Interview with Congressman Jack Kingston

[MARIO]

An Exclusive Mini-Interview With Congressman Jack Kingston On Illegal Immigration

By John Hawkins


John Hawkins: Do you think the House approach to illegal immigration is better or is the Senate's comprehensive approach better? I think that some conservatives are worried that if we don't do the House approach, which is security, interior and border, first, we'll get the amnesty but we won't get the security.

Jack Kingston: ...(We've) already passed the House bill and I support it, but...what I don't want to do is let the Senate off the hook by saying, "We can only do this partial loaf." I would like them to...pass the House bill, but I also think we gotta charge back down the court and get on the scoreboard again.

You saw yesterday that they're really not serious yet, when they passed a bill making English the official language and then passed another bill saying, "We didn't mean it."

John Hawkins: Related to that, do you think illegal aliens should (get credit) for money they paid into Social Security while they were illegal...?

Jack Kingston: If you're illegal, you shouldn't be here and you shouldn't be entitled to benefits for being here....The more attractive you make it for people to be here, the more they're going to come. So, you don't want to pay benefits. If they pay into Social Security and they don't get any out of it because they're illegal, I'd say that's good money for the system...You know, they're here illegally and I just don't think that people who are here illegally should have the same rights and privileges as people who waited in line to become a citizen.

John Hawkins: Let me ask you another question. This is something that has come up recently. If our laws remain unchanged, we would be on pace to add about 19 million legal immigrants to this country in the next 20 years. Over at the Heritage Foundation, they're estimating that the Senate bill as written would up that number to 66 million. Senator Jeff Sessions' staff told me yesterday that their numbers put it at about 73-93 million over the next 20 years. While we have almost universal agreement that legal immigration is good for America, do you think upping the number of legal immigrants that much is a good idea or do you think it would be better to stay at the level we're currently at?

Jack Kingston: ...I think holding down the number is more appropriate at this time because of the large influx of illegals we're having to deal with and offset.

John Hawkins: Do you think the bill that's in the Senate, right now, as is, is good for America?

Jack Kingston: The legislation that seems to be most identified (with what the Senate is doing) -- that does allow amnesty -- and I would say that is not a good approach.

...You haven't asked me about it, but we need to end birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is ridiculous. Right now, if you're flying over America in an airplane, regardless of the origin of the plane, the destination, or the flag, you become an American citizen. I'm a co-sponsor of Nathan Deal's Bill that ends birthright citizenship.

John Hawkins: Let me ask you one more question. You may not be able to answer, but give it your best shot. What do you think is going to happen if and when we get a bad Senate bill through and it goes into committee with the House Bill?

Jack Kingston: The House will kill it.

John Hawkins: You think so? You don't think the House would let something that conservatives would be really upset with get through?

Jack Kingston: I don't think so. I think there is a lot of division in the House, but I think we would kill it. ...We don't want perfection to be the enemy of progress here because we didn't get into this situation overnight and we won't get out of it overnight....

John Hawkins: So you don't think amnesty will get through?

Jack Kingston: No, and I can tell you that there are about 180 House members (who've) drawn a pretty strong line in the sand on that.

[dustdevil28]

John Hawkins: Related to that, do you think illegal aliens should (get credit) for money they paid into Social Security while they were illegal...?

Jack Kingston: If you're illegal, you shouldn't be here and you shouldn't be entitled to benefits for being here....The more attractive you make it for people to be here, the more they're going to come. So, you don't want to pay benefits. If they pay into Social Security and they don't get any out of it because they're illegal, I'd say that's good money for the system...You know, they're here illegally and I just don't think that people who are here illegally should have the same rights and privileges as people who waited in line to become a citizen

Is this really a valid arguement? I've heard this before, but I find it hard to believe that a great many of illigals would take the time to pay their money into social security.

Kingston is absolutly right on this one. You don't get rid of illigal immigrants by continuing to make it more appealing for them to come here.

John Hawkins: So you don't think amnesty will get through?

Jack Kingston: No, and I can tell you that there are about 180 House members (who've) drawn a pretty strong line in the sand on that

That's great and all, but what we need is a govt that starts representing the will of the people like there damn well supposed to.

[LorSpi]

If they have a number, it has been stolen from someone - or is being used with the permission of the holder who is thereby complicit in breaking US law.

Social security numbers are issued to folks who have status. Not illegals. If someone has a legit ss# but has lost status, he would still be able to collect benefits if he worked his 40 quarters. Lots of non US citizens collecting ss checks in their home countries. You don't have to be a resident or citizen to collect benefits.

[bounce]

This is news to me.

You saw yesterday that they're really not serious yet, when they passed a bill making English the official language and then passed another bill saying, "We didn't mean it."

What was in the second Bill?

[bounce]

To think that our future rests in the hands of these friggin' ding-bats doing the right thing.

Thank God that at least they seem to be leaning in the right direction!

[LorSpi]

bounce said:

This is news to me.

You saw yesterday that they're really not serious yet, when they passed a bill making English the official language and then passed another bill saying, "We didn't mean it."

What was in the second Bill?

English is the "common language".

It is not clear, though, that the measure will be included in any final bill after negotiations with the House. Shortly after the Inhofe amendment was approved, the Senate also approved a weaker, less-binding alternative declaring English the "common and unifying" language of the nation, on a 58-to-39 vote. The question of which version survives would be decided in negotiations with the House.

The second amendment was proposed by Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, one of several Democrats who said the Inhofe measure was needlessly divisive and would reduce multilingual government programs.

"We are taking a step backward from the progress America has made," Mr. Salazar said.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said the Inhofe amendment was racist.

"Everybody who speaks with an accent knows that they need to learn English just as fast as they can," he said.

Under the Inhofe proposal, the federal government is directed to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America." It does not go as far as proposals to designate English the nation's official language, which would require all government publications and business to be in English.

Instead, it says government services and publications now offered in other languages would be unaffected. But the proposal declares that no one has "a right, entitlement or claim to have the government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English."

Critics said they fear the directive could lead government agencies to scale back their bilingual efforts, cause discrimination against people who do not speak English, disrupt emergency operations in communities with populations of immigrants and have other unintended consequences.

Mr. Inhofe, who is proficient in Spanish from his days as a pilot in Mexico, said critics were exaggerating the potential effects of his plan. His plan would also stiffen the language rules for immigrants seeking to qualify for citizenship under the new legislation, requiring them to demonstrate English proficiency and understanding of American history and government rather than simply to enroll in a language class.

www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19immig.html?ex=1148270400&en=ad9219e1b262564e&ei=5087%0A You need to be registered to access this NYT site fyi.

[bounce]

Under the Inhofe proposal, the federal government is directed to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America." It does not go as far as proposals to designate English the nation's official language, which would require all government publications and business to be in English.

Good grief!

Look, I have to ask a question here...

Did the Moonbats at THC invent some kind of technology and, suddenly, while we were all sleeping one night invade the bodies of our Senators???

The freakin' Senate has gone MOONBAT! (as has the President)

It's like we're REALLY living through the Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something!