Posted on 06/12/2007 3:22:43 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
An employer should not have to be responsible for enforcing federal law, that’s why the 1986 amnesty bill was a dismal failure. Unless there is some federal vetting agency that employers can use to authenticate citizenship they should not be held to account for their employee’s legal status.
I know, it boggles the mind. It really does.
If you drop it now, you take the risk that a larger majority Democrat House and Senate, and possibly a Democrat President aren’t going to hand you something worse.
Your call.
Nonsense. Currently, large sectors of U.S.. business are vulnerable to RICO suits by citizens, due to their shameless conspiracies to hire illegal alien peasant labor.
Amnesty lets them off the hook. For at least 18 months after the signing of this abomination of a bill, there will be no apprehension or deportation of any illegal alien who might be eligible for a Z1 visa. That is the law as written in S. 1348.
Tony is much too good a man to be in position of having to push this garbage. The border will not be secured, and the border agents we have in place are so poorly trained that they let the man with TB in when he was in the computer as being sick and should not be allowed to enter.
Tony, don’t debase yourself any further by defending this bill. Take a step NOW by hiring more border agents and do a better job of TRAINING the ones we have-then you can get on tv and talk about S 1348.
Well they wrote the law in such a way, that there is no teeth in it. The id’s should have to be authenticated. It’s ridiculous, but that’s the government for you.
Just say NO to Illegal Alien Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It is simply employers breaking the law.
It is already illegal to hire an illegal.
But the law is not enforced. Particularly under Bush II.
As the federal government increasingly looked the other way illegals coming into this country expanded dramatically.
That is why the incentive has to be stopped at the source - the employer that is willing to break the law and in affect steal from the local community where the illegals come to live. The penalties need to be increased and the accuracy of the checks need to be increased so there’s no excuses. And the bottom line is the law must be enforced.
Dear angkor,
I am not approaching this as a religious text, although you are free to do so.
So come up with something that will work and win. Why not reform welfare and health care so that the illegal immigration problem becomes smaller?
And I think that you are being hypersensitive about Fred Thompson. Sister Toldjah pointed out something in that post. Fred’s a big man, he can take it. Let him win people over or not.
I think the point that she was making was that a lot of conservatives are fed up with the holier than thou attitudes on immigration.
Yep. I sure would like to know what it is they put in the water in DC that makes people completely loose any sense of a logicical thought process when they go there. I'd like to avoid whatever it is if possible......
LOL
Fine. Come up with a workable and realistic plan that will get illegals to take responsibility and register, an idea that Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder had in today’s American Spectator.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11569
Over time, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000 (plus thousands more for each family member). They’d have to prove they’re working and have no significant criminal record. They’d have to learn English and American civics. And, if they want legal permanent residence, they’d have to return to their home country to apply for it there. Getting a green card would take at least eight years, citizenship at least 13.
I don’t really consider that “amnesty” nor “fast-tracking” and I’m not sure how anyone else could, either. What am I missing?
You're missing quite a lot. To put your claim that the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill isn’t amnesty in the best possible light, you are uninformed about what the bill would do.
USA Today’s claim that it isn’t amnesty is disingenuous at best. None of the fines, or the work requirement, or the requirement they learn English, have any effect on anyone who doesn’t apply for “permanent” legal residency and later citizenship.
The day the law passes all 12 to 20 million illegal aliens can apply for “probationary” legal residence. This probationary legal residence status has to be granted or denied within 24 hours of the application and never expires.
It allows the aliens to enter and leave the country as they please. It allows them to work, gives them their own Social Security account, it allows them access to social services, etc. The probationary residents will be able to do everything a permanent resident can do. There are no fines, no requirements, and no expiration date on the probationary status.
The only difference between “probationary” legal residence and permanent legal residence is the probationary people can’t apply to become citizens. That is the only difference between the two. Anyone who doesn’t apply for “permanent” status doesn’t pay a fine, back taxes, or anything else. They just get their crimes forgiven and rewarded with legal status.
The bill also expressly grants amnesty to the criminal employers who’ve been hiring the scofflaws.
Anyone who tells you the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill isn’t amnesty isn’t being honest with you or is totally ignorant of the facts.
I’ve been providing links, where are yours?
Did Doocey at least try some tough questions?
Thanks for so informing. I didn’t know that. Has he ever talked about the toll on Americans? And American workers?
I have to tell you, white and black Americans can’t get good paying construction jobs anymore because of illegals. Even the Wendy’s and McDonald’s that used to be filled with high-school part time workers-nothing but Mexicans now who can barely understand me at the drive thru...and I live and work in a middle to upper middle part of my city.
The problem with someone who tells me that I’m uninformed when I simply disagree is that I start seeing “Nutroots”.
Reasonable people are going to disagree. You are not going to eliminate dissent and you are going to cheese off some pretty good conservatives if you try.
You criticize Sister Toldjah yet she provides links. You provide your opinion, which is fine, and it’s your choice to recognize dissent or not.
Why?
Legal immigrants get their picture taken when issued a social security number. Temporary workers get their picture taken when they get a tax ID number.
Illegals don’t.
When a employer runs the provided social security number a picture comes up, the one the federal government took. If it matches, great. The employer is off the hook. If the employer doesn’t run the check or hires the person with a check that is clearly false then fine him big time. If they continue to do it, put them in jail. It’s a serious matter that should be taken seriously.
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.