Immigration Debate Bears Unacceptable Behavior

The immigration debate brings out strong emotions about how to handle the issue. This is how democracy works where we exchange ideas even in a heated manner. We can be as heated as we want in the debate but there is a limit.

The New York Times reports this morning that many Senators supporting  the immigration bill have received threats  in phone calls and letters.

This is completely unacceptable behavior for anyone to engage in, especially those who live in a country where we have the chance to vote officials out of office. It is one thing to tell the official that you will not vote for them again, but another entirely to make a menacing threat. I understand that tempers and emotions flare around this issue, especially because we have been fed fear for the past six years regarding terrorists. Terrorism is something that it is proper to worry about as is crime and drugs, but these concerns should not lead to threats of harm against those who seek a solution to the vexing problem of immigration.

Getting Immigration Reform Back on Track

The divisions over how to reform the immigration system, deal with the 12-20 million people that are here illegally, and secure the borders is divisive in all communities with an interest in the issue. This creates cross-cutting cleavages that cross all ideological and interest lines. According to a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the bill is “divisive in the Republican base, it’s divisive in the Democratic base, it’s divisive in the business community. Itsplits organized labor, it splits the immigration community.”

These divisions and the dissatisfaction of Sen. Harry Reid led the Democratic Leader to pull the bill from the floor after a cloture vote failed last night. Sen. McConnell was dissatisfied with the the bill being pulled because he thinks that that the Senate is “giving up too soon.”
 
Presidential candidate John McCain challenged the base of the Republican party by saying that doing nothing amounts to a ‘Silent Amnesty.’

How do we solve these divisions? A difficult question, but it can be done. We need to go back to the beginning and break this bill into manageable parts. Let’s pass a border security and enforcement bill first. This is the easiest issue to accomplish broad agreement on. There are also some issues like Employee Verification, fines for all who broke the law, and ID cards that just need to be done over the protests of any group.

On the issues that create the divisions such as what to do about the 12-20 million aliens here illegally, a guest worker program, and an overhaul of the immigration system that would include a point system that would way the contribution of an immigrant rather than family ties as a major factor in allowance to immigrate. Another divisive issue is weather all illegals should be able to bring in their extended families under the old system. These issues require all parties to the issue to be called in and negotiate a solution. We will only solve this deeply divisive issue if we all work together.

Brinksmanship on Immigration Harming our chance to come up with a fair compromise

We complain about problems not being solved in Washington and often aren’t because of the deep divisions between the parties or the brinksmanship that occurs in order to get what is wanted by one side or another. This is happening with the immigration legislation currently on the floor only the brinksmanship is occurring between those for and opposed to the legislation and these groups cross party lines.

Sen. Reid threatens to withdraw the bill if a cloture vote fails again. This would cause a monumental collapse and disallow the chance to save a bill that is very unpopular and deeply flawed.

Sen. Lott hyperbolically called for a vote to dissolve the Senate because they seem to get nothing done. He is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of both sides to work together to solve a pressing problem for the country.

Sen. Graham wants to solve the problem as well and is frustrated over the lack of willingness of some to deal with chain migration head on and has “walked the plank” for this bill. He is willing to make changes that don’t “gut the bill.”

Sen. DeMint has attempted to make the bill better by offering amendments that would place border security first and reduce the burden on citizens for immigrant health care.

Sen. Webb also proposed amendments to strike the touch back provision and strengthen enforcement.

With all these amendments having been proposed there should be a vigorous debate and vote on them. If it takes several weeks than so be it that is the way legislation is made and properly passed. More support can be picked up be allowing this, however, stopping debate and denying amendments votes only angers constituents and colleagues alike. It also gives credibility to the critics of the legislation is secret and it is being forced on the people.

Tempers Flare on Senate Floor over Immigration Amendment

The ill temper between Sen. Lindsey Graham and Barak Obama is a demonstration of the flashpoint that the issue has caused in this country. Those on the Right want nothing short of a mass deportation and those on the left want a mass pardon for all the illegal aliens in the country. Th Left also does not want a point system to decide who immigrates beyond the nuclear family. The issue of family immigration touched off the spat.

The Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, The State and Greenville News all report the incident from an AP story.

Issues that require bipartisanship often fail, Graham
said, ”because some people, when it comes to the tough decisions, back
away.” Obama’s amendment, he said, would destroy the bill’s prospects
and bring special woe to Republicans — such as himself — who have
endured conservatives’ searing criticism for backing it.

It would undercut ”everybody over here who’s walked the plank and
told our base, ‘You’re wrong,”’ Graham said. ”So when you’re out on
the campaign trail, my friend, tell them about why we can’t come
together. This is why.”

Obama briefly appeared stunned and demanded time to respond. The
notion that his amendment would gut the bill ”is simply disingenuous”
he said. ”It’s engaging in the sort of histrionics that is entirely
inappropriate for this debate.”

Almost immediately, the two men continued the argument in a hall
just outside the chamber. ”They were going at it,” said Sen. Mel
Martinez, R-Fla. ”We could hear them inside.”

In separate interviews later, Graham said, ”I wanted to go
outside” to impress upon Obama the danger he was causing for a bill he
supposedly supported. ”I said, ‘I’m very disappointed in you,”’ he
said, adding: ”I like the fellow.”

Obama said Graham was overstating the potential impact of ”a mild amendment.”

This exchange is symptomatic of how divisive this issue has comSen. Graham has walked the plank and taken major heat for his position. If Sen. Obama’s amendment would have stripped out provisions that ended chain migration than it would have gutted the an important part of the bill. We need to step back and pass three separate reform measures: border security and enforcement, handling of the illegals already here (including the z-visa), and an overhaul of the system to include a point system and a guest worker program. There is a general agreement regarding security and that would be a non-controversial bill to pass, so we should pass it. The other two bills are more controversial and there is less agreement, so it will take longer. We need to look at our options, take a time out, and then start over again. This time the bill(s) need to be vetted through the committee process.

Sen. Lindsey Graham – The Only Elected Reservist to Serve in Iraq

Senators and Congressmen who travel to Iraq typically go as part of a congressional delegation for a few days and then leave to report their findings to the public once they arrive home. Sen. Lindsey Graham recently went on such a visit with Sen. John McCain, but after McCain and his other colleagues left he changed into Air Force desert camouflage and served eight days with the Rule of Law Task Force in Iraq.

This makes him unique among his four colleagues that are reservists. Senator Graham is the only sitting elected official to have ever voted for a resolution authorizing use of military force and then served himself.

Sen. Graham recently returned from a nine day trip to Iraq–two days as part of a congressional delegation and seven days as an Air Force reservist. He has concluded that the surge is working as a result of his visit and service in-country.

In an interview on FoxNews Sunday Graham explained out the details of the sixteen Sheiks that were now working with us to secure the country. In comments to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal upon his return that we should know by early Fall about the will of the Iraqi people to control their country and that we needed Gen. Petraeus years ago. This cautious optimism after return is bolstered by his comment while on the delegation visit that Iraqis are resilient people.

Sen. Graham explains what he saw while in Iraq in his editorial “Progress and losses in Iraq,” which appeared in the State, a Columbia, SC newspaper.

He pointed out that their was more cooperation with tribal leaders in Anbar Province and that thy were encouraging young people to join the Iraqi police force. He was allowed into areas that were previously off-limits while with the delegation.

He was assigned with the Rule of Law Task Force while serving his week of
reserve duty. He saw cases brought before courts and saw up close that
nothing good happens without a price. The price in this case was Navy
Commander Phillip Murphy-Sweet, who had just extended his tour and was
optimistic about their mission. Murphy-Sweet was killed by an IED a day
after Sen. Graham met him.

He also reported a security problem at Camp Bucca where al-Queda detainees are held along with prisoners who are not dangerous. The prison was becoming a recruiting ground for the terrorists, but there was a plan to deal with the problem.

Since returning and from service and authoring the editorial Sen. Graham has been on CBS and CNN discussing what he learned in Iraq.

He told CBS the following:

The one thing I learned about the surge is that the military part of it,
knocking down doors and shooting al Qaeda and arresting extremists, is
part of it but not all of it. There is a surge going on on the law
front.The one thing I learned about the surge is that the military part
of it, knocking down doors and shooting al Qaeda and arresting
extremists, is part of it but not all of it. There is a surge going on
on the law front.

The one thing I learned about the surge is that the military part of it knocking down
doors and shooting Al Qaeda and arresting extremists is a part of it
but not all of it. There is a surge going on on the law front. The Rule
of Law Task Force was stood up on April first.

I looked at some detention issues, we have 19,000 people detained in American custody,
and trying to create a better legal venue to hear their claims and keep
the bad ones off the street who are a danger to our troops and the
Iraqi government, and to let some of them go with supervision and to
get the others tried in Iraqi criminal court.

One way to kill the insurgency beyond military force is to create a government that is
fair to its citizens and the rule of law to me is about ‘what you did’
not ‘who you are’. We’re trying to break the politics of revenge and
the cycle of revenge. Instead of killing someone who has killed a
member of your family, we’re trying to create a legal system that will
hold Shiias, Sunnis and Kurds accountable when they try to topple the
government or kill innocent people. The old legal system was there to
serve the dictator. The new legal system has to be there to serve all
people not just one group of people… a jury of peers will decide your
fate, not politicians or dictators.

The problem in Iraq is out of control violence. The number one target of the insurgency are
judges. If you’re a judge in Iraq you’re an incredibly brave person.
Because they just don’t try to kill you, they try to kill your family.
So General Petraeus tried to build a compound in Baghdad for judges.
Took an old army base, reinforced it, put housing on base for judges
and their families and created a brand new courtroom a detention
facility to hold people in the compound to give the judges confidence
that if they did their job they could do it without fear. Within 60
days the American military took over this old Army base and just about
completed all the housing as I speak, got the courtroom built in five
days and reinforced the compound to provide security for the judges and
their families.

April 1st, the day I got into the theater, the first trial was held in the Rule of Law Green Zone. An Iraqi judge
heard two cases on the same day, one case involved a Shiite police
officer, a very powerful captain in the police force who was accused of
torturing Sunnis in the jailhouse. And it was an earthshaking event in
Iraq because this person was well-known in the region from where he
came and nobody believed that he would ever be held accountable because
of his political connections.

The second case was a Sunni Al Qaeda operative who was accused of randomly killing Shiite civilians to
spark sectarian violence. On the same day you had a Sunni and a Shiite
held accountable for trying to topple the government and to kill people
of the other sect. And the judge was a Sunni. It is a small step toward
breaking the politics of revenge where the legal system focused on what
they did to a fellow Iraqi, not what their sect was. It was a brave,
bold move by the judiciary to be independent of sectarian violence.

There exists a large number of people in Iraq who want a different way of
doing business, who are literally risking their own lives to change
Iraq. And I do believe that with the right amount of support, that
there is still hope that those who believe that the law should be about
what someone does, not who they are, have a chance of winning in Iraq.

He also discussed the loss of his colleague, Commander Murphy-Sweet saying: “And he told me the story about how the American military, in conjunction with the Iraqi government, built this complex in 60 days, how they built the courtroom in five days, and it was a courtroom any state in our nation would be proud of. This was on a Friday. He was killed the next morning. Three young kids, beautiful wife, from Pennsylvania, killed by an IED.

And it hit me hard because I knew him. And I’m sure the other deaths in Iraq have hit their colleagues very hard. I just
happened to meet this guy, just a random chance in life that I spent the last day with him. He was killed within 24 hours of when I met him. And I guess the story goes for me is that nothing good in Iraq happens without a sacrifice.”

Eye to Eye: Senator Lindsey Graham (CBS News)

This is the story that the media is not telling and needs to be considered. We should consider carefully the words of this senator who served in Iraq when he did not have to because he is exempted by DoD Directive 1200.7.

 See more photos of Sen. Graham’s time in Iraq.

Signing Statements vs Vetoes

Mr. Bush’s relations with Congress has been tumultuous at best and complete control at worst. When a Republican led congress passed a ban on torture in the Detainee Treatment Act and attached it as a amendment to the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 he signed the law with a signing statement. Now the Democrats are in control threatening even tighter controls on the war in Iraq and he is again threatening a veto and this time he will carry it out.

Mr. Bush’s one veto during the Republican led Congress was the stem cell research bill. The others, including a pork-laden transportation bill and a defense supplemental with the Real ID Act attached, he signed. He also threatened a veto of the Defense bill in 2005 because of a the Detainee Treatment Act, but signed it and then with little fanfare promulgated a signing statement that said:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

Pulitzer Prize Winner Charlie Savage reported in the 5 January 2006 edition of the Boston Globe that 3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture ban which quotes Sen. Graham as saying:

I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified Graham. If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations’ leaders from doing the same.

The article provides a statement from the other two, McCain and Warner. So to claim that they caved in and allowed torture to become official policy is unfair and incorrect.

Now on to vetoes. The president as above mentioned only vetoed one bill in the Republican congresses even though he threatened several times to veto bills. He signed larded bills, bills with unrelated provisions attached, and those that included things he did not like. A signing statement was his answer then and now he is going to return to the Constitutional option of vetoing. This may be proof that his preferred method of dealing with his own party when they get out of line.

It is just stubbornness. If he really believes that it is his power to clearly disobey the will of congress then he should sign the supplemental and attach a signing statement.

I do not support this action, but he won’t because he wants to make a political issue out of the supplemental and he wasn’t willing to do that.

Requesting Legislation…From the Bench

How many times did we hear Mr. Bush say in speeches or press statements that he did not want judges legislating from the bench? This question applies to all situations including campaigns and nomination battles. Now he appears to be asking for legislation from the bench in direct contravention to prior statements about how judges should conduct their judicial duties.

The Military Commissions Act, for all its flaws, granted detainees the right to a civilian council with no restriction. Mr. Bush agreed to this when he signed the law without a signing statement. Defense directives also outline how the provisions of the law are to be carried out. Now, Mr. Gonzales is submitting a brief to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing to restrict access to civilian attorneys in spite of the law.

The court can accept the case. However, if they found in Mr. Bush’s favor would they not be legislating from the bench?

Sen. Graham Travels to Guantanamo to witness CSRT Hearing

Source: New York Times

Saturday marked the first hearing of a Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at that was closed to the media. This was a pivotal hearing of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks. “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation form A-Z,” Mohammed admitted as he gave his confession to the tribunal consisting of three military officers and with two United States Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin watched via closed circuit TV.

Senators Graham and Levin were present to observe the process and report back about what happened. Graham was an architect of the Military Commissions Act which Levin voted against. They released a joint statement today that explained the process and said that it went well. However,  they added that “the true test of the CSRT process is not a case in which the detainee admits the allegations against him, it is a case in which the detainee disputes those allegations. Judicial review of the tribunals is ongoing. We will continue to review the process and will explore possible ways to improve this process through Congressional action.”

Graham challenges colleagues to act rather than talk on Iraq

In comments to WCBD in Charleston Sen. Graham challenged his colleagues “political courage” because they are planning a vote a non-binding resolution that expresses their discontent with the ‘surge’ and urged them to “cheer them on” rather than cast a vote of “no confidence in Gen. Petraeus.” He further said the vote would “empower our enemies, and be demoralizing to our own troops.”

Graham Says Iraq on the Verge of Chaos

In an AP interview Sen. Graham said

We’re on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working

US and Iraqi officials need to be held accountable for the lack of progress and he said

All of them. It’s their job to come up with a game plan

He has been calling for changes to the strategy since the beginning operations in Iraq. He has criticized troop levels and has asked tough questions of leaders and never gotten satisfactory answers.