Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'I care equally about immigration and climate change'

grahamalone.JPG

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been in the news this week for threatening to vote against the climate bill he's crafted if the Democrats move on immigration reform this year. Given that Graham is the only Republican on either bill, it's a very credible threat. We spoke about both issues, and how to move forward on them, this morning. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

EK: You told Talking Points Memo that you would filibuster your own climate change bill if immigration moves this year.

LG: Yeah, I was asked a question. They said, "You would vote against your own bill?" And I said yes. I care equally about immigration and climate change. But if you stack them together this year you'll compromise climate and energy. You'll compromise my ability to get votes on climate change. When I told everyone I would do climate, in fact, I was assured we also wouldn't be doing immigration.

And on immigration, Arizona has made comprehensive reform very difficult this year. And the manner in which it's coming up, where Sen. Reid brings it up at a rally because he's down 15 points in Nevada, is bad for immigration reform. In this environment, what you'd have is bipartisan rejection of immigration. You'd get 75 or 80 votes for the McCain-Kyl [border security] amendment. Then, when you tried to put the pathway to citizenship on the table without a long process of planning and thinking and building support, you'd probably get 60 people voting against it. So you would have lost on immigration again.

EK: But doesn't Arizona add urgency to immigration reform? Isn't it clear we can't just wait for things to get worse, and doesn't that mean the Senate has to begin work on this priority?

LG: It shows two things. First, it shows the urgency of comprehensive reform, but it also shows that the country is moving away from comprehensive and towards border security. If you polled Americans and asked whether we should do comprehensive reform or focus on the border first, you'd probably get 75 percent for focus on the border. What's happened from 2007 to now has made comprehensive reform harder, not easier. In 2007, we had an illegal immigration problem. We didn't have a raging war in Mexico problem. You got the rancher killed, which put everyone on steroids. Then you got this law in Arizona, which is not the right answer but is understandable from people who feel like they're under siege.

So you start with where most of us are at. You say, let's do border security this year. The problem is the Hispanic community sees this as a slight. And I'm sympathetic to that thinking. Border security has been used in the past as an excuse for not doing comprehensive immigration reform. My advice is that securing the border now gives a guy like me who wants to get to comprehensive reform the credibility to get there. But if you bring up immigration in this climate, you'll divide the country further. You'll get a huge vote for border security and interior enforcement, but when it comes to pathway to citizenship, you'll break down big-time. That's where the politics get hard, when you realize we've got 12 million people who can't just be deported and we need to give them a reasonable way to stay here.

EK: But as you say, a lot of work needs to be done before a bill. Presumably there's some process you could support that may not mean a bill moves before the election, but sets the stage to handle the problem after the election.

LG: Me and Jeb Bush and people like that make a commitment to work on this issue [after our interview, Graham clarified that he would like to see, and serve on, a bipartisan commission that would report back with a comprehensive immigration reform proposal after the election]. I'll continue to work with Chuck Schumer. We put out an op-ed together on this. People say to me, “That's a contradiction.” No! I did it to show I haven't abandoned the issue. I'm playing pretty delicate politics here. I'm trying to let the business community and the Hispanic community know that I'm in. I ain't going away. But while we're trying to do this very hard thing that's energy and climate, I can't go down that road. I can't be pressured down that road. If you go, I can't go with you. Some supporters of immigration reform think I've abandoned them. But they're not listening. This is just too far for me and for the issue this year.


EK: But in a future year?

LG: Yes. That's why I wrote the op-ed. That's why I told Napolitano we could do it before 2012.

EK: So what allows climate to move forward now? What do you need to hear from Reid?

LG: Here's the problem with climate. Do you have any chance of bringing it up and getting 60 votes in this environment? There's a controversial provision in the transportation section. We have done as good a job as we can to get oil and gas companies to pay for their pollution. Some of that cost will be passed onto consumers. But it's not a gas tax. I need Harry Reid to say I agree with you. I support that. I won't introduce a bill and have the majority leader, who I have less than a strong bond with, say, "I can't support that gas tax." There was also a Fox News article where the White House said they couldn't support Graham's gas-tax gambit. I will not let this get blamed on me. It would be the worst thing in the world to take the one Republican working with you and make him own the one thing you don't like.

EK: So what you need isn't just an assurance on immigration. It's an assurance that if you're going to do the dangerous things on climate reform, you won't be hung out to dry on it.

LG: Right. Ask yourself: Why did they leak the story to Fox News? That told me they weren't committed to this issue. Why let a story start on a venue that would hurt your partner the most?

EK: Have you asked the White House?

LG: Yeah. They say, "Oh, we didn't do it." And it's true: Rahm and David didn't. But somebody involved in energy and climate there did. They've always worried about being in a bad spot on this. So someone pretty clever said, "Okay, we're going to get on the record against this."

EK: Do these assurances go in the other direction, though? You want to make sure the Democrats don't leave you hanging on this. But they're worried that this bill comes out, and you're with them, but 40 other Republicans are hammering them for supporting what they'll call a gas tax, cap-and-tax.

LG: This is exactly what they're going to say. I have never suggested they won't. And they'll say it about me, too. So we have to hold hands so I can make a credible argument, alongside business, saying it's not a gas tax. But you can't make this into my idea alone. It wasn't my idea.

EK: Do you think there's a chance for climate to move forward this year?

LG: Yeah.

EK: And for more Republican support on it?

LG: Maybe if business gets involved. It's all about business. I can say I changed the face of the debate. This is no longer about economy-wide cap-and-trade. The business community is on-board with this proposal and they were against Waxman-Markey. I'll sit down with my colleagues: If you believe we need more domestic energy supply, we've got offshore drilling. We preempt the EPA from regulating carbon. That's a big get for business. About 80 percent or 90 percent of our caucus believes nuclear power is the way to go. We triple the current program of loan guarantees, do regulatory reform to make building plants easier. T. Boone Pickens's plan is in here.

And what do we give the other side? A cap on emissions from utilities. It takes four years to come into play so they have time. On the transportation side, we take them out of cap-and-trade but they pay a fee, it's their idea this fee, and the money helps you solve the overall problem. It goes into the transportation trust fund, or goes back to the consumer, or to business people, because that's where all the money goes. The money will be passed on just like the cost of cleaning up an oil slick is passed on. It could be up to 15 cents a gallon, but not for many years. I really believe in this product. I think it's a damn good solution.

Photo credit: By Harry Hamburg/Associated Press

By Ezra Klein  |  April 29, 2010; 12:30 PM ET
Categories:  Interviews  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tom Toles is worth a thousand words
Next: The Senate Democrats' immigration proposal

Comments

Shorter version:

"I've weakened the environmental regulations as much as I can but I still can't promise to deliver any Republican votes."

So, why shouldn't Democrats work on the much more politically advantageous immigration reform?

Posted by: PorkBelly | April 29, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I just don't get how Immigration Reform doesn't have to start in the House.

To get funding to provide for health care subsidies in the exchanges and Medicaid growth for Obamacare to be expanded to this population, there would need to be additional revenue. I think Ezra would agree that you can't cut your way to $400B over 10 years.

Revenue bills have to start in the House as demanded by the Constitution.

I don't get how Pelosi and the House must not be the lead on immigration reform.

Things may have been different pre-Obamacare, but now an immigration reform bill that includes legalization must start in the US House of Representatives.

Posted by: lancediverson | April 29, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

It's important to remember that fossil fuels have a lot of problems apart from their contribution to global warming, as we've been reminded this week. Oil can spill an devastate ecosystems. In addition to the human and environmental costs of both tunneling and strip mining, Coal is the main cause of mercury contamination in fish and wildlife, as well as the main cause of acid rain. Carbon Dioxide, in addition to warming the climate, also causes the oceans to become more acidic, disrupting more ecosystems and potentially harming the phytoplankton that make most of the oxygen we breathe. Even if you took global warming out of the equation, there are significant costs to fossil fuels that we are not paying. It is time to raise the price of fossil fuels, one way or another, and weaseling out of it by claiming that the utilities and oil companies will absorb the costs without passing it onto consumers makes no sense. The whole point is to reduce consumption, which will only happen when prices go up and people use less.

Posted by: jacobh | April 29, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

lancediverson, the Senate gets around that rule all the time. They got around it for TARP. What they do is, take a revenue bill that the House has passed (in TARP's case it was about mental health parity) and attach the new bill to it.

Posted by: Chris_O | April 29, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm also really not sure that that analysis of lancediverson's is correct, but even if it was, it's largely irrelevant.

Posted by: Chris_O | April 29, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I love me some Lindsey Graham. Thank goodness the Senate still has legislators.

Posted by: jmorton2 | April 29, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Count me as less than convinced that either immigration or energy stand a chance of passing this year. Both are polarizing issues and this is an election year.

Both issues, however, make for great political footballs. Both issues will help both parties rile up their base.

That said, I get the feeling that LG realizes that immigration, in the long term, will kill the GOP. In the short term the GOP base is already super fired-up about the upcoming election, they don't need more motivation.

I'm also highly sceptical that Sen. Graham can provide ANY Republican votes for either bill EVER. If that is the case then Sen. Reid might well be better off politically to go ahead with both votes this year while the Dem majority is still relatively large.

Posted by: nisleib | April 29, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Impressive, Sen. Graham. Keep up the good work, and thanks for trying to do the right thing.

Posted by: KevHall | April 29, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I appreciate this sort of guided-platform interview: while neither deeply probing nor confrontational, this interview, like similar early-process interviews of Corker, Warner, and Ryan, offers some insight into the thinking processes not readily apparent in the partisan rhetoric which follows.

Realistically, if amnesty for criminal aliens is attempted before the election, it is doomed to fail. First, members of both parties have argued (and based financial estimates upon) the fact that a few million criminal aliens would not receive benefits under the PPACA: allowing criminal aliens such benefits so soon after enactment and prior to an election is political suicide for any incumbent. Second, if a boat is taking on water, it's wise to find a way to plug the leak before repainting its deck; likewise, if the holes allowing the tide of criminal entrants can't be plugged, it's unwise to consider an amnesty path for the criminal aliens already present.

I am amazed at people who place valuable locks on the doors to their homes yet fail to see the need for locks on the doors to the nation: lack of concern for trespassing on the commonwealth of the nation -- its land and benefits -- is now as common among some segments of the population as is lack of concern regarding trespassing on individual liberties and intellectual property rights.

An attempt to force hard-working, law-abiding citizens to give up more so that non-working, non-law-abiding non-citizens can thrive ain't gonna sell very well.

Posted by: rmgregory | April 29, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The Arizona Immigration law is one of the finest pieces of legislation.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | April 29, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Jeb Bush!!!

Who the hell, why, what!, Jeb Bush isn't a politician right now, but it's my guess his Daddy, George H.W. Bush wants to get back into the White House AGAIN!

There ought to be a law against somebody trying to stay in the White House indefinitely by running all his kids through there, and you already know they're going to cheat.

With all the money the Bush Family stole from the U.S. Treasury, they have enough money to buy enough ballots to replace the real ones.

No more freaking Bushes!!!

I like Lindsey Graham, but if he says "Jeb Bush" one more time he's going right to the top of my s.h.i.t. list.

Puke!

Posted by: lindalovejones | April 29, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't you ask Lindsey why 60 votes is needed to do anything in this congress when the dems didn't make that happen when the repubs were in control? What happened to the up or down mantra that republicans chanted for 6 years?

Posted by: srw3 | April 29, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

This reminds me of the song. "What a man, what a man, what a might good (strike good) vindictive man."

Posted by: rlj1 | April 29, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Oops - mighty not might.

Posted by: rlj1 | April 29, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The cry baby Graham is playing politics. Remember that he said that the Health Care Bill would kill immigration reform, but Graham was never into doing immigration in 2010. In fact, he even said the other day that he had been promised that immigration reform would not come up in 2010. Graham is very deceptive and cannot be trusted. The Republicans are scared to death of having to show their true colors on immigration reform before the elections.
Ditch Graham!

Posted by: mehuwss | April 29, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The cry baby Graham is playing politics. Remember that he said that the Health Care Bill would kill immigration reform, but Graham was never into doing immigration in 2010. In fact, he even said the other day that he had been promised that immigration reform would not come up in 2010. Graham is very deceptive and cannot be trusted. The Republicans are scared to death of having to show their true colors on immigration reform before the elections.
Ditch Graham!

Posted by: mehuwss | April 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"The whole point is to reduce consumption, which will only happen when prices go up and people use less."

What happens when prices in the US are manipulated and everyone uses less and creates less? What happens when the rest of the world (China, India, et al) decide to do nothing so the net effect worldwide is 0 and they are growing into superpowers that rival the US? So, in 100 years America is as eco-friendly as France and just as safe with similar economic figures.

Posted by: Holla26 | April 29, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

There is Conscience in one corner.

And Party in the other.

Should we have a bout or declae the winner without the bout?

Posted by: kishorgala | April 29, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Is Lindsay Graham the same High Horser from the Bill Clinton Cigar and Monica Lewinsky Stained Blue Dress TV Show?

Posted by: kishorgala | April 29, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'I care equally about immigration and climate change'
========================================
He said "equally." Not "highly."

Is he a lawyer?

Posted by: kishorgala | April 29, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

So okay, I was with Graham up until I read what he succinctly said was in this bill. It's crap. Why is it that somehow this is "change"? This is the same crap Bush was doing the whole time. I don't even want to hear about cap-and-trade. Just CAP, NO TRADE. Make these people clean up their acts. Don't just make it more expensive - make it cleaner. And regulatory reform to make it EASIER to build nuclear plants? That sounds like DE-regulation, to me, on something that definitely doesn't need de-regulation. While I agree that immigration would wind up not being comprehensive for him, I say screw him. You're playing politics, and admitting to doing so, with stuff that affects our everyday lives. This isn't a game. We need lazy Congressmen to get AS MUCH DONE AS POSSIBLE, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Who gives a damn if it's not politically convenient for you? Republicans are sinking their own boat, as it is by jumping on the Tea Party wagon. We shouldn't have to wait even more for this stuff. You had plenty of time under Bush, and you did nothing, even as you polarized the country. Both these reforms need to be made - and hopefully, energy and climate change is actually dealt with and not just BSed like what I've read to date.

Posted by: fbutler1 | April 29, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

On health care, Obama said: "If not now, when? If not us, who?

Obama should explain his feasibility analysis of immigration reform under different outcomes of the 2010 elections. Question: If the Dems lose five Senate seats to hardline, enforcement only Republicans, how will that improve the prospects for immigration reform in the next Congress?

Posted by: mehuwss | April 29, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, Senator, you and the liberal MSM and the Ivory Tower leftist socialist pacifist Dems in the NE , DC and other liberal enclaves, are so out of touch with real folks that no one cares out here whether you want immigration reform ala Obama or the real race hustlers like Sharpton and the rest of the DNC. It is time you paid attention to AZ, the rest of the SW where American citizens are being killed and hurt by drug-guns-illegal-coyotes and Mexican cartels. And as to energy: use our own domestic energy resources and come up with a bill demanding that and forget Cap and Trade, and believe it or not people will finally respect your always going across the aisle to deal with the racist and class warfare Dems! But, only if you finally act like a common sense CenterRight Pub not a wussy liberal!

Posted by: phillyfanatic | April 29, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if this was a good interview for Graham. He comes off as a highly calculating political player. On the other hand I never heard a more honest or insightful interview on how these negotiations work. I can believe this is what all of Washington D.C. politics look like when the cameras get turned off.

Posted by: bidalah | April 29, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

That was an extremely informative interview, I really had no idea that the oil fee was playing so big into the politics between Reid and Graham. This is really mirroring the prisoner's dilemma, neither side has much incentive to cooperate with the other for fear of being "outed". In other words, no one wants to get completely behind the legislation because they can't know that the other side will abandon them. It's a crisis in trust.

What's also interesting is that it seems like immigration isn't even playing as much of a role as we've been led to believe.

Posted by: JHawk2 | April 29, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I respect that Graham seems to have thoughts and ideas outside of what he hears from the party leadership, but he still can't, or hasn't, assembled 5-10 Republicans and said, "If you put this climate bill in its current form on the floor, we'll guarantee all of our votes."

If he did that, I'd be emailing Harry Reid and other Dems, arguing that the climate bill should be taken before immigration.

Until the bill has that kind of committment, I'd go with the better political issue for the Dems (immigration).

Posted by: MosBen | April 29, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris O,

I appreciate the information on the revenue bill origination issue. You are probably correct.

However, to this poing: "I'm also really not sure that that analysis of lancediverson's is correct, but even if it was, it's largely irrelevant."

How would the Congress fund the subsidies and Medicaid expansion to a new population not counted in the health care entitlement just created for all legal residents of the United States?

Posted by: lancediverson | April 29, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

EK: But doesn't Arizona add urgency to immigration reform? Isn't it clear we can't just wait for things to get worse, and doesn't that mean the Senate has to begin work on this priority?
------------
You're asking the wrong question of the wrong person. We HAD amnesty, i.e. "immigration reform" in 1986 and the failure to enforce the law along with the amnesty led to our current debacle. Congress can pass all the bills it wants, but if no one enforces the law, it's toothless. What we have today is the failure of 24 years of no enforcement, not the failure to pass amnesty. Now, the question to ask of President Obama is why he and his party are NOT zealously enforcing the laws of this country as they are supposed to do?

Posted by: Ali4 | April 29, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

EK: But doesn't Arizona add urgency to immigration reform? Isn't it clear we can't just wait for things to get worse, and doesn't that mean the Senate has to begin work on this priority?
------------
You're asking the wrong question of the wrong person. We HAD amnesty, i.e. "immigration reform" in 1986 and the failure to enforce the law along with the amnesty led to our current debacle. Congress can pass all the bills it wants, but if no one enforces the law, it's toothless. What we have today is the failure of 24 years of no enforcement, not the failure to pass amnesty. Now, the question to ask of President Obama is why he and his party are NOT zealously enforcing the laws of this country as they are supposed to do?

Posted by: Ali4 | April 29, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The whole point is to reduce consumption, which will only happen when prices go up and people use less."
---------
I wonder if the Senator gets the connection between reducing consumption and ridding ourselves of illegal aliens? After all, legal and illegal immigrants alike adopt "American" consumption habits and add greatly to our carbon footprint. And illegal aliens aren't even supposed to be here.

Posted by: Ali4 | April 29, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

So, why shouldn't Democrats work on the much more politically advantageous immigration reform?
--
What good would it do to have a "climate control bill" if you are going to invite 50 million "new Americans" into the country via "immigration reform" aka amnesty?

Whatever "emissions" the "climate control bill" will cut will quickly be erased by the addition of so many new drivers and consumers.

"Climate control" and "immigration amnesty" are diametrically opposed concepts. Just so you know.

Posted by: MaryJessel | April 29, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sirs,
Remember when the far right claimed that Janet Reno was a Nazi because she upheld our federal immigration laws in the Elian Gonzales case?
Remember when they said that global warming was only a joke.
They care equally about both. Zero.
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | April 29, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It appears that Lindsey Graham is trying to mitigate the damage created by the Democrats by agreeing to a cap and tax bill, but saying no to creating a bunch of undocumented democratic voters, aka immigration reform. In any event, it would be wize to stall immigration reform until the end of the year, after the elections. Hopefully, more conservatives will be on board, and this insanity known as the Obamanation will stop growing.

Posted by: rknapp0205 | April 29, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Notice .... News Flash !!!!!!!
Republican Party's new secret plan accidently uncovered after meeting of Republican leaders.
Secret plans are being set up to disrupt the immigration laws at different State levels. After a year and a half of blocking any and all solutions, Jeb Bush will announce his 2012 Presidential run with Marko Rubio as his running mate. The Republican Party will fall all over this announcement and sell it to the Latino citizens and the Nation as a soultion to all their problems. Thia action is being started in Utah, Arizona, Texas and other southern sates that have a majority in the state legislature.
US citizens beware of the Bush Empire Plot !!!!!!!!

Posted by: lunetrick | April 29, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me Sen Graham is postitioning himself as the only Republican who might know how to say "yes", so he can secure a lot of power. I don't know if this qualifies him as a legislator. Further actions will give us a clue.

Posted by: dave131 | April 29, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"If he did that, I'd be emailing Harry Reid and other Dems, arguing that the climate bill should be taken before immigration."

MosBen,

Reid said yesterday that climate will go first. All this stuff about the sequence is a completely moot point. It was up in the air last week, but Reid has decided to stay with the original plan of climate first, immigration second.

EPA is studying the climate bill right now, they are supposed to be done within 30 days, and then the roll-out of the bill will happen, whether or not Graham is in a good mood that week. The Democrats want his co-sponsorship to lend a bipartisan flavor to the festivities, but Kerry will be putting the bill on the floor either way.

Posted by: Patrick_M | April 29, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Why does Senator Graham seek to regulate CO2 again when the allegedly "settled" science on global warming is falling apart?

There must be something more than concern about warming to motivate him to meddle in energy markets.

These are big, complex markets. And he's no commissar.

Posted by: fkeady | April 29, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The assumption of illegal immigrants is that at the end of the day they will be allowed to stay. The only way to end this assumption is to prove to them and everyone in this country that is possible to deport every illegal immigrant resident in this country. It could be done and it could be done on a cost effective manner. No one wants to acknowledge this reality.

Posted by: jeffreed | April 29, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The federal government's faccid posture on securing our border and halting the invasion fails to inspire.

Before any talking-head congressman starts flapping his or her lips, our nation demands a demonstration of good faith -- we have been lied to many times before.

Secure our southern border. Stop the flow of illegals, drugos, and weapons. Show that the USG is for once, serious about national security.

THEN we can talk about another amnesty.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | April 29, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

To me, immigration seems somewhat like the war in Afghanistan in that there is no simple answer. What legal provisions could change the reality that the border is porous and there are millions of illegal aliens here already? Realistically, all you could do is give the illegal immigrants a path to legal immigration and try to tighten the border, neither of which would work very well.

The Russians built a wall AND shot and killed anyone foolish enough to attempt to cross it, and still people got from East Germany to West Germany.

Climate change has a similar problem. There are so many skeptics that the politicians don’t have the political courage to come out in full support of any meaningful legislation.

One answer to all these problems can be found in a quote from Plutarch:

“It is part of a good man to do great and noble deeds, though he risk everything.”

This is something that our politicians should remember…

Posted by: biggerjake | April 30, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

WHY DO WE NEED IMMIGRATION REFORM - FOR THE MEXICANS?

OTHER IMMIGRANTS ARE ALREADY USING THE "SYSTEM" IN PLACE... IT WORKS...

WHY ARE MEXICANS GETTING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT...

NOT A WAR... REALLY... THERE ARE "DIFFERENT" KINDS OF "WARS"

MANY OF THE ILLEGAL MEXICANS, ARE STILL PISSED OFF THAT WE WON THE WAR... ANOTHER NORTH/SOUTH SCENARIO...

IF THEY WANTED TO BECOME CITIZENS THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IT THE RIGHT WAY...NOT ILLEGALLY...

DO WE GET A PASS FROM RAPE, MURDER, DEALING DRUGS AS AMERICANS, BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL & WE "WANT" TO DO IT... NO WE DO NOT, WE ARE EQUALLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE

WE PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN ALREADY...

THE TIRED OLD EXAMPLE IS STILL TRUE

IF WE WENT TO MEXICO & HAD A SLEW OF CHILDREN WOULD THEY GET FREE MEDICAL WELFARE EDUCATION FOOD STAMPS (SCREW THE POLITICALLY CORRECT NAMES) IT IS ONLY POLITICAL FOR THE POLITICIAN NOT THOSE THAT WORK SO HARD SO ILLEGALS CAN GET OUR TAX MONEY...

SO THEY ARE LATINOS SO- I WOULD CARE IF THEY WERE PURPLE PEOPLE EATERS... THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY... CRIMINAL ACT... THEY KNOW IT IS ILLEGAL... IT DOESN'T TAKE A TRANSLATOR TO FIGURE THAT OUT~

MOST ARE CRIMINALS, LAZY, SELFISH... OTHERWISE THEY COULD HAVE DONE IMMIGRATION THE CORRECT WAY...

LET'S NOT FORGET THE COST OF HAVING EACH CHILD BEFORE THEY START RECEIVING FOOT STAMPS...

THERE WAS A HOSPITAL IN FLORIDA THAT SPOKE TO THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS...HOW MUCH THEY ARE PAYING FOR DIALYSIS FOR AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, HOW MUCH IT COST TO SAVE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT THAT THEY SENT BACK TO HOME COUNTRY AT THEIR EXPENSE & ARE BEING SUED BY THE FAMILY IN THE STATES... ILLEGAL FAMILY MEMBERS, FEDERAL AUTHORITIES WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT...

MEXICAN GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CARE BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING THEIR CRIMINAL... THE TUNNELS WEREN'T DUG IN THE SOUTHWEST TO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES THEY WERE DUG TO ILLEGALLY BRING DRUGS & PEOPLE INTO THE UNITED STATES... PEOPLE OF LOW MORAL CHARACTER...

Posted by: NATURLUS | April 30, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

I have just one thing to say to the consumate politician, Mr. Lindsey Graham .
Pack your bags and clear your desk. You are part of the problem with our country, not the solution. The Dems have proven themselves to be self-serving elites who refuse to listento their constituants,forcing a healthcare bill down our throats that we did/do not want, and you are the one, single Republican who has aligned himself with them. How intelligent is that?

The majority of American citizens DO NOT WANT cap & tax (play with words if you want, it's a tax, intended to FORCE us to give up fossil fuels that we have in abundance, among other things) and we DO NOT WANT comprehensive immigration reform that includes amnesty!!

Global warming is unproven, and even IF it were true, it is not manmade, however you are treating it as fact. The fact that you favor amnesty reveals your ignorance regarding the impact this will have, not only politically, but on all of America. Think of it this way. If you've ever had to stand in line for a long period of time, waiting to see a show, or in a busy restaurant, or to see a pro-game, and a bunch of impertinent jerks cut in the line ahead of you and in doing so, prevented you from getting in, even though you held a ticket, how did you like it? This is what illegal immigrants have done. They have cheated and taken jobs, aid, education opportunities and funds away from citizens to whom it should have gone. They have made it more difficult for those who have waited their turn to enter the country legally and become citizens. But honesty, fairness and the law doesn't seem to matter to you. You want to reward them for their rude, disrespectful behavior!

You sir, are a disgrace to the office you hold and we the people, have had enough of you self-serving, professional politicians who think you are untouchable in your ivory towers.

November 2010 cannot come soon enough! I, for one, am willing to pay money to see you and your progressive buddies tossed out of your ivory towers!!!

Posted by: chavag | May 1, 2010 5:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company