Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. #1
    tngirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of Memphis!!
    Posts
    5,860
    Thanks
    500
    Thanked 1,926 Times in 860 Posts

    Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Here is something you may find informative on Mr. Thompson.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AL7zMMTB4
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or Abolish Government

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    The comprehensive open-borders goodie bag
    By Michelle Malkin · May 23, 2007 11:05 AM


    John Boehner called the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill a "piece of s**t" last night. Yeah, after sifting through it the past couple of days, I need a shower.

    Debate resumed in the Senate this morning. Yesterday, an amendment sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would have deleted the bill's guestworker provisions was voted down.

    Update: Sen. DeMint calls out the Dems' move to limit amendments from critics of the bill.

    While they debate, here are 7 things buried inside the Bush-Kennedy amnesty goodie bag you should know about--plus more questions raised about the phony triggers and point system (all links referring to the bill provisions take you directly to the section in the 317-page draft bill released Friday night and published in online/linkable form by N.Z. Bear http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=1 )

    1) It includes Ted Kennedy's DREAM Act (Title VI, Section 611, Subtitle B)--a key goodie demanded by illegal alien lobbyists. The DREAM Act gives illegal alien students in-state college tuition breaks not available to out-of-state American students and legal immigrant students. The Dream Act would repeal a clearly worded provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that states:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
    Ten states defied that federal law and offered in-state tuition to illegal aliens: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington. The last time the DREAM Act champions tried to tack their scheme onto a larger immigration proposal, they snuck in language that would absolve those ten states of their law-breaking by repealing the 1996 law retroactively--and also offered a special path to green cards and citizenship for illegal alien students.

    That's right. A key feature of this "immigration reform" bill includes repealing old laws meant to discourage illegal immigration--and then absolving all the states and the beneficiaries that thumbed their nose at the federal law.

    Oh, yeah, that'll really help discourage border crossings.

    2) It creates a new "UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER ENFORCEMENT
    REVIEW COMMISSION" (Title I, Section 138) that appears to be a Trojan Horse for more proxy meddling by Mexican consular officials hell-bent on undermining border enforcement and interior enforcement. Members from the law enforcement community will be balanced out by members from "academia, religious leaders, civic leaders or community leaders" (read: the open-borders lobby). Their purpose:

    The Commission shall review, examine, and make recommendations regarding border enforcement policies, strategies, and programs, including recommendations regarding
    (1) the protection of human and civil rights of community residents and migrants along the international border between the United States and Mexico;
    (2) the adequacy and effectiveness of human and civil rights training of enforcement personnel on such border;
    (3) the adequacy of the complaint process within the agencies and programs of the Department that are employed when an individual files a grievance;
    (4) the effect of the operations, technology, and enforcement infrastructure along such border on the- (A) environment; (B) cross border traffic and commerce; and (C) the quality of life of border communities;
    (5) local law enforcement involvement in the enforcement of Federal immigration law; and
    (6) any other matters regarding border enforcement policies, strategies, and programs the Commission determines appropriate.
    Sounds innocuous, right? Well, here's a thorough reminder of how this agenda works in practice to undermine rank-and-file border enforcement. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005175.htm

    3) It promises to create a database to track exiting temporary visitors that was mandated more than 10 years and has yet to see the light of day. Here it is in Section 130. Yadda, yadda, yadda. As I reported a week after the 9/11 attacks:

    The U.S. remains the only major industrialized nation in the world with no centralized system for monitoring alien visa-holders. As part of a 1996 immigration reform measure, Congress mandated an automated entry-exit tracking system for all foreign nationals. But with bipartisan cooperation, President Clinton effectively repealed it and replaced it with a toothless database requirement that remains unenforced. Over 40 percent of illegal aliens in this country are tourists who overstay their visas. What good is an expiration date if no one enforces it?
    The nationwide entry-exit database was mandated in 1996, sabotaged by special interests until 9/11, stonewalled again after the terrorist attacks, and just recently shelved by the again by the Bush administration because they said it was too burdensome and costly.

    Here's a novel idea: Instead of using another promise to build this database as window-dressing for shamnesty, why doesn't Congress just do what it said it would do in 1996 and re-stated it would do after 9/11: Build the damned database, make sure it works, and make sure it is integrated with other DHS and FBI databases.

    4) The requirements for proof of eligibility and bogus background checks for the illegal alien amnesty are a joke. Illegal aliens would be allowed to use the following, easily faked documents for their "Z visa" applications:

    (I) bank records;
    (II) business records;
    (III) employer records;
    (IV) records of a labor union or day labor center;
    (V) remittance records;
    (VI) sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work, that contain-14
    (a) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
    (b) the nature and duration of the relationship between the affiant and the alien; and
    (c) other verification or information.

    Who would be verifying these documents as legitimate? Yeah, the same immigration/homeland security bureaucracy that is incapable of stopping the Bush administration-approved spread of bogus matricula consular cards.

    Former DOJ/AG adviser on immigration law Kris Kobach sheds light on three more goodies (I've added hyperlinks to the provisions he points to):

    5)"The bill effectively shuts down our immigration-court system. If an alien in the removal process is eligible for the Z visa, the immigration judge must close the proceedings and offer the alien the chance to apply for the amnesty. The wheels of justice won't just turn slowly, they'll go in reverse."

    6) "The bill transforms the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law-enforcement agency into an amnesty-distribution center. If ICE officials apprehend an alien who appears eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), they can't detain him. Instead, ICE must help him apply for the Z visa. Rather than initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. It's like turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network."

    7) "The bill even lets gang members get the amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs have brought mayhem to our cities. More than 30,000 gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. This bill would end that: Under it, a gang member qualifies for the Z-visa privileges as long as he simply signs a "renunciation of gang affiliation." He can keep his tattoos.

    John Fonte has more, including: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...RmZWU0NzY4MGE=

    Faux enforcement “triggers”: The so-called “enforcement” measures do not require that the border be secure. They only require that a few thousand more Border Patrol agents be hired (not deployed); that about half (370 miles) of the already authorized 700 miles of border fence be built; and that a few other bureaucratic inputs are announced. Then DHS will authorize the second phase of the amnesty by awarding the Z visas. Can anyone imagine Michael Chertoff declaring that these phony “triggers” have not been met?

    No real merit or skills-based (point) system instead current extended family chain migration is accelerated: The chain migration of extended family members will continue and be greatly expanded for the next eight years and only then would a skills-based merit (points) system supposedly go into effect. That is, if you really believe that after eight years a skills system would be adopted against strong business and liberal opposition.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    The Heritage Foundation lists the top 10 ways the Bush-Kennedy amnesty undermines the rule of law.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1468.cfm

    May 23, 2007
    Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law

    by Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil., J.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.


    The most controversial component of the Senate's Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is Title VI, euphemistically ntitled "Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status." It would create a new "Z" visa exclusively for illegal aliens. This title would change the status of those who are here illegally to legal, essentially granting amnesty to those "previously in unlawful status." This seriously flawed proposal would undermine the rule of law by granting massive benefits to those who have willfully violated U.S. laws, while denying those benefits to those who have played by the rules and sometimes even to U.S. citizens.

    Flawed Provisions

    The following are ten of the worst provisions—by no means an exhaustive list—of Title VI of the bill:

    A Massive Amnesty: Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens. It is also a larger amnesty than that proposed in last year's ill-fated Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Indeed, the Senate's bill imposes no cap on the total number of individuals who could receive Z-visa status.

    To initially qualify for a Z visa, an illegal alien need only have a job (or be the parent, spouse, or child of someone with a job) and provide two documents suggesting that he or she was in the country before January 1, 2007, and has remained in the country since then. A bank statement, pay stub, or similarly forgeable record will do. Also acceptable under the legislation is a sworn affidavit from a non-relative (see Section 601(i)(2)).

    The price of a Z visa is $3,000 for individuals—only slightly more than the going rate to hire a coyote to smuggle a person across the border. A family of five could purchase visas for the bargain price of $5,000—some $20,000 short of the net cost that household is likely to impose on local, state, and federal government each year, according to Heritage Foundation calculations.

    Expect a mass influx unlike anything this country has ever seen once the 12-month period for accepting Z visa applications begins. These provisions are an open invitation for those intent on U.S. residence to sneak in and present two fraudulent pieces of paper indicating that they were here before the beginning of the year.

    That is precisely what happened in the 1986 amnesty, during which Immigration and Naturalization Services discovered 398,000 cases of fraud. Expect the number of fraudulent applications to be at least four times larger this time, given the much larger applicant pool.

    The Permanent "Temporary" Visa: Supporters of the bill call the Z visa a "temporary" visa. However, they neglect to mention that it can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies, according to Section 601(k)(2) of the legislation. This would be the country's first permanent temporary visa. On top of that, it is a "super-visa," allowing the holder to work, attend college, or travel abroad and reenter. These permissible uses are found in Section 602(m).

    [A law-abiding alien with a normal nonimmigrant visa would surely desire this privileged status. Unfortunately for him, only illegal aliens can qualify, according Section 601(c)(1).

    And contrary to popular misconception, illegal aliens need not return to their home countries to apply for the Z visa. That's only necessary if and when an alien decides to adjust from Z visa status to lawful permanent resident ("green card") status under Section 602(a)(1). And even then, it's not really the country of origin; any consulate outside the United States can take applications at its discretion or the direction of the Secretary of State.

    Hobbled Background Checks: The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist. Unless the government can find a reason not to grant it by the end of the next business day after the alien applies, the alien receives a probationary Z visa (good from the time of approval until six months after the date Z visas begin to be approved, however long that may be) that lets him roam throughout the country and seek employment legally.

    The problem is that there is no single, readily searchable database of all of the dangerous people in the world. While the federal government does have computer databases of known criminals and terrorists, these databases are far from comprehensive. Much of this kind of information exists in paper records that cannot be searched within 24 hours. Other information is maintained by foreign governments.

    The need for effective background checks is real. During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud "The Red" Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center. Using his new legal status after the amnesty, he was able to travel abroad for terrorist training.


    Amnesty for "Absconders": Title VI's amnesty extends even to fugitives who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge but chose to ignore their removal orders. More than 636,000 absconders are now present in the country, having defied the law twice: once when they broke U.S. immigration laws and again when they ignored the orders of the immigration courts.

    The Senate's bill allows the government to grant Z visas to absconders. Though the bill appears to deny the visa to absconders in Section 601(d)(1)(B), Section 601(d)(1)(I) allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials to give an absconder the Z visa anyway if the absconder can demonstrate that departure from the United States "would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent or child."

    This is a massive loophole because so many things can be construed to constitute "extreme hardship." This might include removing a child from an American school and placing him in a school in an impoverished country, or deporting a person with any chronic illness. Attorneys representing aliens would also argue that if any member of an absconder's family is a U.S. citizen, then the other members must remain in the United States, because the separation of family members would constitute extreme hardship.

    This would also be a reward to those who have defied U.S. immigration courts. Those who have successfully fled justice could receive the most generous visa ever created, but those who complied with the law and have waited years to enter legally would have to wait longer still. (Indeed, the massive bureaucratic load caused by processing Z visas would undoubtedly mean longer waits for those who have played by the rules.) Further, those who have obeyed the law and complied with deportation orders would not be eligible for Z visas.

    The effect of this provision may already be felt today. Why would an illegal alien obey a deportation order while this bill is even pending in Congress? If the alien ignores the deportation order, he may be able to qualify for the amnesty; but if he obeys the order, he has no possibility of gaining the amnesty.

    ( continues )
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #4
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Reverse Justice: The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.

    Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws: The bill would transform Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law enforcement agency into an amnesty distribution center. Under Sections 601(h)(1, 5) if an ICE agent apprehends aliens who appear to be eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain them. Instead, ICE must provide them a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. Instead of initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.

    Amnesty for Gang Members: Under Section 602(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."

    Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens: The Senate bill incorporates the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). The DREAM Act effectively repeals a 1996 federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623) that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. Ten states are currently defying this federal law. Section 616 would allow these and all other states to offer in-state tuition rates to any illegal alien who obtains the Z visa and attends college.

    The injustice of this provision is obvious. Illegal aliens would receive a taxpayer subsidy worth tens of thousands of dollars and would be treated better than U.S. citizens from out of state, who must pay three to four times as much to attend college. In an era of limited educational resources and rising tuitions, U.S. citizens, not aliens openly violating federal law, should be first in line to receive education subsidies.

    Further, legal aliens who possess an appropriate F, J, or M student visa would not receive this valuable benefit. Nor would they be eligible for the federal student loans that illegal aliens could obtain by this provision.
    Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens: The Senate's bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens' lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

    Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers. Proponents of the Senate approach have consistently claimed that it would allow delayed amnesty only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The text of the bill, however, tells a different story. Section 1(a) allows provisional Z visas to be issued immediately after enactment, and Section 601(f)(2) prohibits the federal government from waiting more than 180 days after enactment to begin issuing provisional Z visas.

    These provisional Z visas could be valid for years, depending on when the government begins issuing non-provisional Z visas, according to Section 601(h)(4). Moreover, the "provisional" designation means little. These visas are nearly as good as non-provisional Z visas, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and the ability to exit and reenter the country (with advance permission). These privileges are listed in Section 601(h)(1).

    Conclusion

    What becomes unmistakably clear from the details of the Senate's bill is that it is not a "compromise" in any meaningful sense. Indeed, the sweeping amnesty provisions of Title VI cripple law enforcement and undermine the rule of law.

    Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil, J.D., professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, served as counsel to the U.S. Attorney General in 2001-2003 and was the attorney general's chief adviser on immigration law. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #5
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Another 26% The Media Will Ignore:
    Only A Quarter of Americans Support This "Piece of Shit" Amnesty Bill
    48% oppose. 26% support.

    May 23, 2007



    That means it won't pass, right?



    Be silly. You've not been paying attention to the fact that no one's paying attention to you.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...migration_plan


    The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

    The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters…

    Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.”…

    Um, yeah. Kind of common sense. Kind of noncontroversial. Kind of what the public's been demanding for, I don't know, 21 or more years.

    Kind of what we not be seeing in any bill passed by Congress or signed into law by Bush.

    Lindsey Graham immediately declared "We've got to tell the 48% of our citizens who are bigots to shut up." http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/0...ts-to-shut-up/
    http://grades.betterimmigration.com/...t=SC&VIPID=732

    It was John Boehner who called the bill a "piece of shit," topping John McCain's previous claim that objections to the bill were "chickenshit," and nicely setting up Fred Thompson's next internet video in which he will call proponents of amnesty "shitty-assed shit-for-brains." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/wa...in&oref=slogin

    Why do I think the bill will pass with only the most cosmetic of changes? Because it's pretty much already passing now with fillibuster-proof majorities, and further, even the minority of Senators voting against it will not bother to fillibuster. Even if they had 40 opponents.

    Because -- well, we've got to tell the racists to shut up and all.

    ...they had a filibuster-proof 64 votes yesterday to defeat an amendment that would have stripped the guest worker program from the bill. The Times takes that as a sign that there’s a solid majority willing to support the bill in its entirety; if they had lost on the guest worker program, the whole thing might have crumbled. WashTimes notes that most Republicans were among the 64, too, the lure of cheap labor apparently too sweet to resist.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #6
    PrincessArky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    It is in God's hands now
    Posts
    14,876
    Thanks
    709
    Thanked 646 Times in 453 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    I remember them saying they were gonna be fined or something right? so when they verify who they have been working for how much are they gonna fine the company that has encouraged them to stay here illegally all this time???
    Mom I miss you already
    January 16, 1940 to April 29, 2009

  8. #7
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Numbers USA notes these amendments to be offered in an attempt to salvage the unsalvageable: http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/s...ction0507.html

    * Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) - reduces the annual importation of workers under the bill’s guestworker programs to 200,000 workers per year;

    * Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) - changes the cut-off date for reducing the “backlog” of family-sponsored immigration applicants from May 1, 2005, to January 1, 2007, and adds 110,000 green cards a year for adult children and sibling backlog reduction;

    * Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) - imposes a surcharge on illegal aliens granted amnesty to help states pay for the medical and educational services such immigrants would claim;

    * Sen. Cornyn - allows Federal law enforcement agents to use information from visa applications to investigate allegations of fraud in the “legalization” process;

    * Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) - shores up the “trigger” provision to ensure that a crackdown on the border succeeds before additional job programs are extended to illegal workers and future immigrants;

    * Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) - requires illegal aliens to return to their home country to apply for amnesty; and

    * Sen. Menendez - adds an additional 800,000 family reunification green cards for applicants who applied between May 2005 and January 2007 (this is in addition to the 567,000 already added under the bill).




    Sen. DeMint calls out the Dems' move to limit amendments from critics of the bill. http://demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?F...ail&Blog_ID=56
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #8
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Immigration backers beat key challenges
    By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
    Thu May 24, 7:43 PM ET


    WASHINGTON - Proponents of a broad immigration measure narrowly beat back potentially fatal challenges Thursday, including an effort to phase out the temporary worker program.

    The Senate rejected, 49-48, a proposal by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to end the temporary worker program after five years. Earlier, by the same margin, [u]senators voted down a proposal by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., to allow government authorities to question someone about his immigration status if they had probable cause to suspect the person was in the U.S. illegally.

    The razor-thin votes illustrated the tenuous nature of the immigration measure, which would grant an estimated 12 million unlawful immigrants legal status while improving border security and workplace enforcement. But the defeats also showed the durability of the unlikely coalition that cut the deal and is fiercely lobbying rank-and-file senators to preserve it. "We are still together, and we're moving forward," said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

    The Bush administration and key congressional Democrats and Republicans stepped up their efforts to sell the compromise Thursday as lawmakers braced for a public backlash at home. "Many Americans are rightly skeptical about immigration reform," President Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference. "This bill provides the best chance to reform our immigration system and help us make certain we know who's in our country and where they are."

    With Congress set to break for a weeklong Memorial Day recess, supporters and opponents of the compromise were scrambling to shape public perceptions of the immigration overhaul. "Time is on our side because our product is better than those who want to do nothing," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "Our product is better than empty rhetoric without a solution."

    Proponents were working to refute criticism that the measure is too lenient by playing up border security and worker verification measures that would force employers to check the identity of everyone they hire. They highlighted the hurdles illegal immigrants would have to scale — including fines, background checks and holding down a job — to gain lawful status through a new "Z visa." "This bill does not grant amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness without a penalty," Bush said.

    Critics argue the measure could invite new waves of illegal immigrants by rewarding those already here.

    The Senate was to consider several challenges to the legalization plan for unlawful immigrants. One, by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would scrap it altogether. Another, by Sen. John Corny, R-Texas, would bar those classified as terrorists or gang members, among others, from taking advantage of it.

    Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, was working to add language to the bill requiring that people seeking to vote present government-issued photo identification.

    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said she would push when Congress returns from its break to make illegal immigrants leave the country before they could obtain a Z visa. The bill only requires heads of households seeking a green card for permanent legal residency to return home.

    The Congressional Budget Office told senators Wednesday that the measure would reduce the deficit by $37 billion over 10 years, mostly due to the increase in payroll taxes expected from the anticipated jump in legal immigrant workers.

    The budget office estimated that Congress would have to allocate about $40 billion over a decade to implement the bill, with the largest expenditures coming from new border security and worksite enforcement measures.

    Meanwhile, interest groups which have mixed views of the measure were mobilizing to activate a public clamor across the nation for action on immigration. The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform unveiled Internet and radio ads quoting Kennedy, an architect of the bill, as saying it was "not perfect."

    "That's why it's urgent to elevate our voice to achieve the improvements our community needs," said the spot, which is to run in heavily Hispanic media markets.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/...TsU.NHK7qs0NUE


    No amnesty for illegals
    By Brian Bilbray
    Thu May 24, 6:56 AM ET


    As the Senate considers illegal immigration reform legislation, my office has been inundated with phone calls from constituents asking, "What part of 'illegal' don't senators understand?"

    You would think that Congress would learn from the failures of the past. We've all seen how the 1986 amnesty bill became a gateway for illegal immigration. What was promised as a one-time fix that would be matched with real employer enforcement and commitment to securing the border resulted in a public policy nightmare we are almost doomed to repeat. Why anyone thinks that repeating the failed policies of years gone by is the solution to this out-of-control problem is beyond me.

    While some may dispute using the term "amnesty" to describe this proposal, that's exactly what it is - a bill that would set aside an exclusive program for 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants that allows them to stay in the country while going through the legalization process. All the while we have millions of immigrants waiting to come to the USA legally. The Senate plan sends the message that these immigrants would be better served by violating our laws, rather than by following them.

    Some will say this is different from the 1986 law because the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to certify that border security and employer verification programs were in place before any temporary guest-worker program would go into effect.

    This is the same department that has lost track of 600,000 foreign fugitives, failed to implement the Real ID bill and has turned the US-VISIT program into the "stay here indefinitely" project. Given that track record, it is easy to see why members of Congress are skeptical of DHS' desire to secure the border and implement a working employer verification program in just 18 months.



    Even more telling is the opposition of the National Border Patrol Council, the organization that represents more than 10,000 border patrol agents and support personnel. The NBPC vehemently opposes this bill, saying it would exacerbate the problem - not solve it.

    T.J. Bonner, president of the NBPC, said, "Every person who has ever risked their life securing our borders is extremely disheartened to see some of our elected representatives once again waving the white flag on the issues of illegal immigration and border security. Rewarding criminal behavior has never induced anyone to abide by the law, and there is no reason to believe that the outcome will be any different in this case."

    We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. This most basic principle is why so many flock to our nation.

    It is our right and our responsibility to maintain and defend the laws that govern our land, and no one should be exempt from them.



    Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., is chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...82bv54Y7es0NUE

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to certify that border security and employer verification programs were in place before any temporary guest-worker program would go into effect.

    This is the same department that has lost track of 600,000 foreign fugitives, failed to implement the Real ID bill and has turned the US-VISIT program into the "stay here indefinitely" project.

    These are the same people who brought you FEMA ... 'nuff said.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #9
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Shamnesty lives Meet the Amnesty/Sanctuary Republicans

    Shame, shame, shame


    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center

    Bid to repeal guest worker program is turned back in Senate
    By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
    4:32 PM PDT, May 24, 2007



    WASHINGTON -- The fragile bipartisan coalition behind the comprehensive immigration reform bill today thwarted a bid to end the temporary worker program after five years, a one-vote victory that supporters interpreted as a signal that they will be able to parry efforts to undermine the bill.

    The attempt to repeal the guest worker program was the latest attack that supporters repelled on the Senate floor, ensuring that the bill would survive its first week and significantly raising prospects that it will eventually pass in the Senate. "At the end of this week, we are still together and we're moving forward to accomplish what's going to be tough and fair and practical, realistic immigration reform for our country," Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the 12 Democrats and Republicans who negotiated the compromise bill.

    The measure -- which has become known as the "grand bargain" -- would provide a path to citizenship for millions of illegal workers but reduce the number of green cards available to family members and increase those for workers with needed skills. It has been denounced on the right as amnesty and on the left as a program to take jobs from American workers or to undercut their wages.

    President Bush has endorsed the compromise and today used his harshest language so far to denounce members of his own party who deride the proposal as amnesty. "Anything short of kicking them out, as far as some people are concerned, is called amnesty," Bush said during a Rose Garden news conference. "You can't kick them out. Anybody who advocates trying to dig out 12 million people who have been in our society for a while is sending a signal to the American people that's just not real."

    Proponents today narrowly defeated an amendment that would have ended the bill's temporary worker program after five years. The measure was defeated 49 to 48, the narrow margin secured when Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) changed his vote at the last minute after an entreaty from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's main Democratic sponsor.

    Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a key Republican supporter of the bill, praised Akaka for putting the fate of the bill as a whole ahead of his opposition to one element of it. "He wasn't prepared to bring the bill down," Specter said. "Each of us has done that on many, many occasions. We have voted against our personal preference because the totality of the bill is so important."

    That amendment also split California's two Democratic senators: Dianne Feinstein, a member of the bipartisan group of sponsors, voted against the amendment, and Barbara Boxer voted for it.

    "American workers are going to be hurt by this," Boxer said before the vote. "This is a modest amendment. This is a sensible amendment."

    But Feinstein, who said she had qualms about the temporary worker program, voted the opposite way. "This was just a very important vote, because there are certain core principles in this bill that those people that participated in putting it together care about it," Feinstein explained afterward. "And those core principles are formed on this basis: Republicans cannot pass a bill without Democrats, and Democrats cannot pass a bill without Republicans. Therefore, the only hope for a bill is to come together."

    In other votes today, senators resoundingly defeated an amendment that would have eliminated visas for workers currently in the country illegally, the key provision that incenses Republican opponents. It went down by a vote of 29 to 66. "In my opinion and in the opinion of many Americans, this is amnesty pure and simple," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the amendment's sponsor. He argued that the immigration bill repeats the errors in the 1986 immigration reform "when we did amnesty but not enough enforcement."

    "This is not 1986," responded an irate Kennedy, raising his voice on the Senate floor. "1986 was amnesty. This is not amnesty."

    Senators also defeated a measure that would have permitted law enforcement officers to question individuals about their immigration status if they had probable cause to believe that they might be in the U.S. illegally.

    And they adopted an amendment that exempts children of some Filipino World War II veterans from numerical limits on visas. Debate on the bill was to continue Friday, but no further votes were expected before the weeklong Memorial Day recess.

    Supporters of the immigration compromise said the week's scorecard suggested that the "grand bargain" would survive the legislative process, at least in the Senate. The bill's fate in the House is less certain. "We see essentially no enormous roadblocks or no poison pills or no killer amendments ahead that we can't deal with," Specter said.

    Republican supporters of the bill acknowledged the vehement opposition among their political base -- "Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents," joked Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a leader of the opposition to last year's immigration bill who switched to support this year's version. "But I do think that, as we have been able to explain the bill and to answer some of the questions and dispel some of the myths, people have begun to realize that the bill is not quite as bad" as they thought.

    Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said the opposition across the political spectrum showed that the public had become unaccustomed to bipartisan compromises. "For too long, we've had politics of polarization, and this is one example that I hope will serve our nation to see that we can come together, Democrats and Republicans, to solve a big problem," Martinez said. "This is a big problem and it requires a big answer."

    "I would say that it's been a good week -- adelante," he added -- "onward'' in Spanish.




    Mark Krikorian lists those who voted against Vitter's amendment. Here are your Amnesty Now Republicans:

    Republicans voting against it — i.e., specifically voting for immediate amnesty — were Bennett, Burr, Chambliss, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Domenici, Ensign, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Isakson, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, Murkowski, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Voinovich, and Warner.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #10
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Power Line calls out the Illegal Alien Sanctuary Republicans who voted against Sen. Norm Coleman's amendment to punish outlaw cities and towns that refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement:

    Coleman's Anti-Sanctuary Bill Defeated

    One of the most shameful spectacles of our times is the practice of cities and towns declaring themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, and refusing to cooperate in the enforcement of federal laws. Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman offered an amendment to the pending immigration act that would prohibit cities from banning the obtaining of information on immigration status by their own law enforcement agencies. You can read about the amendment on Coleman's web site;http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?...elease_id=1316 ; the text of the amendment is here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...xwjv1f:e14349: .

    Unfortunately, Norm's amendment was defeated 49-48 on the Senate floor today, even though several Democrats voted for it. These Republicans voted against the proposal:

    Graham (R-SC)
    Hagel (R-NE)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Martinez (R-FL)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Voinovich (R-OH)


    Which means that we will have to continue to put up with the misplaced moral preening of liberals who think it's a good thing to be a scofflaw.


    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017737.php
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #11
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Re: Fred Thompson's take on Immigration Bill

    Compromise Virtually Guarantees Noncompliance
    By George Will


    WASHINGTON - Compromise is incessantly praised, and has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees -- as the public understands -- weak enforcement and noncompliance.

    Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.

    In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?

    Concentrate on border control, and workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.

    Under current immigration policies, America is importing another underclass, one "with the potential to expand indefinitely," according to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute. To sentimentalists who cling to "the myth of the redeeming power of Hispanic family values, the Hispanic work ethic, and Hispanic virtue," she says:
    From 1990 to 2004, Hispanics accounted for 92 percent of the increase in poor people. Only 53 percent of Hispanics earn high school diplomas, the lowest among American ethnic groups. Half of all children born to Hispanic-Americans in 2005 were born out of wedlock -- a reliable predictor of social pathologies.
    The legislation supposedly would shift policy from emphasizing family unification to emphasizing economic criteria (skills) when setting eligibility for immigrants. Critics will say this will sunder families. But the sundering has happened; it was done by illegal immigrants who left family members behind and are free to reunite with their families where they left them.

    Anyway, the supposed shift from emphasizing family relations -- the emphasis that results in "chain migration" -- to economic merit may be diluted to nothingness. It is highly suspicious that there was a rush -- fortunately stymied -- to pass this legislation through both houses and get it to conference, where the majority of participants will be Democrats eager to court Hispanic votes.

    Some Democrats argue that liberalism's teetering achievement, the welfare state, requires liberal immigration policies. The argument is: Today there are only 3.3 workers for every retiree. In January, the first of 77 million baby boomers begin to retire. By the time they have retired, in 2030, there will be 2.2 workers for every retiree -- but only if the work force is replenished by 900,000 immigrants a year.

    On Monday, however, Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation stunned some senators who heard his argument that continuing, under family-based immigration, to import a low-skilled population will cost the welfare state far more than the immigrants' contributions to the economy and government. He argued that low-skilled immigrants are costly to the welfare state at every point in their life cycle, and are very costly when elderly. Just the 9 million to 10 million illegal adults already here will, if given amnesty, cost an average of $300,000 -- cumulatively, more than $2.5 trillion -- in various entitlements (Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.) over 30 years.

    To those who say border control is impossible -- often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did -- one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when serious.

    In an attempt to anesthetize people who sensibly say "border control and workplace enforcement first," important provisions of the legislation would supposedly be "triggered" only when control of the border is "certified" by the president. But in what looks like a parody of the Washington mentality, certification would be triggered not by border control but by the hiring of border control agents and other spending. So, the supposedly hardheaded aspects of the legislation actually rest on the delusion that spending equals the achievement of the intention behind the spending. By that assumption, we have long since tranquilized and democratized Iraq.
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 05-29-2007 at 01:53 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in