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.
The only real challenge to this bill so far was the no chance amendment to cancel the guest worker program that got shot down in flames.
Compare to other bills I have seen debated in the past this one is strange indeed.
The behavior on the floor is that nobody wants to rock the boat because it is such a fragile coalition holding this thing together.
It’s almost like watching a family dinner table where everyone is trying to avoid the reality that the teen daughter is 8 months down the road.
FE, it has been my experience that all politics are personal. So people base their opinions on what affects them directly and personally. I could not be honest if I did not admit that part of my opinion on IL-legal immigration is due to being affected by the murders of Angel Resendez, a.k.a. The Railroad Killer, one of the worst serial killers in our history. He rode the tracks two blocks from my home and killed three people in a town near me where I have friends. Resendez was an illegal who crossed the border at will, and even voted twice in elections in Houston.
There is always another side of the coin. But the reality is that this issue is being driven by open-borders advocates from Mexico. Why is it we never see any illegal Chinese marching the streets demanding their (assumed) rights? There are many, many Asian illegals, just not the numbers from our neighbor to the south, and they are silent on this issue.
So, yes, all politicas are personal. From the war in Iraq to illegal immigration to taxes to student loans. It makes no difference what the issue is.
Very interesting, I’ve never had any bad experience with illegal aliens. So I think my feeling about the illegal problems is that it’s just what’s right. It’s not right for foreigners to come in and be fully vested in SS in 4 qtrs. It’s not right for illegals to get to the front of the line for citizenship. I don’t like people to jump the line at Disneyworld, same deal. I don’t care that people come here because they can make a better living, I probably would if I had been born in Mexico. But I think they should do it legally. I think the open border is a severe Terrorist threat and I don’t see anyone(politician) that gives a damn. Everyone that says anything about it, it’s all political. What’s in it for me and security be damned. It’s not right for foreigners to come in and run in gangs and NO ONE do anything about it. There are several other things I could mention. This compromise bill is not a compromise, it’s a complete capitulation.
http://nationaljournal.com/crook.htm
A key part of the new law is certification by Homeland Security that the new border measures are in place. Only then do new visa schemes for existing illegals and future guest workers kick in. That is a puzzling notion in its own right. Because the border leaks so much, why not allow some of the immigrants who are coming anyway to arrive on a legal basis starting now, and take steps to tighten the border in the meantime?
The answer is politics: The framers of the compromise want to underline how tough they are being on illegal immigrants by saying the border measures must come first. But the sequencing makes no sense. Surely the right approach, on their own analysis, would be to say, “Make the border secure as fast as possible, and until then set rules that allow for the fact that the border still leaks.” Instead they are saying, “Make the border secure as fast as possible, and in the meantime let’s pretend it already is.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/immigration_blues.html
The immigration bill stabs at these truths, but satisfies none completely. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois put it arrestingly. “This bill is drawing opposition from business, labor, Democrats, Republicans, theists and non-theists, American League and National League baseball fans. What I’m trying to say to you is there’s more opposition to this bill than support (for it).”
FE,
I am not liberal on this matter by a mile. I am not for real amnesty. I don’t oppose the fence, I am not for instant citizenship. What is hillarious is those out on the far right who think everyone is liberal who is not as strident as they are. When you are so far right even conservatives look liberal it is not because the nation is drifting left! Too funny.
Being allowed to be in the United States, if you were not born here, is a priviledge, not a right. And the whole purpose of LEGAL immigration is to benefit the host nation. This bill makes being here illegally a right (by virtue of the amnesty) , and does not benefit the host nation by any stretch of the imagination.
You can equate coming here illegally to a traffic violation all you want. But being able to drive a car is also a priviledge, not a right. First, they come here illegally (first instance of breaking the law) and they stay so that every day they are here they are breaking the law. If you were to get a traffic violation citation and then every day after, continue to do the same, you would soon lose the priviledge of driving. You licence would be suspended and if you were caught driving again, you would be subject to jail time. If the judge dismissed all the traffic violations you had racked up in, say one year (365 of them) he would be giving you amnesty for your crimes. And yes, violating traffic laws is a crime.
The “traffic violation” example would only work if they came, stayed one day, and left.
What is hilarous is those who think that by forgiving law breaking is not amnesty. What is hilarous is that there are those who think this will eliminate the invasion of the United States by foreign nationals.
Imagine this: the United States had zero immigration. Would we survive as a nation?
05
With each passing year we, as a nation, are drifting closer and closer to total socialism. One only has to read the writings of the Founding Fathers to realize that the America they dreamed of is rapidly becoming a distant memory. Hard work, ambition, and self reliance are no longer rewarded. After spending a year on the gulf coast after Katrina, I can tell you that my faith in Americans and human nature was NOT restored. Everyone is looking for a free ride with the opinion that the government owes them. Never mind that it is not the government’s money, it is money we paid in taxes on wages we earned by our hard work.
Yes, I’m in that area, Gulf Coast and I know what you mean. I assessed the situation on the Ms Coast 6 months after Katrina and there were whole “cities” still living in tents, getting food handouts from the government. So much for the spirit that made people load up into covered wagons and travel for months just to find better opportunity. I thought that had I been one of the ones that lost my home, I would have gotten into my car and drove to a place where I could get a job and support my family. Damned if I would sit there in a tent waiting for handouts.
That’s what’s going on with this illegal alien deal. Most are sitting here saying we gotta do something, which means ‘make them all legal’ when it should mean, make them all comply with the law. They assume that just because “the government” wants it, it must be best. Seems not many are thinking for themselves about what is really the best course for the country. Actually the more likely the bill is to being passed, the more likely the laws will be complied with ‘even less’.
Merlin, I think you’ve missed something in this:
A key part of the new law is certification by Homeland Security that the new border measures are in place. Only then do new visa schemes for existing illegals and future guest workers kick in. That is a puzzling notion in its own right. Because the border leaks so much, why not allow some of the immigrants who are coming anyway to arrive on a legal basis starting now, and take steps to tighten the border in the meantime?
certification by Homeland Security is NO part of this. I commented about this already. Let’s see if I can find that again….. Ah, here it is:
But it doesn’t matter, see that little, almost un-noticeable, little ditty
that says “(a) With the exception of the probationary benefits conferred by Section 601(h), â€
That little exception is basically everything goes ahead immediately awaiting the completion of the triggers.
So, it says nothing will be done until the trigger occurs, but then let’s everything go until the trigger occurs. Crazy huh.
Hey these are the words from the bill itself,
What that is saying is: There are certain triggers that have to be certified by Homeland Security, but “(a) With the exception of the probationary benefits conferred by Section 601(h), â€
Those ‘probationary benefits’ are ALL of the benefits. And they go ahead PRIOR to the triggers being certified to. Once everyone has the probationary benefits already, who is gonna go back and worry about the certification by anyone?
Sometimes the TRUTH gets in the way of FACTS.
NOTE: the quote above is from the draft bill, page 1 lines 8-9.
All those comments that got held up yesterday by “WordPress” have now been inserted, so if you missed anything, go back and read .
Merlin, let me try to clear this up; this quote is lifted from that link you provided.
The bill calls for an increase of 18,000 in the Border Patrol;
Note: the word hired in the last sentence, is saying the provisions will not be implemented UNTIL Homeland Security has certified that they have ‘hired’ those agents.
But does it:
draft bill: page 4 lines 29-39
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
draft bill page 5 lines 1-4
So they’re saying these things will have been done within 18 months, but the schedule itself calls for hiring ONLY 14000 agents through the year 2012 !! 18 months? !
And this will only be done by 2012 “subject to the availability of appropriations ” Are we OR are we not still awaiting the ” availability of appropriations ” for the fence that was passed last year?
It’s a joke. (Opinion of a ‘hardliner’)
.
-begin quote-
“On September 29, 2006, by a vote of 80 to 19 the U.S. Senate confirmed H.R. 6061 authorizing, and partially funding the “possible” construction of 700 miles (1,125-kilometers) of physical fence/barriers along the border. The very broad support implies that many assurances have been made by the Administration, to the Democrats, Mexico, and the pro “Comprehensive immigration reform” minority within the GOP, that Homeland Security will proceed very cautiously. Michael Chertoff, announced that an 8 month test of the virtual fence, he favors, will precede any construction of a physical barrier. Any large scale fence construction will occur late in the Bush presidency, if at all, prior to a new administration.”
-end quote-
source of the above quote –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Mexico_barrier
It has been seven months and they haven’t even started the “8 month test of the virtual fence”. They have NOT even STARTED a test that is scheduled to 8 months!
Knowing bureaucrats, it will take them at LEAST 16 months to review the results of the 8 month test.
8 + 16 = 24 months at the EARLIEST, before they even begin construction. That explains the last quote from the Wikipedia article above –
“Any large scale fence construction will occur late in the Bush presidency, if at all, prior to a new administration.”
Notice the “if at all” part?
Anyone who actually believes that the current administration has any intention of securing our borders is delusional.
-begin quote-
Congress also hedged on when a fence would be completed. The law mandating it said Homeland Security officials should gain “operational control” of the border in 18 months. But the law funding it envisions five years. Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after completion of an immigration overhaul.
-end quote-
source of the above quote-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15149231/
I hope everyone takes a minute to digest that paragraph.
Notice the second sentence –
“The law mandating it said Homeland Security officials should gain “operational control” of the border in 18 months.”
The law MANDATES Homeland Security (what a joke they are) to gain “operational control” of the border in 18 months.
Now look at the last sentence –
“Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after completion of an immigration overhaul.”
Chertoff is brazenly ignoring the law!!
First, he doesn’t even set a goal that would enable him to accomplish what the law mandates.
Secondly, he openly admits he has no intention of doing what he has been MANDATED to do, until “after completion of an immigration overhaul.”
Can you say WTF??????????
This administration has no intention AT ALL of securing our borders. None. Notta. Zip.
They never have. And this bill won’t change that at all. Anyone who believes that it will is completely and hopelessly delusional.
So if they don’t secure our borders, and they allow everyone who is here illegally to pay $1,000 and then stay (without any requirement to assimilate) the rest of their lives, what will be the practical result of that???
It will attract EVEN MORE illegal immigrants. It will make everyone who wishes to come here legally (and assimilate) feel like idiots. Why spend 7-10K and wait years, when you can do it the illegal way???? You can come here immediately, stay forever, avail yourself to all of our public services, and, as an added bonus, save 6-9 thousand dollars.
You have to wonder what their real motivation is. If they have some sort of logical reason for this course of action, I wish they would share it with the public.
Well, Apache, what do you think of that deal about the 18000 additional agents (within 18 months) then they brazenly post the schedule that shows they only plan to add 14000 and that is over a 6 year period. Meanwhile, EVERYONE gets probationay full benefits until the triggers are in place. What a joke.
I would like for someone that ‘thinks’ this is a serious bill to explain why they clearly state they aren’t going to hire but 14000 agents to fill an 18000 agent increase over the next 6 years.
Send in your down payment for my ocean front property in Arizona at the same time.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Chertoff on May 23rd. It is available for download here – http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=83a08f62-ca8e-4405-a7e2-23a2d913bebb
The whole segment is great to listen to, but I want to point out the three minutes of the interview where they discuss the border fence.
During that three minutes Hugh Hewitt asked Chertoff REPEATEDLY how many miles of “new fence” have been built since President Bush signed into law the bill October 26, 2006. Chertoff does his absolute best politician tap dance, double-talk avoidance of the question. Hugh kept asking him how many “new miles” have been built. He asked him at least 5 times (then I stopped counting) and Chertoff NEVER gave him a direct answer to the question. All Chertoff would say is that 75 miles are “under contruction”, but that “very few” are finished.
“Very few”!!
Go listen for yourself. Go the link above, download the podcast, and then go to the 19 minute mark of the podcast.
And the only reason that Chertoff has built any fence, is to give the APPEARANCE that he is doing it. This administration has no intention, whatsoever, of securing our borders. They never have, and they never will.
FE said –
Well, Apache, what do you think of that deal about the 18000 additional agents (within 18 months) then they brazenly post the schedule that shows they only plan to add 14000 and that is over a 6 year period. Meanwhile, EVERYONE gets probationay full benefits until the triggers are in place. What a joke.
The more I read this bill, the angrier I get! It has more exceptions than actual law. It is like Swiss Cheese. It is full of exceptions.
As to your question, I am still trying to figure that part out. I think it may actually be worse than you believe. I’m not sure that the 18,000 are actually border patrol agents. I *believe* that a large percentage of that 18,000 will end up being Customs Agents and not actual Border Patrol Agents. In other words, they actually intend to streamline the legal border crossings while giving the appearance of beefing up border patrol agents to prevent illegal crossings.
Go to section 101 and see what I am talking about.
http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=32
I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. But it gets tiresome having to keep cross-referencing all the sections and looking up the loopholes (aka “exceptions”).
I stated before that I thought this bill would be the end of the Republican party. The more I read of it, the more convinced I am right.
Guess how long the war against terror will last when the Republican party loses all of its power? The Democrats will surrender faster than you can say “Gotcha!”.
Holy cow!
Check out this section –
(3) BORDER PATROL AGENTS- Section 5202 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(118 Stat. 3734) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 5202. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL
AGENTS.
`(a) Annual Increases- The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purpose, increase the number of positions for full-time active34
duty border patrol agents within the Department of Homeland
Security (above the number of such positions for which funds
were appropriated for the preceding fiscal year), by not less
than-
`(1) 2,000 in fiscal year 2007;
`(2) 2,400 in fiscal year 2008;
I don’t have a direct link, but it is section 5202. I need to find a better source than NZ bear. A source that is better linkable.
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/Immigration%20Draft%2005-18-07.pdf
yea, that link you have is not a complete version.
Bad link from above. The section is correct (section 101), but the link is bad. Maybe this one will work – http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=3
But here is a quote from section 101
TITLE I-BORDER ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A-Assets for Controlling United
States Borders.
SEC. 101. ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Additional Personnel
(1) U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS 12
In each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the
Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, increase by not less than 500 the number
of positions for full-time active duty CBP officers and
provide appropriate training, equipment, and support to
such additional CBP officers.
(2) INVESTIGATIVE PERSONNEL
(A) IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATORS- Section 5203 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public
Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734) is amended by
striking `800′ and inserting `1000′.
(B) ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL- In addition to the
positions authorized under section 5203 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004, as amended by subparagraph (A), during each
of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations,
increase by not less than 200 the number of
positions for personnel within the Department
assigned to investigate alien smuggling.
(3) DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS- In each of the
fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Attorney General
shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, increase
by not less than 50 the number of positions for full-time
active duty Deputy United States Marshals that assist in
matters related to immigration.
Just count all those wonderful “subject to the availability of appropriations” clauses.
Hmmm…… once we make all of these people legal, and they bring over 80 million of their relatives, who vote predominantly Democrat, I wonder how many “appropriations” we see to fund these requirements.
Hmmm………. about as long as it takes the brand new 80% Democrat Senate, 77% Democrat Congress, and Democrat President to take the oath of office.
All hail the fantastic social reform we will undergo! All hail the immediate surrender to Al Queda!!
This bill should be called the “Turn Legal Immigration Policy Upside Down While Simultaneously Destroying The Republican Party” bill.