Posted on 04/07/2006 6:01:06 AM PDT by kellynla
The senators who worked late Wednesday night devising a "compromise" on immigration legislation should have gone to bed early, serving the country better by getting some sleep. The "compromise" they came up with bears a striking resemblance to the one which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. Amnesty? Check. Guest-worker program? Check. So where exactly is the compromise?
It all depends, to revise a famously fatuous remark, on what the definition of amnesty is. Instead of the committee's blanket amnesty of all 11 million illegal immigrants, senators appear to have agreed to the definition offered Wednesday night by Sens. Mel Martinez and Chuck Hagel. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than five years, estimated to be about 7 million, would get a pass toward citizenship. Those living in the country less than five years but more than two would be required to return home -- perhaps just to a "port of entry," whatever that means -- and re-enter as temporary workers with a path toward citizenship. The rest, those living here less than two years, would go home to get in line for a guest-worker program like everyone else naive enough to obey the law of the United States.
Still to be explained is how a three-tiered amnesty solves any of the problems of a blanket amnesty. In fact, it adds a few more. In both scenarios, the workability of amnesty rests on the assumption that illegal immigrants would willingly pay a fine and back taxes for citizenship. But there are no incentives for them to do so, unless Congress imposes a criminal threat on their continued illegality and on the employers who hire them. Neither threat is in the Senate bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I've been wondering if the current attempts to come up with an immigration bill would be the same if the "true" number of illegal immigrants were actually the 20-30 million that same say are already in America.
It's inevitable. Lay back and enjoy it.
And, it will mean absolutely NOTHING, if we don't close our borders.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
It may be that McKennedy is doomed.
The 06 elections are coming, and there will be a reckoning, but it will be the RHINOs who are going to suffer, not the real conservatives who are voting against this bill.
Frist may get his 1st bill to the floor for a vote, and then we shall see.
Like that surprise hidden on page 302 - which would replace the country's entire bench of experienced immigration judges with pro-immigration advocates.
With a few exceptions, today's immigration judges (who serve for life) are dedicated to enforcing the law, and they do a difficult job well. This bill forces all immigration judges to step down after serving seven years - and restricts replacements to attorneys with at least five years' experience practicing immigration law.
Virtually the only lawyers who'll meet that requirement are attorneys who represent aliens in the immigration courts - who tend to be some of the nation's most liberal lawyers, and who are certainly unlikely as a class to be fond of enforcing immigration laws.
Just before the committee approved the bill on the evening of March 27, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) offered the "DREAM Act" as an amendment. It passed on a voice vote.
The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 law that prohibits state universities from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The principle, of course, is that no illegal alien should be entitled to receive a taxpayer-subsidized benefit that out-of-state U.S. citizens can't get. But the committee's bill allows illegals to be treated better than those U.S. citizens on tuition.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62017.htm
(other thread)
April 7, 2006 -- IMMIGRATION-BILL SURPRISES
HOW do you slip legislative poison past a U.S. senator? Bury it on page 302 of a bill.
The Senate's Democratic and Republican leaders yesterday announced a compromise on an immigration bill - with some details still to be worked out. But details that may continue from the bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee should definitely be deal-breakers.
Like that surprise hidden on page 302 - which would replace the country's entire bench of experienced immigration judges with pro-immigration advocates.
With a few exceptions, today's immigration judges (who serve for life) are dedicated to enforcing the law, and they do a difficult job well. This bill forces all immigration judges to step down after serving seven years - and restricts replacements to attorneys with at least five years' experience practicing immigration law.
Virtually the only lawyers who'll meet that requirement are attorneys who represent aliens in the immigration courts - who tend to be some of the nation's most liberal lawyers, and who are certainly unlikely as a class to be fond of enforcing immigration laws.
It gets worse. Immigration judges are now appointed by the attorney general - whose job it is to see to it that laws are enforced. The Senate bill gives that power to a separate bureaucrat, albeit one directly appointed by the president, making immigration courts more susceptible to leftward polarization.
The second nasty surprise? Just before the committee approved the bill on the evening of March 27, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) offered the "DREAM Act" as an amendment. It passed on a voice vote.
The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 law that prohibits state universities from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The principle, of course, is that no illegal alien should be entitled to receive a taxpayer-subsidized benefit that out-of-state U.S. citizens can't get. But the committee's bill allows illegals to be treated better than those U.S. citizens on tuition.
The bill also gives an amnesty to the nine states (including New York) that have been flouting the '96 law, two of which (California and Kansas) are now facing lawsuits (I'm a counsel to the plaintiffs in both cases).
The third nasty surprise lies in what the bill fails to do. The measure envisions a massive amnesty for illegal aliens now in the country - but doesn't give the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) the personnel or infrastructure to implement the amnesty.
In March, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a scathing report on the CIS's inability to effectively detect immigration fraud.
The last time we enacted a major amnesty, in 1986, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the CIS's predecessor agency) processed some 3 million amnesty applications from illegal aliens. It found 398,000 cases of fraud - and missed thousands more. Now CIS may have to implement an amnesty four times larger.
Yet CIS already faces a backlog of several million applications for immigration benefits. And the GAO found that CIS managers pressure staff into "meeting production goals" by approving applications quickly - which means that fraud goes undetected. Adding millions of amnesty applications can only make things worse. And the latest Senate "compromise" - giving immediate amnesty only to aliens who've been in the country for five years or more - makes the process even more complex and fraud-prone, as illegals use fake documents to "prove" long-term residence.
In 1986, the terrorist Mahmud "The Red" Abouhalima fraudulently got amnesty as a seasonal agricultural worker (in fact, he was a New York cabbie). That status allowed him to travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training - which he later used as one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
Terrorists know how to game the system. Janice Kephart, former counsel to the 9/11 Commission, released a study last year on how easily terrorists obtain immigration benefits. Of 94 alien terrorists in the United States, she found that 59 were successful immigration frauds. That includes six of the 9/11 hijackers.
The Senate bill does nothing to address this problem - while throwing a massive new load on the bureaucracy. A new amnesty will almost certainly ensure that more terrorists gain the legal right to walk our streets.
They will no doubt show their appreciation by attacking innocent Americans. And that will be the nastiest surprise of all.
Kris W. Kobach, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, served as counsel to the U.S. Attorney General, 2001-'03. He was the attorney general's chief adviser on immigration law.
They couldn't manage a one tier anything program so a 3 tier, yeh right..
Here's an idea, control the border with armed guards NOW! Like YESTERDAY!
DO NOT allow anymore of them to enter! We have enough problems with the ones already here.
Even if there aren't that many here currently, there will be that many that get in under this plan if it becomes law.
There is really no way to verify accurately how long illegal immigrants have been in the country. Those who would have to process the applications are already overwhelmed and admit that fraud is rampant because of lack of staffing.
What this bill explicitly proposes is horrible. What it will really do is even worse.
C'mon, don't you wanna win.
It's AMNESTY.
Even a jackass knows oats from sandspurs.
Call you Senators and remind them they are taking the gutless way out. And these guys sit there passing laws every day! Can American citizens pick and choose the ones we obey???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.