Girard at Large Morning Show Host Rich Girard isn’t the only voice in the wilderness opposing Senator Kelly Ayotte’s position on the Gang of 8’s “comprehensive immigration reform” proposal in the United States Senate.Girard has vocally opposed her position since she shocked the political world by announcing she would support the bi-partisan bill.  Here’s a link to a Girard at Large site search that will get you up to speed on what he’s had to say.

In short, Girard has argued that this law is a clear violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

  • All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

C’mon folks, you don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to understand they can’t exempt any citizen from any social welfare benefits, as they’re promising to do in this legislation, because they are naturalized citizens.  All it will take is one trip to court and all their promises to keep the newly naturalized illegal immigrants off the dole will be wiped out.

Girard has argued that all the Washingtonians say their bi-partisan bill accomplishes is already available under the current law by the assignment of Permanent Resident Alien status.   The details are in the audio archives.

The Democrats won’t go for it, though, because PRA’s can’t vote.  They’re permanent guests, not citizens and for this to benefit the Democrats, the illegals have to be able to vote.  Girard doesn’t favor PRA status, but it would be better for America than citizen status would.  Want proof?  The current bill is fundamentally the same as the amnesty bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986; a bill he would later say was one of his biggest mistakes.  The difference?  This time, the Washington politicians “mean it.”

Yeah right.  Proof of that foolishness is exposed in a brilliant blog post published at RedHampshire.com.  The author literally dissects a recent Op Ed penned by Senator Ayotte ‘”splainin'” why she supports “comprehensive immigration reform.”   Truthfully, it’s a brilliant dissection I wish I could take credit for.

Please add your voice to this discussion, be ye for or against the proposition.  This is an important debate and the post we’ve linked to here is an awesome addition to the dialogue.  Share your thoughts, share this post, and let’s have an honest, issue centered discussion. We’ll take the slings of arrows from party hacks on both sides as long as you’re engaged in the debate.