Contemplating Son of S1348, A Democrat Broods About His Party's Symbol
Print Friendly and PDF

This week, I had just come from a morning of major dental surgery to learn of another toothache much more serious.

On June 7th, the US Senate voted AGAINST cloture for the horrible amnesty/ immigration surge bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill. We thought we had won a great victory.

But, as Barbara Coe, Chairman of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, puts it:

"It appears they have given old S1348 a new number: S1639.  New lipstick on the pig is still the same pig? (Sorry, I don't mean to insult pigs whom I'm sure have more integrity than the corrupt traitors (in the Senate).)"

My disgust with my own Democratic party grows more intense daily.  Son of S1348 is being revived!

Julie Hirschfeld Davis of AP reports in a June 18 article entitled "Rare tactic may allow immigration votes" that

"Only in the arcane world of the U.S. Senate could a quirky gambit known as a "clay pigeon" make the difference between passage of an important immigration measure and its death at the hands of opponents. Democratic leaders hope the complex maneuver — which makes use of the Senate's labyrinthine rules to insist on votes on amendments — will frustrate conservatives' attempts to derail the embattled immigration bill, instead putting it on a fast track to passage next week.

"Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would revive the bill to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants late this week. To do so, though, he needs backing from 60 senators, and a way to guarantee votes on a tentative list of 22 Republican and Democratic amendments whose consideration is seen as vital to satisfying key waverers".

This "clay pigeon" tactic gets its name from the target used in skeet shooting, which explodes into bits as it is hit. In the Senate, an amendment is the target, and any one senator can demand that it be divided into separate fragments to be voted on piecemeal.

Here is how Hirschfeld depicts this wicked mechanism:

"Under the tentative plan, Reid as early as Friday would launch his target — an amendment encompassing all 22 proposals — and shoot it into its component pieces. The Senate would then vote on ending debate on the immigration measure, which would take 60 votes and limit discussion of the bill to 30 more hours.  After that interval, all 22 amendments would have to be voted on, with little opportunity for foes to interfere. Ironically, the move is usually used by mavericks — not leaders — to slow down legislation, not free it from a procedural thicket." 

She then cites several examples. For example: "Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., used it last year to protest a bill he complained included excessive spending. By offering and then dividing an amendment that targeted 19 items he deemed offensive, Coburn was able to insist on votes on individual projects."

Chances are good that Reid's plan will work, although it, as Hirschfeld notes, "has its risks, chief among them further inflaming the vocal conservative opponents who have vowed to do whatever they can to kill the immigration measure."

Not just conservatives! Folks, understand that those favoring passage of Son of S1348, controlled as they are by America's corporate totalitarians, care nothing for our democracy, nothing for the rule of law, nothing for the morality of doing the people's work for the people and not for special interests.

The financial costs to us citizen taxpayers have been well documented by many credible studies. Putting private costs on the public taxpayers is an old, well-traveled practice for these people.

The stark and discouraging information which follows was first reported by VDARE.COM's Bryanna Bevens in 2006, but certainly bears repeating at this critical juncture. This example of the evil side effects of present law and the undoubted further added costs of the presently proposed amnesty marks yet another highly personal example of how these costs are piling up. While this situation is may be minor compared to the overall costs, current and future, which Son of S1348 will incur at our expense, it's illustrative nonetheless:

"Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:

1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years coincidence

"On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day—every day.)

"A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 babies born every year just in Dallas…the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

"The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. 

"OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do….Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification—no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income—an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.

"My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does!

"As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care—not top of line.

"Their (the illegals) medical care is free—simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income.

"Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)

"There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?"  

Significantly, Bryanna's work was verified by

As a Democrat, I am horrified. My party's symbol, the donkey, reminds me of the arcade game of Donkey Kong, sometimes abbreviated DK. He's a Nintendo video game character that first appeared in a 1981 video game of the same name. DK is a large, muscular gorilla, weighing 800 pounds. Since the 1994 Donkey Kong game remake, he is depicted wearing a red necktie with a DK emblem. In an interview at E3 2001, the creator of Donkey Kong, Shigeru Miyamoto, said that when naming the character he had confused the word "donkey" with "stupid", and assumed that to an American audience, 'Donkey Kong' would clearly mean 'stupid ape'. 

The current Democrat leaders are being so stupidly short-sighted. Yet with the power of the corporate paymasters behind them, they become an 800 pound gorilla, out of any citizen control, madly ruining our country for ephemeral personal gains. 

The American audience (e.g. its citizens) is not stupid, Shigeru, but its Senatorial leadership surely deserves that description, plus crass venality taken to the highest levels.

Would it be worth quoting a Republican, the then-Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, at this point? "Our country and state have a special obligation to work toward the stabilization of our own population, so as to credibly lead other parts of the world towards population stabilization."  [Hearings before Subcommittee on Census and Population, 1974.]

Yes, but first let's stop this mass invasion!

The bill we need passed into law is border and port security plus enforcing no hiring of illegal aliens and no citizenship for babies born to illegal mothers. 

When such law has been in place for time enough to prove its effectiveness, then we can review what next steps are needed. 

Son of S1348 puts the donkey's rear in backwards.

Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.

Print Friendly and PDF