By Isabel Matos
This is incredible. You can just google this up. “Latinos Ready To Vote” sends an open letter to Senators Cornyn and Cruz, urging them to vote in FAVOR of the S.744 bill. That is the Gang of 8’s Senate bill we were all fighting vehemently against last June 2013. This woman seeking the Senate seat, Linda Vega, is indeed an Amnesty activist, make no mistake. And the worst type of Republican in our Party. A so-called one.
Open Letter: Texas Cannot Afford two ‘NO’ votes in the U.S. Senate Bill on Immigration.
To the Honorable U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz:
How our two Texas Senators vote on the Immigration Bill S.744 will determine what type of relationship the Texas Republican Party can foment within Latino Communities in Texas. For the first time in twenty years, future elections in the state will be based on a generational vote related to this bill, which will have major implications. All polls clearly indicate that 90%of Latino voters want an immigration reform that is fair, secures our border, and reflects our traditional values as a nation of immigrants, and as nation that cherishes Free Enterprise and limited government. Consequently, Texas Republicans have a lot to lose, or win, with this vote.
First, the Amendments proposed by Sen. Senator Cruz in the Senate judiciary to further enlarge government –tripling the size of border patrol, more drones, helicopters and militarization of the border–present serious Constitutional violations to homeowners, ranchers in South Texas; this Amendment could affect the property rights for many Texans and all border communities who would have to relinquish land and properties to the Department of Homeland Security and the Obama Administration to build fences by tripling the size of the border patrol, the military and drones. This not only interferes with our freedoms, it interferes with our Property Rights in Texas. Land that has been in families through generations runs the risk of being confiscated, by Imminent Domain, by the federal government; which means that the size of Texas will minimize as will our Rights.
Second, the proposed Amendments by Sen. Cruz to militarize Texas-Mexico border may hamper further trade relations between Texas and Mexico, at a time when Mexico is becoming a middle-class nation and the Texas economy depends more on trade with Mexico. For example, for the last five years Mexico has had a consistent 5% of GDP growth while Texas has increased its exports to Mexico by 100% since 2004. Texas is now responsible for about 44 percent of U.S. exports to Mexico. Also, currently, 60% of all NAFTA trade –about $300 billion–comes through Texas, thereby creating jobs and industries entirely dependents on the Texas-Mexico trade relation and an effective management of the flow of goods across the border. All of which will hampered by a tripling of the border patrol militarization of the border.
Third, our own estimations suggest that by 2016, the Voting Age Populating of Latinos in Texas will be about 6 million, while the number of Republican turnout will remain stagnant at only 4.5 million. As a result, the survival of the Republican, and therefore the ability of the Republicans to win the White House, rests in capacity of TRP to attract new voters that ultimately will have to come from Latino communities. As a Result, a NO vote in the Senate on Immigration Bill S.744 can have larger generational implications that the RPT cannot afford.
Consequently, if Senators Cruz and Cornyn vote NO on this bill, it will be a serious setback for the Republican Party because in the next ten years 50% of the Texas Population will be of Mexican-American decent. This will be a generational vote, and therefore a NO vote will have major implications for the GOP in Texas for years to come. Hence, The Texas Republican Party (RPT) cannot afford two NO votes in the U.S. Senate because it will be difficult for Republican candidates to venture into Latino communities after our two Republican senators have voted against a reasonable Immigration Bill.
We urge Sen. Cruz to follow the lead of Sen. Cornyn who has proposed a stronger border security Amendments to make sure that all the mechanisms in the Senate Bill S.744 have ’triggers’ to guarantee that all the objectives of border security will be achieved before any aliens can apply for Permanent Residency (green cards). But as he acknowledge, such ‘trigger’ should not hinder the flow of trade between Texas and Mexico, who is our third largest trade partner. In addition we urge Sen. Cruz to support Sen. Cornyn who added an amendment to take $1 billion to be used on the discretion of border communities where fencing is not needed and where technology will be more appropriate.
The outcry of Amnesty in the bill is a red herring for many who cannot fathom the economic detriment that voting No to this bill has on the economy of Texas.
You can find the information here: http://latinosreadytovote.com/open-letter-texas-cannot-afford-two-no-votes-in-the-u-s-senate-bill-on-immigration/
Here are two responses that I am including to show what Texans (and Americans) actually think about this bill.
Dan Colgan on June 24, 2013 at 3:00 pm said:
Erich on June 11, 2013 at 3:01 am said:
Actually, Texas cannot afford any ‘YES’ votes on the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, which:
- 1. Provides immediate legalization without securing the border
- 2. Rewards criminal aliens, absconders and deportees and undermines law enforcement.
- 3. Contains extremely dangerous national security loopholes.
- 4. Facilitates fraud in our immigration system.
- 5. Creates no real penalties for illegal immigrants and rewards them with entitlements.
- 6. Delays for years the implementation of E-Verify
- 7. Does not fix our legal immigration system
- 8. Advanced through a process predicated on a deal struck before mark-up.
- 9. Rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship.
Additionally, the bill thoroughly guts interior enforcement of immigration laws, and like Obamacare, the Gang of Eight bill grants enormous power and discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has a well-established policy of NOT enforcing immigration laws and of legalizing as many people as possible.
Besides, guest worker programs are not a good idea because they cast workers into a second-class citizen status and put their fate into their employers’ hands, creating an opportunity to exploit them. It also encourages employers to turn full-time jobs into temporary ones at reduced wages and diminished working conditions — something we’re already seeing as a result of Obamacare.
To see why guest worker programs are not a good idea, we need look no further than the example set by Germany, the fourth best economy in the world. In response to a labor shortage prompted by economic recovery, Germany signed a series of bilateral recruitment agreements, first with Italy in 1955, then with Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Portugal (1964), and Yugoslavia (1968). The core of these agreements included the recruitment of Gastarbeiter (guest workers), almost exclusively in the industrial sector, for jobs that required few qualifications. Under the so-called rotation principle, mostly male migrants entered Germany for a period of one to two years and were then required to return home to make room for other guest workers. This policy had a double rationale: preventing settlement and exposing to industrial work the largest possible number of workers from sending countries.
Guest workers, unlike ordinary immigrants, were admitted under special jobs programs, and at least under the original plans, had no prospects of becoming citizens or permanent residents. Germany, like other European countries, at first refused even to allow them to bring families, hoping to discourage them from trying to put down roots. Later, Germany granted work stays of up to five years, and permitted wives and children to come along. Legal workers were followed by waves of family members and illegal immigrants. Sound familiar?
For decades, there were no efforts to integrate the newcomers. They were entitled to social benefits, but not citizenship. Their children could attend schools, but little effort was made to give them language skills. Many of the first generation of workers bought houses or established small businesses, although usually confining themselves to immigrant enclaves. Their German-born children were registered as “foreigners.” They often spend years or even decades resolving their legal status. And, while Germany (and many other European governments) failed to seriously pursue integration, many immigrants were equally unwilling to shed their own languages and national identities. Sound familiar?
Many of the original guest workers are now retired, enjoying the comfortable pensions that are the pride of Europe. But their children and their grandchildren are trapped between two worlds, too Europeanized ever to return to the Middle East or North Africa, but lacking the language skills and education to forge ahead in their new countries. The parents took jobs that Germans didn’t want — and most of that first generation did all right. But the young people toay don’t even get the bad jobs. How are they to climb the social ladder when they can’t even grab the bottom rung?
I noticed the Letter does not have an author so I added this picture as an additional reminder of who the “administrator” might be.