The Senate's take on amnesty

[Sarge]

Lovely :doh:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060523-105044-5150r.htm



Barring any last-minute filibuster attempts, the Senate is expected to pass its "comprehensive" immigration reform bill this week. As such, now is as good a time as any to remind not just readers but also senators what they are actually voting for:
• Amnesty for 10 or more million illegal aliens. Whether they are allowed to remain or return to a "port of entry," 85 percent of those who broke the laws to enter the country can apply for citizenship. A proposed amendment from Sens. John Cornyn and Jon Kyl to bar criminals from applying for amnesty was reduced during negotiations to only illegal aliens who had committed more than one felony or three misdemeanors. Those convicted of infinite "immigration-related" felonies or misdemeanors would still be eligible.
Everyone who applies would also be entitled to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment, even if that employment was obtained fraudulently. Any senator brave enough to guess how much sooner this brings us to Social Security insolvency?
• A guest-worker program. Although reduced to 200,000 workers per year from 325,000 (not to mention an automatic annual 20 percent increase), the guest-worker plan will dwarf the 10 million amnestied immigrants by 2026. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector puts the two-decade estimate at 66 million new immigrants. The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services scoffed at the notion that his bureaucracy could accommodate such an influx of applicants in the time allotted by the Senate. "Quite frankly, I don't think that's really practical," he said.
• A centrally planned immigrant labor market. Buried inside the guest-worker provisions is an extension of the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates "prevailing wages" to workers in specific industries contracted by the federal government. The bill would extend "prevailing wage" laws to include immigrant workers in all private sector jobs, even those not covered by Davis-Bacon. A "Temporary Worker Task Force" made up of 10 political appointees and the secretary of Labor would choose which industries have unmet labor demands and devise a prevailing wage employers must pay to their immigrant workers.
According to the Heritage Foundation's Tim Kane, the extension would effectively bring 5 percent of the U.S. labor market under federal control, rendering arguments coming from the right favoring a guest-worker program on free-market grounds absurd. For instance, the Wall Street Journal editorial page attacked "anti-immigration conservatives" yesterday for "showing they don't believe in free labor markets." If by "free" they mean markets controlled by 10 bureaucrats sitting in the Department of Labor, we plead guilty.
• Promises of enforcement and increased border security. Despite rhetoric coming from the White House, the Senate has done all it can to reduce the kind of tough enforcement measures needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Employers that have hired illegal immigrants in the past are explicitly protected in the Senate bill from all prior penalties. Not that those mattered much anyway, considering that the number of employers fined each year declined from 417 in 1999 to just three in 2004.
Regarding the border, while the 15,000 additional Border Patrol agents over six years are an encouraging -- though insufficient -- bright spot, the much-hyped 370 miles of fencing covers about a third of what's needed. Otherwise, the bill's a peach.

[Major Harris]

things that made me go :yikes:

A proposed amendment from Sens. John Cornyn and Jon Kyl to bar criminals from applying for amnesty was reduced during negotiations to only illegal aliens who had committed more than one felony or three misdemeanors.


Everyone who applies would also be entitled to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment, even if that employment was obtained fraudulently.


The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector puts the two-decade estimate at 66 million new immigrants.

[KAOSkins]

things that made Major go :yikes:


Quote:
A proposed amendment from Sens. John Cornyn and Jon Kyl to bar criminals from applying for amnesty was reduced during negotiations to only illegal aliens who had committed more than one felony or three misdemeanors.

That is wack. Although if it was stupid stuff like speeding tickets I wouldn't care much about that.

Quote:
Everyone who applies would also be entitled to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment, even if that employment was obtained fraudulently.

They worked for it and their American bosses made money off em. If they shouldn't get the money - who should? Someone who didn't earn it? I don't have a good answer for it because I do have a problem with them getting money from breaking the law. Just not sure who should get it.

Quote:
The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector puts the two-decade estimate at 66 million new immigrants.

We can't let that happen. Luckily when we are faced with the reality instead of the estimates we have a legislature to change the rules accordingly. If they will. The conservative think tanks also estimated that revenues would go up 250 billion over the last 5 years in justifiying the ability to pay down the federal deficit they ran up. Didn't happen and the legislature hasn't adjusted, so maybe the problem resides with them?

[Fergasun]

Sarge,
Here are the bigger problems. This is just like the 1986 amnesty all over again.

No guarantee the government plans on enforcing the employer penalties.

White House rebuttal to the Heritage numbers: 8 million illegals legalized in the amnesty, and 20 year impact is ~ 20 million new immigrants (remember this fact in 5 years). Yet the Senate won't limit the number of immigrants eligible to match these numbers.

$2000 fine is a joke for them to pay for American Citizenship.

Illegal aliens adjusting their status don't even have to pay all of their taxes. They'll be on the hook for 3 out of the past 5 years... don't you wish we could choose to pay 3 out of 5 years in taxes?

It's impossible for our government to keep track of where people are in line.

The infrastructure in place to legalize 12 million people in 90 days is just ridiculous, meaning the process will be racked with fraud.

Amnesty given to employers who have encouraged illegal immigration by hiring them.

Some illegal immigrants won't have to interview in person with USCIS, and their family members won't need to undergo health screening.

This bill will loosen some of the student Visa requirements. Remember that 11 of the 9/11 hi-jackers were in the country on student visa requirements.

This bill doesn't do anything to stop workers from bringing their families.

Immigrants will be eligible for earned income tax credit.

Once in the US immigrants will be able to apply for permanent green card. Thus, they are not temporary workers at all, but could achieve citizenship within 5 years.

This wave of amnesty is aimed at poor, low-skilled workers, and not targeting high skilled jobs we need.

If our economy tanks, we'll have a bunch of unemployed permanent workers sucking on welfare (or a bunch of permanent residents taking jobs away from Americans).

It's clear the Senate is more concerned with illegal aliens than the American people.

[Major Harris]

things that made Major go :yikes:[


That is wack. Although if it was stupid stuff like speeding tickets I wouldn't care much about that.

speeding tickets usually aren't felonies.



They worked for it and their American bosses made money off em. If they shouldn't get the money - who should? Someone who didn't earn it? I don't have a good answer for it because I do have a problem with them getting money from breaking the law. Just not sure who should get it.


the fact is, social security is vastly underfunded. i can't see the justification for paying out ss money to people that earned money illegally here. it's not a matter of who should get it, it's a matter of is there enough to go around to all those that legally earn their money, imo at least.



We can't let that happen. Luckily when we are faced with the reality instead of the estimates we have a legislature to change the rules accordingly. If they will.
that's a big if.

[Cskin]

Pure TREASON by the members of the Senate, they should be led to the capital grounds and lynched. Absolutely no represetation of the constitutents, who overwhelming want the borders closed and immigration controlled. :doh:

Career politicians in Washington more interested in placating their special interest groups and doing one of two things..... remaining power or gaining power.... at the expense of the American people.

I'm sickened... disgusted.... and pissed. It's not just the overwhelming influx of immigrants that will further water down our culture.... but the fact that I'll have to be taxed more to give all of these people federal benefits.... including shelter, food, jobs, driver's licenses, voter registratioin cards, and anything else the cockroaches in Washington will bribe them with in order to secure their vote.

[Thiebear]

Article 9??????? the Business crackdown that each year got more and more lenient...
Start it back at scratch again.........

[wskin44]

I've never been more mystified by legislative action in my entire life. Whether I've agreed or disagreed with a policy, at least I've always understood the motives behind it's supporters. This time I truly don't understand.

I could kind of understand a few very idealistic Democrats supporting this mess, but the labor unions are dead square against this so moderate Dems can't really be supporting it. Can they?

The Republicans, well I just don't know what to say. Are they afraid that the unstoppable wave of immigrants may vote them out of office? Are they simply lackey's for big business who are pushing it for the cheap labor? Why not just decrease the minimum wage? I could see too many Republicans not having the integrity to stand up to big business on many many issues but what I can't fathom is so many caving on an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as a people. That just doesn't match my perception of a Republican. If we can't depend on the Republicans to protect our borders from a foreign invasion of a welfare class of illegal alliens, then who can we depend on?

I am not a heartless racist. I believe that a strong America is needed by this world to help all kinds of disadvantaged people. I am very concerned that our strength is being erroded by many misguided short sighted policies, and our ability to lead the world is being eroded with it.

[Fergasun]

Notice what this thread is missing? No open border apologists.... it's been about 12 hours... and they are quite silent.

Also notice how the House stands. They are all up for re-election... and notice what will happen to the Senators up for re-election that vote for this plan.

Basically it is the same amnesty that occurred in 1986.

[Sarge]

Notice what this thread is missing? No open border apologists.... it's been about 12 hours... and they are quite silent.

Also notice how the House stands. They are all up for re-election... and notice what will happen to the Senators up for re-election that vote for this plan.

Basically it is the same amnesty that occurred in 1986.

Yeah, haven't seen Lucky or Destino yet. Probably getting their "Go Senate, Go" banners ready

[luckydevil]

I am not sure why you need my take on this. I support amnesty and open borders (gradually get to that point). I might be the only person on this board who does

[DjTj]

I've been really busy this month, so it's been tough to keep up with all the amendments, but I think at least one thing is clearly wrong in this editorial:
Amnesty for 10 or more million illegal aliens. Whether they are allowed to remain or return to a "port of entry," 85 percent of those who broke the laws to enter the country can apply for citizenship. A proposed amendment from Sens. John Cornyn and Jon Kyl to bar criminals from applying for amnesty was reduced during negotiations to only illegal aliens who had committed more than one felony or three misdemeanors. Those convicted of infinite "immigration-related" felonies or misdemeanors would still be eligible.I'm pretty sure this was supposed to say "aliens who had committed one felony or three misdemeanors." Under current law, even legal immigrants holding green cards are deported if they are convicted of a felony. The words "illegal" and "more than one" can't possibly be right.

Also, there is no such thing as infinite "immigration-related" felonies and misdemeanors. Unlawful presence in the United States is neither a felony nor a misdeanor - it is a civil violation punishable only by deportation. Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime - you can't be put in jail and you can't be fined for being unlawfully present in the United States. If you are a spy or a terrorist, you are committing a crime, but if you're just an immigrant, you are technically just "unlawful" rather than "illegal." The House wanted to change this, but under current law, there is no such thing as "infinite immigration-related felonies or misdemeanors."

This point about labor markets is interesting:
A centrally planned immigrant labor market. Buried inside the guest-worker provisions is an extension of the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates "prevailing wages" to workers in specific industries contracted by the federal government. The bill would extend "prevailing wage" laws to include immigrant workers in all private sector jobs, even those not covered by Davis-Bacon. A "Temporary Worker Task Force" made up of 10 political appointees and the secretary of Labor would choose which industries have unmet labor demands and devise a prevailing wage employers must pay to their immigrant workers.Moreso in light of wskin's comments:
I could kind of understand a few very idealistic Democrats supporting this mess, but the labor unions are dead square against this so moderate Dems can't really be supporting it. Can they?The wage controls are clearly put in to appease big labor Democrats. I actually really don't like this part of the bill, but I guess is less stupid than Republicans' obsession with the word "amnesty." Labor certification is the poison pill that we're going to have to swallow because Republicans have allowed Democrats to take control of this bill. If Bush had his way, all this labor stuff definitely wouldn't be in there.

I think it would be a much stronger bill if we had fewer labor controls, which would allow the free market to operate and would discourage businesses from circumventing the rules. In the longer run, the immigrants themselves would unionize and assert their own labor rights without big government intervention.

And to wskins general confusion:
I've never been more mystified by legislative action in my entire life. Whether I've agreed or disagreed with a policy, at least I've always understood the motives behind it's supporters. This time I truly don't understand. I think there is a general sentiment that something needs to get done. I really feel like the catalyst for all this was 9/11, when we realized we had to secure our borders. In order to do that, we're going to have to try to reduce the pressure of illegal immigration on the border so we can concentrate our enforcement efforts on terrorism rather than immigration.

There are also plenty of bleeding hearts, and many seeking the Hispanic vote, and even pro-business interests supporting this, but I think it's the national security angle that pushed this issue to forefront and is putting it over the top now.

All that being said, I can't see how any of this will survive conference ... it will likely be a bunch of election-year grandstanding for nothing in the end.

[Fergasun]

DjTj,
Thanks for your comments.

This bill is quite a doozy.... I suggest looking up Grassley's Senate webpage for his 10 points against the immigration bill. He went on the floor and apologized for doing the first amnesty, and now is against this amnesty.

It doesn't even seem like they had enough time to debate everything in this bill, and it's all a compromise. A lot of amendments that were brought up were shot down because the Judiciary Committee had already worked out compromises. In fact, it is the Judiciary Republicans who will no doubt provide the margin for it to pass in the Senate.

As soon as something gets removed in conference, I can see Senators throwing fits. Will the Republicans from Judiciary and House Committee conference it together, or do Democrats have to be involved?

I just don't trust our government to enforce any new laws... if you read recent quotes from Chertoff, even at press conferences they say "We will be committed to enforcing the new laws"... but they aren't committed to enforcing the laws on the books currently?!

[Fergasun]

Update: Senate passed their bill.

Is going to the Conference where I imagine some of our Representatives are going to be doing some fierce venting at the idiocy that is the Senate.

Too bad this won't be on C-Span.