May 25 2007
Immigration Bill Rolls On
The Immigration Bill is rolling ahead in the Senate.
By a vote of 66-29, senators rejected an amendment by Republican Party legislator David Vitter to eliminate a provision that offers legal status to most of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
…
The Senate also narrowly rejected a proposal by Republican Norm Coleman to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to help enforce immigration laws.
I have issue with some things changed or not included – especially Coleman’s proposal. Hopefully it will go back in at conference. Of course, if the hard right would vote to strengthen the bill instead of gutting it things would be better. Coleman lost by 2 votes. Perfect is the evil of good and continuing with the status quo is dangerous. So as along as the ability to deport criminals stays in under a one-strike-your-out feature this bill is keeping my support. That feature alone makes this bill worth keeping. But we need the guest worker program to get background checks (criminal records) and to provide IDs to those checked and cleared. So far good enough.
Update: Myth busting the myth peddlers:
FACT: The bill would, for the first time, give the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) tools to keep certain aliens out of the United States solely on the basis of their participation in a gang.
No conviction is required – if an individual has associated with a gang and helped “aid” or “support” its illegal activity, then he or she is not allowed to remain in the country – even if he renounces his gang affiliation.…
ACT: After the family backlog is cleared in the first eight years after enactment, the bill will eliminate about 190,000 extended family visas per year. By contrast, the category of “extreme hardship” cases is capped at 5,000 visas per year.
…
FACT: Illegal workers who ignored deportation orders are not eligible for the Z visa program, except in exceedingly rare cases in which they can demonstrate their departure would “result in extreme hardship.” FACT: The determination of what constitutes “extreme hardship” lies entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has no interest in allowing this exception to be abused.
Unlike the cries of that the sky is falling from the right, these concerns from the far left are serious concerns. They are not getting what they wanted. Seems to me all the right people are pissed off on this bill. How many times did Cons hit liberals for incidentally allying themselves with al Qaeda on Iraq? Tons of times. Seems some kettles are going around calling some pots ‘black’. Look at the alliances against the bill – uber nationalists and anything goes lefties. No wonder this bill’s time has come.
Update: The hardliners are killing the GOP:
For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie. One conservative commentator claims that the law is “going to erase America” — an ambition even beyond Ted Kennedy’s considerable powers. Another laments that “white America is in flight” — and presumably not just to Jackson Hole or Nantucket for the summer.
…
If a Republican presidential candidate doesn’t get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn’t stand much of a chance on an electoral map where Florida and the Southwest figure prominently. A nativist party will cease to be a national party.
Breaking 40 percent is possible for Republicans. President Bush did it in 2004. Republican momentum among Hispanic voters has been strong in the past decade — until Rep. Tom Tancredo and his allies began their conflict with the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.
Conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity is a stunning failure of political confidence. If the Republican Party cannot find ways to appeal to natural entrepreneurs, with strong family values, who are focused on education and social mobility, then the GOP is already dead.
Well, some of it is dead anyway. The question is whether the condition is fatal or correctible. For our nation’s sake in the fight against al Qaeda I hope it is correctible. My fear is ,from what I have seen the last week, is it is probably fatal – to all of us. We will surrender to al Qaeda because some folks got all worked up over documenting undocumented workers. Just crazy.
We are talking billions with a B to build the physical fence and fund the rest which is a virtual fence. The physical part is a one time sunk cost until it has to be replaced. But then you still have patrol costs. The virtual fence will have month to month recurring costs.
With all the infrastructure costs that will have to be incurred to handle the population explosion the chain migration could result in, it would be cheaper in the long run to bribe the entire country to stay home and let them spend that money internally to boost and bootstrap their own economy.
Some of the “facts” might be slightly believeable if the pg, section, item number of the bill were cited. It’s the ‘exceptions’ to the facts that are troubling. Latest prediction I’ve seen is that it will barely pass in the Senate and never come close in the House. I guess we’ll see.
Yesterday, I happened to go to Daytona to be at the 30th anniversary party of a friend of the family.
They live now in a condo complex.
During the visit I saw something like I have never seen before.
I have been there before and they always had two or three groundskeepers on the staff maintain the area.
But this time I saw a virtual attack crew of by my count over 80 people with weed eaters and 15 or more riding mowers attack the place like a horde of locusts.
They arrived in two buses, plus 2 moving van size trucks they offloaded equipment from.
Less than an hour and they were gone and onto the next condo.
I see no way that the contract cost for this kind of coverage could have been cheaper than the 3 or 4 full time employees unless illegals were involved at bear bones labor costs.
What is the use of having laws if they are not going to be enforced?
Left by momdear1
momdear1…… a question like that? what are you? a hardliner? far right? regular American?
Just kidding.
.
Enforcement
I read the whole bill, but now the amendments are moving the target faster than they can be released to the web. I give little chance that the sites I access will keep up due to the holiday weekend.
The version I read was the “draft” that was not in the “bill legal” form.
I still haven’t accessed that one, but I understand if bumped the 300 plus page draft to over 700 pages due to the required formating and language requirements to make it fit the requirements.
I might as well be trying to nail jello to a tree.
Prior to going out to dinner for the anniversary party last night a bunch of us were watching cspan of the floor debate and the pages were having trouble keeping up with getting the changes to the bill and amendments out to all the senators before they voted on the amendments.
Yet we are supposed to believe that this is a studied and deliberated process.
I wonder if what I saw was a Friday hearing or a rerun.
Did congress work Friday or did they split for home?
Enforcement
AJ can vouch for the fact that I am a person that goes to the source documents rather than rely on the talking heads.
You have no idea how much time I spend reading BLS reports and other in depth documents from about 20 agencies I daily refer to.
I also have bunches of blogs I read each night after taking an afternoon nap.
In most cases I will give the url of the base document and then cut a quote, but it my experience that most people will leave it at that and not be bothered with checking out the product themselves.
Too many treat a url as a good housekeeping seal of approval without doing their own leg work.
This is understandable for those who involve themselves for less than an hour a day in their web surfing.
At least when it is correct to do so I try to give links. That is better than the MSM which only gives us “anonymous sources”.
Blogs are not just a nite time thing with me , I have a list of about 30 or so that I hit between other sites on an hourly basis looking for updates.
All together I visit each day over 100 blogs and news sites because I am a detail junkie.
Each day I accumulate reports in pdf format that I hope to read over the weekend but then trim them down to what is the most important after the gathering. Sometimes the Monday pdf may be not as valid or current by the time the weekend rolls around.
How radical are the Dhimmicrats?
With the voter fraud discovered in Bexar County (San Antonio) of thousands of foreign nationals who were registered to vote in Texas, the Voter Photo I.D. act was introduced into the Texas Senate which would require a photo I.D. to vote (Texas does not give driver’s licences to illegals, yet). The Texas Senate is pretty well split 50-50 Republican-Democrat.
Knowing that his vote would be the swing vote blocking the Photo I.D. act, Mario Gallegos (D), who had a liver transplant three weeks ago, had a hospital bed furnished by friends in the Senate and place in a room off to the side of the Senate floor. Senate rules require a call to vote which will give Gallegos time to get to the floor (in a wheelchair) to vote AGAINST the Photo I.D. act.
Gallegos’ doctor said that the Senator really needed to be in Houston near the hospital where his transplant was preformed and it was dangerous for him to stay in Austin. Gallegos (according to a friend that works for a Texas Senator) is going back and forth beteen the Senate building and his Austin apartment by an ambulance furnished by the Austin Fire Department (read, taxpayers) so that he can remain long enough to block the Photo I.D. act.
When registering to vote in Texas, proof of United States citizenship is not required. There is simply a question “Are you legally allowed to vote in Texas” with a square to check “yes”. No verification is needed. Some voter registraur’s offices say that, in their area, the numer of non-citizen registered voters could be as high as 30%. If you register to vote at the registraur’s office, the forms of I.D. accepted are: paycheck stub, rent receipt, utility receipt, welfare card, birth certificate or passport and library cards.
quote from document:
Page 267 lines 19-34 says:
Page 268 lines 8-42
page 269 lines 37-42
Facts can be tricky things.
These quotes seem to say that gang members can still get a Z non-immigrant status even if they have or have not filed a renunciation of there gang membership or affiliation. .
Merlin, I wasn’t questioning your facts. I was questioning the facts in the original post. I have recently posted( it hasn’t shown up yet) one of those facts with some material from the draft bill. I’m still using the 326 page version until a newer one is posted.
Thanks, I enjoy reading your comments. FE
I wonder if what I saw was a Friday hearing or a rerun.
a rerun, they were out of town
You don’t need to be a US citizen to get a drivers license. Anybody here in a legal status can get one. The Federal law requires the DMV to register voters when they get their license. They DO NOT ask what your citizenship status is. As a matter of fact, in some states it is against the law, like here in CA, and some places have even tried to make it law for NON-citizens to have voting rights as New York did last year. Don’t you see whats going on here? If they go to the DMV and start getting drivers licenses, by the time the fight over as to whether or not they have the right to vote, the 08 election will be over! This will essentially give a foreign country the deciding vote in our elections. Gee, what else can we give away?
MomDear1 is exactly right about the anarchy angle. When our children grow up in an environment where seemingly nobody has any regard for the law, they start to think, then why should I? It doesn’t mean anything anymore. That’s what I have been saying about the dangers of a lawless culture. Mexicans only follow the rules when it is convienient for them. Otherwise, all of that law stuff is just something for someone else.
The surge is already starting at the border. My ICE friends say they are already starting to see it. Like I said, the border is going to look like a city bus accident in NYC. One person on the bus when it hits a phone poll, one-hundred victims with back injuries when the ambulance gets there. This is going to be ugly no matter what happens.
Since my other comment on the subject didn\’t show up, I\’ll put this one in. It is copied from the Document and I\’ve changed it only by making bold the pertinent parts about gang membership and the exclusions:
Pages 48-51
5/18/2007 48
SEC. 205. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATED TO GANG
7
VIOLENCE AND REMOVAL.
8
(a) DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL GANG. Section 101(a) of the
9 Immigration and Nationality
10
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph
11
(51) the following:
12
13
.(52) The term .criminal gang.
14
(a) means an ongoing group, club, organization, or
15
association of 5 or more persons–
16
(1) that has as 1 of its primary purposes the
17
commission of 1 or more of the criminal offenses
18
described in subsection (b); and
19
20
(2) the members of which engage, or have engaged
21
within the past 5 years, in a continuing series of
22
offenses described in subsection (b);
23
24
(b) Offenses described in this section, whether in violation
25
of Federal or State law or in violation of the law of a
26
foreign country, and regardless of whether charged, are:
27
28
(1) a .felony drug offense. (as defined in section 102
29
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
30
31
(2) a felony offense involving firearms or explosives
32
or in violation of section 931 of title 18 (relating to
33
purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by
34
violent felons);
35
36
(3) an offense under section 274 (relating to bringing
37
in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating
38
to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the
39
United States), or section 278 (relating to the
40
importation of an alien for immoral purpose) of the
41
Immigration and Nationality Act;
42
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
5/18/2007 49
1
(4) a felony crime of violence as defined in section
2
16 of title 18, which is punishable by a sentence of
3
imprisonment of five years or more;
4
5
(5) a crime involving obstruction of justice;
6
tampering with or retaliating against a witness,
7
victim, or informant; or burglary;
8
9
(6) Any conduct punishable under sections 1028 and
10
1029 of title 18 (relating to fraud and related activity
11
in connection with identification documents or access
12
devices), sections 1581 through 1594 of title 18
13
(relating to peonage, slavery and trafficking in
14
persons), section 1952 of title 18 (relating to
15
interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid
16
of racketeering enterprises), section 1956 of title 18
17
(relating to the laundering of monetary instruments),
18
section 1957 of title 18 (relating to engaging in
19
monetary transactions in property derived from
20
specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through
21
2315 of title 18 (relating to interstate transportation
22
of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property);
23
24
(7) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in
25
subparagraphs (1)-(6).
26
27
.Notwithstanding any other provision of law
28
(including any effective date), the term applies regardless
29
of whether the conduct occurred before, on, or after the
30
date of enactment of this provision…
31
32
(b) INADMISSIBILITY- Section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is
33
amended–
34
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as
35
subparagraph (J); and
36
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the
37
following:
38
`(F) ALIENS ASSOCIATED WITH CRIMINAL
39
GANGS- Unless the Secretary of Homeland
40
Security or the Attorney General waives the
41
application of this subparagraph, any alien who
42
a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the
43
Secretary of Homeland Security knows or has
44
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
5/18/2007 50
reason to believe has participated in a criminal
1
gang (as defined in section 101(a)(52)),
2
knowing or having reason to know that such
3
participation promoted, furthered, aided, or
4
supported the illegal activity of the criminal
5
gang, is inadmissible.\’.
6
7
(c) DEPORTABILITY. Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and
8
Nationality Act (8
9
U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
10
11
.(F) ALIENS ASSOCIATED WITH CRIMINAL GANGS- Any alien, in or
12
admitted to the United States, who at any time has participated in a
13
criminal gang (as defined in section 101(a)(52)), knowing or having
14
reason to know that such participation will promote, further, aid, or
15
supportthe illegal activity of the criminal gang is deportable. The
16
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may in his
17
discretion waive this subparagraph..
18
19
(d) TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS. Section 244 (8 U.S.C. 1254a) is
20
amended.
21
22
(1) by striking .Attorney General. each place it appears and
23
inserting .Secretary
24
of Homeland Security.;
25
26
(2) in subparagraph (c)(2)(B), by adding at the end:
27
28
.(iii) the alien participates in, or at any time after admission has
29
participated in, the activities of a criminal gang (as defined in
30
section 101(a)(52)), knowing or having reason to know that
31
such participation will promote, further, aid, or support
32
the illegal activity of the criminal gang..; and
33
34
(3) in subsection (d).
35
36
(A) by striking paragraph (3); and
37
38
(B) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following:
39
.The Secretary of Homeland Security may detain an alien
40
provided temporary protected status under this section
41
whenever appropriate under any other provision..
42
43
44
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
(e) Penalties Related to Removal- Section 243 (8 U.S.C. 1253) is
1
amended–
2
(1) in subsection (a)(1)–
3
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
4
inserting `212(a) or\’ after `section\’; and
5
(B) in the matter following subparagraph (D)–
6
(i) by striking `or imprisoned not more than
7
four years\’ and inserting `and imprisoned for
8
not more than 5 years\’; and
9
(ii) by striking `, or both\’;
10
(2) in subsection (b), by striking `not more than $1000 or
11
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both\’ and
12
inserting `under title 18, United States Code, and
13
imprisoned for not more than 5 years (or for not more
14
than 10 years if the alien is a member of any of the classes
15
described in paragraphs (1)(E), (2), (3), and (4) of section
16
237(a)).\’; and
17
18
(f) Prohibiting Carrying or Using a Firearm During and in Relation to an
19
Alien Smuggling Crime- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code,
20
is amended–
21
(1) in paragraph (1)–
22
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `, alien
23
smuggling crime,\’ after `any crime of violence\’;
24
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `, alien
25
smuggling crime,\’ after `such crime of violence\’;
26
(C) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by inserting `, alien
27
smuggling crime,\’ after `crime of violence\’; and
28
(2) by adding at the end the following:
29
`(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `alien smuggling
30
crime\’ means any felony punishable under section 274(a), 277,
31
or 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a),
32
1327, and 1328).\’.
33
So while the FACT is that they are deportable or inadmissable, all of that can be waived just by discretion. We, of course, have to assume that if the Sec. sees fit NOT ot waive it, then he has the right to the full appeals process, all the while, not being deportable or even detainable. .
Funny how truth gets in the way of FACTs at times.
There are only six states have have a population greater than the number of illegal immigrants already here; California, New York, Illionois, Texas, Pennslyvania and Florida.
If you were to give them their own states it would require giving Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky and Idaho to house them.
I wrote two long comments about gang members and facts but neither have shown up (maybe too long) Sometimes they show up later, but if you want to read in the document, here is a link, go to the listed pages.
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/Immigration%20Draft%2005-18-07.pdf
Read Sec 205 on page 48-51 about Gang members
and then read pages 146-148 about gang member eligibility for both Y and Z visas
.
Clarification is needed. I was referring to voter’s rights. I still would hope that all registered voters ARE verified as US citizens before they get on those lists on voting days.
Lurker, I don’t know about other states, but in Texas you do NOT have to prove citizenship to obtain a voter card. All you have to do is swear to be a citizen. No documentation required. That is one of the reasons there were thousands of illegals registered in Bexar County (San Antonio).
You can go to your own state’s web site and learn what the requirements are to vote and if they require documentation of citizenry.
FACT: Illegal workers who ignored deportation orders are not eligible for the Z visa program,
True Fact: the words ‘ignored deportation order’ or ‘ignored deportation orders’ or ‘deportation order’ or ‘deportation orders’
are not contained in the draft bill.
AJ, I have gone to the trouble to check out some of the Myth busters( which by the way are in a Mexican paper) so far, not of his facts are verifiable from the draft document. If you know of any that are, I would sure appreciate knowing about them.