excuse of legal immigrants to oppose CIR as anti immigrants who don’t give a damn about legal immigrants

Originally Posted by gsc999

********************

I don't want to be negative but note the following:

1) House has already passed a bill. You can't influence that. The chief architect was Sesenbrenner. He has publically defied Bush on the Senate bill. I don't think he will listen to us. Politically he has nothing to gain from us and everyting to loose from his republican vote base.

2) Sensenbrenner is to House what Session is to Senate. In fact highlighting our cause, might make us a target

3) The house conference is not public forum, it would be difficult to influence republicans at this stage. Lets focus on pro-immigrant house members rather that on ultra conservative anti-immigrant members. Former would be more fruitful.

4) In the above quoted post, the idea was floated that we should tell them how many families will benefit. Well more the number of families that benefit more it will aggravate them. they want to "limit" immigration not "encourage" it.

5) Only people House member would listen to now might be Bush &/or lobbying firms and ofcourse their vote base.

[abimanyu]

Generally talking is okay, but i fear even during that conversation he could collect data about legals and then use it to his advantage to kill the bill. Well, after all he is a politician. Unless and otherwise, we find clever means of conveying our problems to him...which seems like a long shot.

But, at the same time it would presumptuous of us to assume that his staffers haven't gone thru the Bill with a tooth and comb!

just a penny for thought.

Originally Posted by brb2

I think it is a good idea to go talk to him. More of his constituents speaking out about it will moderate anti immigrant views. Though, looking at the way he is criticizing Bush is surprising.

[gsc999]

Originally Posted by logiclife

Whether you are in blue state or red state, in the House, it doesnt matter...

...Too much job security creates an inefficient environment. That is exactly what we see in the US House of Representatives. Everyone is safe, so no need to reach bi-partisan compromise. Yell at the other side, and keep yelling.

Yes, the House speaker is Dennis Hastert (R-IL). I don't know if you guys are aware of the
"Hastert Doctrine." Which simply means that the speaker will not bring a bill on the Congress floor unless it enjoys the "majority" of the "majority." Which means majority of republicans have to support the compromise with Senate bill for it to make any headway. There have been exceptions to this doctrine but rare.

See this url for more info. on the Hastert doctrine.

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/al...opiniontop-hed

[yabadaba]

Originally Posted by sreekanth

Dear Friends,
I am from Wisconsin. Senator Sensenbrenner holds periodical town hall meetings with the public.
I sent an E-mail to him last month about our issue but have not received any reply yet.
I called his office today and spoke to his associate (Mr.Bill) who was very friendly and helpful.
When I explained him about our initiative he suggested that I meet the Senator during his next town hall meeting on June 11th.
Here is what I need,
If any one of you could draft a letter that clearly states our request to support the bill from the Legal aliens perspective I can meet him in person and deliver the letter to him.
If we can quote in the letter , the specific sections of the Bill which we were are concerned about, I am sure he would take some time to read it and respond to us.
If we can add other statistics like how many LEGAL aliens and their families would be benefited by this law it might probably impress him as well.
As I said above I have already written a very generic E-mail to him about retrogression and how thousands of skilled LEGAL aliens are affected by it.
If you could send me a more professional letter with specific information and statistics I can talk to him on June 11th and let all of you know about his response.
Regards,
Sreekanth

one of the main ranting points the opponents have is that the senate bill is amnesty. They keep repeating that and say that its exactly the same as the 1986 amnesty. the reason it is not amnesty is because it creates an employer verification program that will stem the tide of employers hiring illegals. again the opponents of this bill will say that it was done in 1986, but there was no easy process for employers to verify this information. In 1986 even fax machines were not commonplace. Imagine a small business owner like a convenience store owner trying to verify information of a minimum wage assistant. who would take the time to send all the documents to the ins, wait for weeks and then hire the person in question. now all that person has to do is go online and check against the national database for eligibility.

that's why this is not amnesty because it will do all that the bill is required to do. make it easy for employers to verify status and ensure that immigration will be carried out in a legal systematic and FAIR manner.

[brb2]

I think this is nothing but amnesty for illegals couched in terms of "earned citizenship". A lot of the legals stuck in retrogresssion who came much before 2004 January would happily trade places to "adjust status" if they had to pay "back taxes" and "continue to work". LOL.

The introduction of the employer verification can not change the fact that this is not amnesty . The employer verification is supposedly to prevent new illegals finding work, it has nothing to do with people who are already in the US illegally. They are being allowed to stay if they came in prior to 2004. What about the brother of the US citizen waiting his turn in Phillipines for the last 20 years? I am sure he would think it is better to visit Cancun and walk over. The problem with amnesty is that it will lead to more people coming over knowing that in 20 years there will be another amnesty. The cash economy in the US can easily sustain illegals in the shadow economy.

Originally Posted by yabadaba

one of the main ranting points the opponents have is that the senate bill is amnesty. They keep repeating that and say that its exactly the same as the 1986 amnesty. the reason it is not amnesty is because it creates an employer verification program that will stem the tide of employers hiring illegals.

[gsc999]

Originally Posted by brb2

I think this is nothing but amnesty for illegals couched in terms of "earned citizenship". A lot of the legals stuck in retrogresssion who came much before 2004 January would happily trade places to "adjust status" if they had to pay "back taxes" and "continue to work". LOL.

Hypothetical scenario but "Trading places II," might make a great sequel.
Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, who would be the illegal immigrant?

Also, the term "Amnesty" is being beaten to death by the anti-immigrant ultra-protectionist groups.

[BSVENKI]

I agree with gsc999. Let's maintain our present MO.