Posted on 06/26/2007 8:46:03 PM PDT by Max_Parrish
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
I intend to ping threads dealing with the Immigration bill in both the House and Senate, threads dealing with Immigration and Congressional reform, and with candidate reaction to Immigration.
Thanks Max,
Something you need to know as well:
Borderline Insanity
Will the Senate allow the U.N. to control U.S. immigration law?
S.1639 states on pages 388 -389:
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
(i) supersede obligations under any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party, including –
(I) the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague, October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670);
(II) the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at Vienna, June 25, 1993; and
(III) the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York, November 20, 1959; or
(ii) limit any right or remedy under such international agreements.
The United States is “a party” to a good many international agreements. These agreements are all too often “wish lists” unconstrained by economic reality or fallen human nature.
Examples:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees “continuous improvement of living conditions” as well as “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women includes a demand for “complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
Congress can transform any treaty into American law
Some people, Thomas Geoghegan of the American Prospect among them, actually think we should junk our Constitution’s treaty-ratification process:
Let’s just ignore the Treaty Clause (Article II, section 2, clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution. … [W]e just pass a simple law. “Yes we will comply with Kyoto.” Or: “We’re in the ICC.” It’s a straight up or down vote in the House. Then it’s 50 votes plus the veep in the Senate, if we get rid of the filibuster under special fast-track-type rules.
I asked Matthew Spalding, director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, about the legal impact of the Senate passing any legislation which includes references to unratified treaties. Spalding said:
The Senate can’t ratify treaties that have not been presented to them by the executive. They can only provide advice and consent after the president exercises the power “to make” the treaty.
Nevertheless, they can incorporate the provisions of the treaty as law, and commit us as law (but not international treaty commitment). There have been other cases in which we agree to abide by something not ratified.
WE ARE THE WORLD
Both the Vienna Declaration of 1993 and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child of 1959 have dreadful implications for any American concerned about mandatory multilingualism, a reasonable border control policy or abuse of public benefits by immigrants.
The 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action guarantees the right of linguistic minorities to “use their own language in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination” and insists upon “the elimination of all forms of discrimination against” migrant workers as well as “the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services.”
Note that there are no distinctions made between legal and illegal residents of a nation. All are to receive “necessary social services” and have those services provided in their own language.
The Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959) cited by the Senate immigration bill is a U.N. resolution. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is a formal international agreement signed in 1995 by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the United States Senate.
The 1989 Convention, not the 1959 Declaration, was cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons in 2005.
Because of the Kennedy opinion, the 1989 Convention is “radioactive” in a way that the 1959 Declaration is not. Still, the rights granted by the 1959 Declaration are spectacularly sweeping:
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour [sic], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family. … The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services. … [A] child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.
Given the creativity of immigration lawyers and the willingness of federal judges to rewrite legislation according to their personal beliefs, chances are good that these endorsements of U.N. resolutions will be strictly enforced.
The Senate has a choice: (A) pass a 21stt-century version of the Bricker amendment making our Constitution superior to any and all international agreements or (B) continue to oppose limiting debate (cloture) on the immigration bill. Given this is but one of many problems with the legislation, “B” seems like the right vote.
— Jim Boulet Jr. is the executive director of English First.
Links at site:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWNjM2M1YjYzNzIyNjM3NDkwY2YxMjNhN2U0ZDI0NWU=
Bump!
"Swimming a river or hopping a barbed wire fence in the middle of the night is NOT immigration. It is criminal activity. Every illegal alien in this country today is a CRIMINAL. If they are, in any way, allowed to stay for one day after being discovered... THAT IS AMNESTY."
I signed it with the following comment:
I am very concerned by the signal that this bill sends. Even if all the bill’s many failings, large and small, are fixed, this bill will remain an amnesty bill. That is the core of the bill. Illegal immigrants will be able to choose American citizenship. Other people around the world do not have this choice. This choice is a special reward offered only to those who violate our laws and invade our country. Illegal immigration has grown after past amnesties, and it will really grow after this one.
God bless you thanks for all your research....
PDF of the 373-page Clay Pigeon Amendment
http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/clay-pigeon-amendment.pdf
Caller to Bennett this a.m. pointed out specifics we should look at and brought up Bush at a 2005 speech on immigration (2006 bill leadup), where he said he’s been working on this trade-wise for FIVE years.
Items to check out in the bill re: trade
133
413
412
425
503
Sen. Bunning (R-KY): Amnesty backers ‘smoking something illegal’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856939/posts
If you haven’t read this... you really need to, explains more. They lying their asses off.
Borderline Insanity
Will the Senate allow the U.N. to control U.S. immigration law?
S.1639 states on pages 388 -389:
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
(i) supersede obligations under any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party, including –
(I) the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague, October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670);
(II) the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at Vienna, June 25, 1993; and
(III) the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York, November 20, 1959; or
(ii) limit any right or remedy under such international agreements.
The United States is “a party” to a good many international agreements. These agreements are all too often “wish lists” unconstrained by economic reality or fallen human nature.
Examples:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees “continuous improvement of living conditions” as well as “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women includes a demand for “complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
Congress can transform any treaty into American law
Some people, Thomas Geoghegan of the American Prospect among them, actually think we should junk our Constitution’s treaty-ratification process:
Let’s just ignore the Treaty Clause (Article II, section 2, clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution. … [W]e just pass a simple law. “Yes we will comply with Kyoto.” Or: “We’re in the ICC.” It’s a straight up or down vote in the House. Then it’s 50 votes plus the veep in the Senate, if we get rid of the filibuster under special fast-track-type rules.
I asked Matthew Spalding, director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, about the legal impact of the Senate passing any legislation which includes references to unratified treaties. Spalding said:
The Senate can’t ratify treaties that have not been presented to them by the executive. They can only provide advice and consent after the president exercises the power “to make” the treaty.
Nevertheless, they can incorporate the provisions of the treaty as law, and commit us as law (but not international treaty commitment). There have been other cases in which we agree to abide by something not ratified.
WE ARE THE WORLD
Both the Vienna Declaration of 1993 and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child of 1959 have dreadful implications for any American concerned about mandatory multilingualism, a reasonable border control policy or abuse of public benefits by immigrants.
The 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action guarantees the right of linguistic minorities to “use their own language in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination” and insists upon “the elimination of all forms of discrimination against” migrant workers as well as “the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services.”
Note that there are no distinctions made between legal and illegal residents of a nation. All are to receive “necessary social services” and have those services provided in their own language.
The Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959) cited by the Senate immigration bill is a U.N. resolution. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is a formal international agreement signed in 1995 by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the United States Senate.
The 1989 Convention, not the 1959 Declaration, was cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons in 2005.
Because of the Kennedy opinion, the 1989 Convention is “radioactive” in a way that the 1959 Declaration is not. Still, the rights granted by the 1959 Declaration are spectacularly sweeping:
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour [sic], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family. … The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services. … [A] child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.
Given the creativity of immigration lawyers and the willingness of federal judges to rewrite legislation according to their personal beliefs, chances are good that these endorsements of U.N. resolutions will be strictly enforced.
The Senate has a choice: (A) pass a 21stt-century version of the Bricker amendment making our Constitution superior to any and all international agreements or (B) continue to oppose limiting debate (cloture) on the immigration bill. Given this is but one of many problems with the legislation, “B” seems like the right vote.
— Jim Boulet Jr. is the executive director of English First.
(Damn Clinton)
Links at site:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWNjM2M1YjYzNzIyNjM3NDkwY2YxMjNhN2U0ZDI0NWU=
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION VOTE & UPDATE
We have approximately 36 hours until the do or die second cloture vote on Thursday. That is the last chance we have to the kill the bill in the Senate.
1. Cloture motion passed 64-35. Senators Alexander and Corker kept their word and voted NO! (Full vote below).
2. The Senate has released the text of the “clay pigeon**” (See Division list below). On Wednesday the Senate convenes at 10:00 am. They will immediately begin consideration of the bill, which will be divided into 27 divisions and expect votes on divisions of Reid amendment #1934 to occur throughout the day. This procedure (called the “clay pigeon”) has only been used 2 times in the history of the Senate. It intent is to limit consideration to only the hand-picked amendments approved by Reid, McConnell, the White House, and the “Masters of the Universe.”
3. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) just required the entire bill – all 373 pages — (S. 1639) be read on the Senate floor (this is great! It forces Reid to take up time).
4. 2nd cloture motion will take place Thursday
ACTIONS:
* Calls to Senators and the White House; also calls into the Senate Campaign Headquarters (Chairman Sen. John Ensign voted YES on cloture today—inexcusable! We have heard they are losing hundreds of donors today—let them know if one is you!)
o Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-1213
o National Republican Senatorial Committee: 202-675-6000
o White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
* Thank Senators Alexander and Corker for voting NO and tell them we are depending on them to vote NO again on Thursday.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senatep Vote Summary Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S.1639 ) Vote Number: 228 Vote Date: June 26, 2007, 12:16 PM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 1639
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. Vote Counts: YEAs 64
NAYs 35
Not Voting 1
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs -—64
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs -—35
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 1
DIVISIONS OF REID AMENDMENT #1934
DIVISION SENATOR TOPIC PAGE #
I Hutchison Early touchback 1-115
II Webb Community ties/2003 cutoff for Z Visas 116-120
III Bond No green cards for Z holders 121
IV Dodd More Green Cards for Parents 122-128
V Republican Side By Side for Dodd 129
VI Menendez Additional Family Points 130
VII Baucus Strike Real ID 131
VIII Grassley Title III Substitute 132-199
IX Domenici Additional Federal Judges 200-205
X Chambliss SS Totalization 206-212
XI Graham Enhanced Enforcement/High Tech Improvements 213-246
XII McCaskill/Durbin Illegal hire penalties/H1B Reforms 247-261
XIII Cantwell High Tech Improvements 262-271
XIV Coleman Sanctuary Cities 272-273
XV Byrd Additional $500 Fee 274-275
XVI Thune No probationary status until triggers met 276
XVII Sanders H-1B Restrictions 277
XVIII Alexander Oath of Allegiance at Naturalization 278-290
XIX Brown Job posting requirement/duration 291-293
XX Levin Religious minorities 294-95
XXI Isakson Preemption 296-297
XXII Schumer Tamper proof SS Card 298-303
XXIII Ensign Social Security Benefits 304-306
XXIV Leahy Refugee Scholars/EB 5 307-309
XV Graham Mandatory Minimums 310-322
XVI Boxer Reduce # Y Visas by # of overstays
XVII Managers Assorted 324-373
via Gail A
Also via Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/
Searchable and linkable version by NZ of Truth Laid Bear
(I must hit the tip jar)
http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill_amend.php?page=1
Ed Morrissey is wading through the amendment package. Here are a few of the quick points he has already raised:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010358.php
POINT 1: Page 21, lines 12-16, apparently reinstated the 24-hour limit on probationary background checks. Remember when they promised to fix that so that no one would get a probationary card without passing the full background check? I guess they broke that promise.
POINT 2: Page 29, lines 12-end: The Z-visa has unlimited 4-year terms. I don’t think this is a change, but shouldn’t the immigrant at some point actually immigrate?
POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they’re not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?
POINT 7: Page 69, line 20: The DREAM Act, providing scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, still exists in the bill.
POINT 8: Page 89-90, lines 22-04: The 24-hour limit on background checks still holds within the Ag Workers section (the temporary guest worker program). If it takes longer than 24 hours, they get their credentials. (h/t: commenter Redherkey)
POINT 9: Page 92, lines 14-15: Do I read this correctly? The new limit on guest-worker visas is now 1,500,000 — not counting dependent Z-A visas? Wasn’t this originally 400,000 and reduced by half later?
POINT 10: Pages 169-170: The employer fines seem rather daunting. The first tier fine for employing an illegal will be $5,000 per occurence. If an employer has been fined in the past for employing an illegal alien, it escalates to $10,000, and on up to $75,000 per occurence. If the ICE decides to enforce the law on employers — still a rather open point — it could get very expensive. I wonder if that applies to corporations as a whole, or each location separately.
POINT 11: Pages 227-8: The temporary worker program gets fleshed out more specifically here, and it appears to have a limit of 180,000 for “Y-visa nonimmigrants.” If so, what are the Z-A visas, and why do they have a cap of 1,500,000?
POINT 12: Page 276: This is an amendment that forces any probationary status to wait until after the security triggers have been met. It seems to me that this is another example of the many cross purposes of this bill, and it will serve to confuse both backers and opponents of this bill.
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) said Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bears responsibility for the immigration bill after Reid used his powers to guarantee votes on a few amendments while blocking all others. According to the Senate historian, this has never been done before in U.S. history.
“Senator Reid has been trying to portray this immigration nightmare as solely the responsibility of President Bush, but today we saw just how bad Reid wants it. He used his power as Majority Leader to manipulate and abuse the rules of the Senate to ram this bill down our throats. He has set up a process that guarantees votes on a few amendments while blocking all others. This has never been done before, and it’s the most heavy-handed and rigged thing I have ever seen. This bill may have Ted Kennedy’s name on it but it belongs to Harry Reid now.”
After the Senate voted to cut off debate on the question of whether to resurrect the Senate immigration bill, Senator Reid set up unique debate process that guarantees votes several hand-picked amendments but blocks consideration of all others. Senator Reid used a parliamentary tool called a “clay pigeon” to divide a giant amendment into multiple amendments and then moved to block all others. No other member of the Senate besides Reid could have accomplished all of this without being stopped by another Senator. No other Majority Leader in history has done this.
“Republicans need to take a step back and realize what happened today. Senator Reid turned the Senate into the House and fundamentally undermined minority rights,” said Senator DeMint. “I was always told the Senate was the saucer that cooled the pot, but Senator Reid is forcing us to drink straight from the spout. Republicans better wake up soon or they can expect Senator Reid to use this tactic in the future to raise taxes, increase spending, and weaken our national security.”
And from Kurtz... no less, this:
Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.
Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVmNjUzNDM4ZmFhMDM2ZTA1ZTFiMDEzZWM2ODRmNTU=
Heads up, Cornyn coming up on Ingraham’s show after the break:
http://www.krla870.com/
Yes!
Thanks for the heads up!
Signed, with the message “A nation without borders is not a nation.”
thank you for excellent post!!
I want all illegal-immegrants deported as soon as possible.
I want legislation that denies any benefits to illegals.
Also legislation to grant birth citizenship only if both parents are legally in US at at the time of birth.
The MSM downplays the Amnesty so most people won’t notice it.
We may not have jobs very long if the traitors in our government win.
Signed, clicked and delivered.
I signed and forwarded this petition. And I agree with you. Unfortunately we seem to believe that our president and representatives will do what is right and what we demand.
If we don’t demand, those who do will get the oil (as in the squeaky wheel...). What is 48,000? Nada I’m afraid. Hopefully people will catch fire before it’s way too late and we’re all learning Spanish.
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.