Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

The Amnesty Sell Out

By Greg L | 18 May 2007 | 31st HOD District, Illegal Aliens | 19 Comments

Delegate Scott Lingamfelter weighs in on the immigration bill being considered in the United States Senate in his most recent issue of the Lingamfelter Report which is entitled “The Amnesty Sell Out”.  As usual, he’s right on target.  Here is an excerpt, which should encourage constituents in the 31st District to sign up for this newsletter on Scott’s website.  It’s one of the better ones.

I had planned to update you on my campaign and the hard work that we are doing to advance responsible and law-abiding government, lower taxes, and Reagan values in the 31st District of Virginia. But, I am so disappointed in the President and the Democrat-controlled United States Senate for brokering a sham immigration bill that I wanted to ask you to join me in letting them know you do not approve of it.

This “compromise” legislation announced yesterday by a Ted Kennedy-orchestrated group ignores the will of the vast majority of Americans and the people of my District here in Virginia.

How long can Congress and the President ignore the will of the American people? An April USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 85% of Americans feel that America has either lost ground or has made no progress in dealing with illegal immigration over the last year. This bill is not the answer.

A Los Angeles Times poll in April showed that 77% of Americans feel that businesses which knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be punished for their actions. Why isn’t Congress pursuing a measure to do just this?

Americans what their borders secure. This is what people want Congress to do. Here are just a few of the provisions of the bill, according to the Associated Press:

• The bureaucracy will have to manage a program which would allow illegals to obtain a “Z visa,” pay fees and a $5,000 fine, and then apply for permanent residency. This process may take up to 13 years.

• Heads-of-households would have to return to their home countries and then re-enter, which will likely make monitoring and tracking very difficult and elaborate.

• Illegals will be able to renew their visas twice, but must leave the U.S. for a year between each time. If they choose to remain here permanently, they would have to apply under a point system to compete for a limited number of green cards.

• According to the AP, “a new class of guest workers would be allowed in temporarily, but only after the new security measures were in place, expected to take 18 months.”

If we can’t enforce the laws we have now, what makes anyone think that we could enforce this elaborate plan? The National Review Online reports that the plan includes increased “resources at the border” and the establishment of “an employment-verification program” for security purposes. However, no one has actually seen the “security measures” the proponents of the bill say are in it.

Most folks I speak to as I go door-to-door want a bill that (1) secures the borders, (2) sends illegal aliens back to their home country, and (3) punishes people who disregard laws governing the hiring of illegal aliens.

But this bill rewards people who have come here illegally and ignores the rule of law by giving a huge amnesty to those who have broken that law. No wonder Newt Gingrich calls this bill “a sellout of every conservative principle.”

I do not support this bill I hope you will join me in opposing it.

Please contact your United States Congressman as well as both of your Senators to urge them to vote against this bad bill. Time is not on our side. The debate begins on Monday with a potential vote coming as soon as Memorial Day. Please act now!

One way you can contact your senator is with a fax.  NumbersUSA has an online fax service you can use here.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. Jonathan Mark said on 19 May 2007 at 12:55 am:
    Flag comment

    You know, Lingamfelter makes a lot of noise about immigration. So does his fellow Gill-endorser Ken Cuccinelli.

    But the fact remains. Lingamfelter went to the Faisal Gill campaign kickoff. Lingamfelter bellowed at the crowd of Faisal supporters, “what are you going to do to get this man elected?”

    Now, it so happens that Faisal Gill is a partner in the immigration law firm of Gill [, Ghafoor] and Gallinger. If Lingamfelter were so inclined he could visit http://gillgallinger.com/practice_immigration.asp .

    If Lingamfelter were so inclined he could read the following on the Gill [, Ghafoor] and Gallinger website:

    “”"We can also help you apply for Withholding of Removal (allowing you stay in
    the U.S. when otherwise eligible for deportation) and gaining protection based on the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
    Deportation/RemovalEven if you or your loved one is already in the process of being removed from the U.S., Gill & Gallinger may be able to help. We can help you qualify for protection from deportation based on Cancellation of Removal, Waiver of Deportation, Asylum, or other methods. Time is extremely important in situations dealing with possible removal, so contact the Gill & Gallinger today for a free consultation.”"”

    What that means is that Gill is offering to file asylum applications on behalf of people who do not apply for asylum when they enter the United States, as they are supposed to. Rather, these people violate our immigration laws. Then when they are caught and about to be deported Gill then offers to file asylum applications for them.

    Gill is advertising for business among these illegal aliens. He is worse than an ambulance chaser. He is a deportee chaser.

    Let me ask you a question. How opposed to illegal immigration is Lingamfelter when he wants to send a lawyer for the worst kinds of illegal immigrants to Richmond? A lawher for illegal immigrants who makes dilatory, meritless asylum applications on behalf of people who never filed for asylum when they entered the US (possibly illegally.)

    Tom Tancredo would never, not ever, endorse a deportee-chasing partner in an immigration law firm like Faisal Gill for elective office.

    Lingamfelter is like all the other pols. He is opposed to illegal immigration up until the time when his political allies make money from illegal immigration, as Faisal Gill does. Then Lingamfelter looks the other way.

    What does Lingamfelter think about his endorsee Faisal Gill advertising that he will file asylum applications for deportees?

    Then Lingamfelter looks the other way.

  2. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 19 May 2007 at 9:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Why do you turn possible post into a rant against Faisal Gill. This is both annoying and frankly disturbing. I personally think both Gill and Lucas would make excellent delegates but your spamming just about every entry on this site as a rant against Gill is very annoying. Can’t we talk about anything without making it a anti-Gill rant?

    BTW, I urge everyone to contact your Congressman and both Senators here in Virginia. If nothing else, you will get it off your chest.

  3. Stephen Martin said on 19 May 2007 at 11:53 am:
    Flag comment

    I have to say I love the spin Del. Lingamfelter puts on this whole thing, as if it were a master plot hoisted upon Republicans. Let’s keep in mind that our(Republican) President has been asking for many of the very provisions contained in this bill for years. Let’s remember that it is traditionally Republican business leaders that have been asking for temporary worker programs. Let’s remember that it’s been (traditionally) Democratic unions that have some serious issue with this newest proposal. While Lingamfelter does he best to lay this most recent attempt at “immigration reform” at the feet of Senate Dems, this truly is a bi-partisan dream/nightmare.

    While immigration is not the highest issue on my radar or one that I would turn into a single litmus test for supporting a given candidate, I believe in the rule of law. If you’re here illegally today, you should be sent home, not given a free pass even if you are a “contributing” member of the community. If you’re a business owner that knowingly hires illegal immigrant labor, you should be fined. If American business truly believes it has a shortage of workers that requires a worker visa program, how about offering livable wages first. I bet you’d be surprised at the sudden labor pool that develops domestically. We do have a need to refine and revise our current immigration laws to acknowledge that we a part of a global economy with mobile labor markets. But, that reform doesn’t have to mean a free pass for those who chose to ignore the law as it stands today. When Sara Jane Olden (nee Kathleen Soliah) was discovered living as a suburban housewife in Minnesota, the fact that she had created a new life for herself didn’t give her an excuse to escape prosecution for an earlier crime.

    Plus, 10thdistrictrepublican is right on the money in his comments to Jonathan Mark. We’ve heard the song before and it’s getting old. You’re almost as bad as “Interested Party” and his constant hijacking of threads to talk about Fotis for Sheriff (and no, IP, this is not an invitation for you to hijack this thread).

  4. Maureen Wood said on 19 May 2007 at 12:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    If this is true,

    our President has really sold-out the American people. People need to let Bush know this bill is unacceptable along with members of congress and senate. Please go to helpsavemansaas.org to find out what needs to be done and how you can help.

  5. Maureen Wood said on 19 May 2007 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Another link:

    If this bill is so good, why wouldn’t the public get to see it before the vote? Because it contains items the senate knows the American people will not tolerate. I will never understand why these politicians won’t do the will of the American people. I guess they feel they are so far above us they don’t have to.

  6. anon said on 19 May 2007 at 1:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    In addition to contacting my Senators and Representative every time a piece of illegal immigration-related legislation is proposed, this time I also decided to contact John McCain. I tried to contact him at his presidential campaign website, but there is no means on the site to send him an email. Instead, I went to his Senate webpage and sent him a quick email congratulating him on having positively lost my vote for his presidential bid.

    I always keep a completely open mind and I make notes regarding all candidates running for the Presidential nomination throughout the whole cycle. Until this point, I hadn’t completely written off anybody on either the Republican or Democratic side of the aisle as a contender (well, except Dennis Kucinich). But with this piece of crap legislation, McCain officially put the nail in his coffin as far as I am concerned. This certainly isn’t his first major screw up, but it was the final straw. And I told him so.

  7. Big Dog said on 19 May 2007 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    The early edition of Sunday’s WaPo has an article
    about the rapid rise of the ESL population in
    MCPS - (1650 in 2004, 2,260 in 2006 and “expected
    to reach 2,600 next fall” — ESL kids compose close to
    35% of the total student population). The piece
    notes we are spending below the area norm but getting
    above average results - a real tribute to first
    rate teachers and staff.

    A meeting with a high ranking PWH official last
    week — they too are maxed out with care
    and expenditures for a rapidly growing Latino
    population that isn’t able to pay their share.

    Is there money in the proposed bill to help
    communities like Manassas deal with the stress
    of rapid and massive demographic change?

    Not one damn dime.
    Something to think about.

  8. Jonathan Mark said on 19 May 2007 at 2:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Why do you turn possible post into a rant against Faisal Gill.”"”

    This is Greg L’s blog, not yours. But since you object I will refrain from posting to your blog if you ever start one. Instead I will restrict myself to Greg’s blog and my own.

    I point out that Faisal Gill is a partner in an immigration law firm and profits from illegal immigration. His firm advertises that it will file tardy and dilatory asylum requests on behalf of illegal immigrants who are about to be deported.

    Faisal IS ALL FOR KEEPING ILLEGALS HERE when he is advertising for their business. Perhaps you feel that Faisal is tricking his clients and in fact secretly wants them to be deported.

    It is your right to believe foolish things, but a reasonable person would conclude that due to the nature of Faisal’s law practice and his target audience of illegal immigrants Faisal will not oppose illegal immigration.

    This is both annoying and frankly disturbing. I personally think both Gill and Lucas would make excellent delegates but your spamming just about every entry on this site as a rant against Gill is very annoying. Can’t we talk about anything without making it a anti-Gill rant?

  9. Jonathan Mark said on 19 May 2007 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    The last paragraph in the above post was not mine. I attached it in error.

    “”"This is both annoying and frankly disturbing.”"”

    Then ask Greg L to ban me, or ask him to ask me to modify my posts, or don’t come here anymore. I wouldn’t want you to be annoyed.

    “”"your spamming”"”

    Spamming is when the intended recipient does not wish to receive the message. In this case the intended recipient is Greg L., not you. So I will do what Greg L. asks.

    “”"as a rant against Gill is very annoying.”"”

    Then get ready for an avalanche from everyone from Michelle Malkin to Frank Gaffney to the Democrats if Faisal wins in June. Since that prospect annoys you the rational choice is to nominate Julie, who would win in November, instead of Faisal who would lose.

    “”"Can’t we talk about anything without making it a anti-Gill rant?”"”

    You can talk about immigration as much as you please. Gill is A PARTNER IN AN IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM!!!!! Gill’s firm represents illegal immigrants who are attempting to delay and evade deportation.

    So, if you want illegal immigrants to delay and evade immigration then you have your candidate…Faisal Gill!

  10. Batson D. Belfrey said on 19 May 2007 at 3:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Why do you turn possible post into a rant against Faisal Gill.”

    Well, Gill is part of the problem, not the solution, and Lingamfelter is supporting Gill. Additionally, Lingamfelter is a retired Army Officer, who pledged to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Gill also took that oath as a Naval officer, yet he has repeatedly chosen to associate with those who support enemies of our nation.

    I used to be a Lingamfelter supporter, donated money to his campaigns, knocked doors for him, etc. Not this time. While I won’t campaign against him, never again will I campaign for him. It matters little, now, what his position on illegals is. He’s lost all credibility with me, and many of my friends (all former supporters).

  11. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 19 May 2007 at 10:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan after reading my previous post I believe I came off too harsh and should apologize to you. You have every right to post as any other just as long as Greg L. permits. I just got frustrated with you. It seems all you posts are the same exact stuff and you post it even if its unrelated. Greg’s posts on the Gill primary when he has new info. I always appreciate that. Its not the same stuff over and over. I do apologize and recognize your 1st amendment rights.

    As for Batson, you sound like a Lucas campaign person or inexperienced in party politics. I don’t claim to know Lingamfelter but if you have been around politics too long you know those you support do not always back and support those you personally want to support in primary situation. I never hold it against my favorite elected officials when they go against my wishes in a primary. I you pout and issue threats when you don’t get your way in a primary you get frustrated and eventually just quit.

    I always think its best to rally around the winner of a primary and not hold against those I disagree with.

  12. Fenian said on 19 May 2007 at 11:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    10thdistrictrepublican, I think the immigration issue has become so emotional that many in our party have started making it a new litmus test.

    I have never in my many years held a single issue litmus test for a candidate. With this betrayal of our federal govt. (both dems and the Pres.) the immigration issue has now become my litmus test. That is where I think ‘Batson’ is coming from.

  13. Batson D. Belfrey said on 20 May 2007 at 5:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    “As for Batson, you sound like a Lucas campaign person or inexperienced in party politics.”

    You are wrong on both accounts.

  14. anon said on 20 May 2007 at 5:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    This isn’t the first time Lingamfelter has proven to be a hypocrite.

    Now he’s got a tough stand on illegal immigration and yet he backs a candidate who makes a living off of illegal immigrants. Hypocrite.

    He signs a taxpayer’s pledge - no new taxes. And then he votes for the transportation boondoggle. Hypocrite.

  15. disgusted LEGAL citizen said on 20 May 2007 at 6:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think the last time both parties had such HIGHLY unfavorable poll ratings it was called the American Revolution….

  16. AWCheney said on 21 May 2007 at 4:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Time for a new major party, perhaps?

  17. anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 9:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Warner and Webb both voted for cloture on the amnesty bill. As I understand it, this limits discussion to 30 hours.

    When both parties act so much alike, I’m not really going to feel too bad about voting for a 3rd party and possibly ending up with a repeat of 1992 with Clinton and Perot.

  18. David Core said on 22 May 2007 at 1:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Check the Heritage Foundation testimony on May 21.

    Low-skill immigrants cost the U.S. taxpayer about $20,000 per year per immigrant household! The proportional burden is greater for states and localities.

    About 40% of those low-skilled immigrants are illegal.

    50% of illegal immigrant households are headed by adults who do NOT have a high school degree. Thus they will never generate the wages and income level to reduce their tax burden! In 1960, recent immigrants were no more likely than were non-immigrants to lack a high school degree. By contrast, in 1998, recent immigrants were almost four times more likely to lack a high school degree than were non-immigrants.

    If all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

    Conclusion: Current immigration practices, both legal and illegal, operate like a system of trans-national welfare outreach bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the U.S. This policy needs to be changed. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration.


  19. a nonny mouse said on 22 May 2007 at 3:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rest assured that the whores on Capitol Hill don’t care what it costs the taxpayer. They want to secure the Latino vote for George P. Bush in 2012.

Comments are closed.

Views: 1918