Is Kyl's Refugees Amendment Inspired by an Internet Rumor?
Republicans have won votes on a dozen of their amendments thanks to their successful filibuster of the $410 billion 2009 spending bill last week -- and one-quarter of that dozen were introduced by Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ), the second-ranked GOPer in the upper chamber.
Interestingly enough, all three of Kyl's amendments deal with U.S. policy towards Palestine at a time when signs are pointing to a possible unity government by Fatah and Hamas. The most eyebrow-raising of the three, however, is a bid to prevent any government money from being used to resettle Palestinian refugees from Gaza to America.
As the Mondoweiss blog explains, an Internet rumor making the rounds on the right has accused President Obama of signing an order to resettle hundreds of thousands of Hamas sympathizers in the U.S. ... without a grain of truth to it.
And even Kyl himself seems to acknowledge that his amendment is based on speculation, saying on the Senate floor last week that:
There has been a suggestion that perhaps [refugee resettlement of Palestinians] might be permitted, and we simply want to make it clear that will not be permitted with any funds in this bill.
Duly noted. Though one hopes that "suggestions" won't become the standard for future policymaking efforts.
The second of Kyl's three amendments is arguably redundant: it would prevent any of the $900 million that Secretary of State Clinton has pledged for Gaza reconstruction from going to entities controlled by Hamas ... a rule that Clinton has already set.
Kyl's third amendment would require the State Department to report on whether American aid to Egypt could be used to improve the counter-smuggling effort along the Egypt-Gaza border.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Just playing to his base. These amendments will get zero play anywhere, but the same lunatic fringe passing around these rumors will surely know all about Kyl's valiant stand.
March 9, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The second of Kyl's three amendments is arguably redundant: it would prevent any of the $900 million that Secretary of State Clinton has pledged for Gaza reconstruction from going to entities controlled by Hamas ... a rule that Clinton has already set."
Though the sentiment
may be redundant, when the Executive branch says it, it's policy, when the Legislative says it, it's the law.
March 9, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, just like that contra law passed by congress in the 80's. It's a law, but, but the republicans broke it anyway.
Nah, the amendment is a joke ordered by lush and to throw bombs. Typical bs.
March 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you been? You've been gone so long I thought maybe you'd "gone Galt".
March 9, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha...no...I haven't seen many hills worth charging up lately. Just keeping my hatchet scoured and powder dry.
March 9, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I first thought of a gun joke, then a coke joke. (not quite sure if it's good or bad that I thought of guns before drugs!)
But I'll focus on a hatchet one: Why are you keeping your hatchet scoured? Wouldn't Brillo-ing a hatchet cause it to rust? Just saying....
March 9, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Kyl should a put in one of them amendments in to keep the terrorists from having tea parties in the White House like McCain/Palin said Obama used to do in Chicago...?
March 9, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also makes it a tad bit harder to get money over there. Saying no money goes to Hamas is one thing. Having a law set causing you actually to have to research people and connections is another. Considering that Hamas practically owns Gaza, this may force some West Bank (Fatah) organizations to do reconstruction in Gaza. This makes it a bit more interesting--especially since Fayyad's stepping down....
March 9, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee...who'd have thought that a party that called for a spending freeze in the middle of a horrendous recession would be trying to pass legislation based on a tenuous grasp of the facts?
March 9, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess lush told him to do it and he is just following orders from headquarters.
March 9, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is the problem with the right-wing echo chamber and why we must diligently push back against misinformation.
It is almost certain that Kyl's DC staffers listen to AM radio 24x7, read WorldNetDaily and Drudge/Malkin all day long and feed that into Kyl's empty head.
That is how we end up with Congressman calling bills "porkulus" and amendments for phony issues.
March 9, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a nice American Jew who has no truck with Hezzbullah or Hamas, but who has many Palestinian friends, I say resettle all the Palestinians who want to come here over here. Sure check them before you allow them in, but most will pass easily. And they are good hard workers who want the benefits of our country (once we get rid of the Bush depression) and will be good for America.
March 9, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your argument about the character and capability of most Palestinian refugees, based also on personal experience. However, resettling "all the Palestinians who want to come over here" is not different than if you had said all the Tibetans, Iraqis, Afghans, Darfur Sudanese, Zimbabweans, North Koreans, Chechens, Colombians, Congolese, Ruandans--well, you probably get my point.
A large proportion of any people under stress choose to relocate their family in a more peaceful or more prosperous place. Unfortunately, this has limits when the place they go to is only Europe and North America. Also, the argument that we get the best and brightest is either not true, or it deprives the place they come from of the segment of their population they need the most. They are needed to lead the political, social and economic transformations that are necessary to correct the problems that pushed them to migrate.
In the particular case of Israel and Palestine (and this is not, by any means unique) the long term solution is not relieving Palestinian population pressure, but it is rather ending Israeli expansion onto Palestinian land; achieving social, economic and political sovereignty for Palestine; and moving away from theocratic states.
I do not believe I am at all unusual as a liberal who values the tradition and potential of immigrant enrichment of our society, while recognizing the practical truth that we have reached a limit to how many we can absorb, and
that providing a safety valve for the rest of the world's problems often serves to push forward in time the achievement of lasting solutions to those problems.
March 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Kyl realize that a very large proportion of the Palestinians who have come to the US are Christians? Somehow I doubt he's smart enough to know minor details like that. Not that it should make a difference, but I expect it would to such a reactionary.
March 9, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes but Palestinians are mostly Orthodox and Catholic, and therefore the "wrong" kind of Christians as far as ppl like kyl are concerned.
March 10, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, John Kyl is redundant -- to Limbaugh.
March 10, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does America want to continue to licence Apartheid? Will we throw up another barrier to America's new vision of Hope?
Kyl's vision is mired in the past.
America wants new direction.
March 10, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink