Posted on 04/09/2008 5:16:32 PM PDT by Delacon
The flavor-of-the-month immigration bill comes from a Democrat, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler and his bill, HR 4088, entitled the “Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007” or “SAVE Act.” (The text of the bill is available HERE, and other information HERE.)
Shuler’s bill has three key parts. According to Shuler’s press release on the bill, these are “a strict emphasis on border security, employer verification, and interior enforcement.” No provision is made for amnesty for illegal aliens, which is why the House Democratic leadership views this bill as welcome as a case of smallpox.
Within border security, it increases the number of full-time active-duty Border Patrol agents by 8,000 over 5 years. It also requires cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to allow more technology and military equipment such as unmanned aerial vehicles to be used along the border. Other aspects of the border security section include:
• Ensuring that agents have “high-quality body armor that is appropriate for the climate and risks faced by the agent.”
• “Strengthening prosecution and punishment of alien smugglers.”
• Adding uniformed officers to other Federal agencies which have jurisdiction over border areas, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service, and
• Making grants to local sheriff’s offices in jurisdictions that are within 25 miles of the border to help offset their costs of enforcing immigration laws.
“Employer Verification” involves changing participation in the “E-Verify” program from being optional to being mandatory over four years, with large employers (over 250 employees) having to participate immediately and smaller employers phasing in during that four year period. According to the US Customs and Immigration Service web site, “E-Verify provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers. Employers will have to “E-Verify” current employees within 4 years, not just future employees.
Under the SAVE act, if a worker’s name and Social Security number given to the employer do not match what is in the database, the employee must correct the problem within 10 days or “the employer will be required to terminate their employment.” The Social Security Administration will also notify employers of any people who are using a Social Security number that is already in use.
And in the category of “Interior Enforcement,” Shuler’s bill would authorize the hiring of 1,150 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents and 140 Criminal Alien Program (“CAP”) officers. Other provisions include:
• Providing for “the training of a minimum of 250 State and local law enforcement officers in Federal immigration law enforcement procedure.”
• Creating a “rewards program” to offer cash rewards for anyone offering information or testimony leading to the arrest or conviction of someone committing “commercial alien smuggling” or making or selling fraudulent documents (i.e. passports, driver’s licenses, green cards, Social Security cards).
• Authorizing the hiring of new federal district judges in border states, and
• Creating a “multilingual media campaign” to inform the public of these changes in policy.
The bill has 147 cosponsors from more than half the states, including 49 Democrats…not enough to force a floor vote on the measure over the objection of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Shuler, who defeated an 8-term incumbent Republican in 2006, is a member of the “Blue Dog Coalition”, a group of relatively conservative Democrats, more than half of whose 48 members cosponsored the SAVE Act.
None of the Blue Dogs’ 7 members from from California were cosponsors and only one member of the House Hispanic Caucus, Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), jumped on board. Some interesting facts from NumbersUSA: About 42% of freshmen House members of both parties were original cosponsors, and “52% of Democrats who defeated a Republican incumbent last year are original co-sponsors.”
Despite having substantial bipartisan support, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership oppose the measure and have been working to keep it from coming to a floor vote. Supporters of Shuler’s bill began a “discharge petition” which requires 218 signatures to force a vote. To date the petition has received 185 signatures. While about 75 more Republicans have signed the petition than joined as cosponsors, only 10 of the 49 Democrat cosponsors have signed the petition, a showing with two strong implications: First, some of them want to say they are tough on immigration without ever actually having to cast a tough vote. Second, even many of the conservative Democrats who want real progress on the immigration issue are hesitant to go against the party’s pro-amnesty leadership.
Darren Pudgil, spokesman for Congressman Brian Bilbray, one of the leading Republican supporters of the SAVE Act, offered this take on the situation: “This is the only opportunity we’ll have this year to pass immigration reform. If all the cosponsors sign the discharge petition, we’ll at least be able to have this important discussion.” Keeping the math simple, Mr. Pudgil noted that if 33 of the 41 members who cosponsored the bill but have not yet signed the petition were to sign it, the bill would come to a vote.
The only Republican cosponsor of the measure who has not signed the discharge petition is Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). Her spokesman, Jonathan Coffin, offered this comment to Human Events: “Since coming to Congress, the Congresswoman has made it a long-standing policy not to sign any discharge petitions -- whether she's been in the Majority or Minority Party -- out of a belief in the traditional rules of the House….The Congresswoman stands firmly behind the bill…(and) she will continue to advocate on behalf of the SAVE Act to ensure that it is brought before the full House. This initiative exemplifies real bipartisan cooperation; it deserves the support of Democratic leaders who should listen to the members of their own caucus who've authored this bill and called for its passage.”
A new wrinkle in SAVE Act politics occurred when Congressman Shuler, addressing a Rotary Club meeting last week, accused Senator John McCain of calling House Republicans and asking them not to sign the discharge petition. News reports say that McCain’s office denies those accusations, but Senator McCain’s office did not return calls for additional comment. Congressman Bilbray’s spokesman declined to offer an opinion as to whether the SAVE Act would pass if it received a vote…a wise non-prediction during a presidential election year, particularly when the Republican candidate is so mired in the immigration issue.
Senator McCain might believe that the passage of an immigration bill with strong enforcement provisions would be a net political negative for him, so it would not be a major surprise if he did indeed try to keep the SAVE Act stuck in the Congressional swamp. If John McCain is indeed opposing the bill (and for now I will accept his office’s denials), he’d do well to make sure he does it behind closed doors. If he thinks that conservatives are wavering about supporting him now, proven reports of his interfering in the passage of the SAVE Act could be politically devastating.
Another threat to the SAVE Act is from Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA), Chairman of the House Hispanic Caucus, who is rumored to have an amendment ready to propose which would give a “five-year temporary worker permit” to illegal aliens who have not committed a crime (other than being here illegally.) Congressman Shuler has reportedly rebuffed attempts by Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel (D-Ill.) to broker a “compromise” including similar amnesty provisions.
The SAVE Act is the best opportunity in recent memory to pass real immigration reform. It may be possible to get it to a floor vote over the objections of the amnesty-oriented Nancy Pelosi, and possibly without ruinous amendments, but if John McCain is quietly opposing the bill as well, it has a much tougher road ahead.
You got that right.
ping
Sounds like a good bill right now. I distrust, to put it mildly, what peeeelosi and the senatewhores will do to it.
The key sentence here.
Voting for dems has consequences.
Gee we support your bill but we can’t support the discharge petition????? Kinda like we support the troops but oppose the war. I know this is a pipe dream, but wouldn’t it be nice to kick out any lawmaker opposed to this bill? This might be the first bill in written by a democrat in 40 years I support.
Speaking of history, I’d like to know if its ever happened before that a bill that was sponsored by one party, while that party was in the majority, yet a discharge petition happened to get it out of committee and the opposing/minority party had a majority(overwhelming) of the signatures. This has to be a historical and quantifiable indication that dems will say one thing to fool the people then do the opposite.
Hehehe...mclame is cursing this bill to hell!!! In silence, of course.
McCain-Feingold was the last bill to be discharged from committee by petition. But, it was bilateral. But, the committee was controlled by the GOP.
Thanks. While I despise McCain Feingold, it was a truely bi-partisan bill. Also, I don’t put much stock in bi-partisanship. We’re right, they are wrong. Get as many people to agree with us as possible and win the argument. Yet Schuler’s “Save Act” was a clear attempt by Pelosi’s dem ran house to offer up a bill that is popular and dems could run on in November knowing full well that it would never be a reality. Now its coming back to bite them in the ass. The only “honest” dems in the picture are the 7 out of the original 49(who signed the actual bill) who signed the petition. The other 42, I am sure, are up for election in November and should be run out of office just on principle.
There is another question: If, somehow, SAVE was discharged by petition, would all the republicans who signed the discharge petition vote to pass the bill in a floor vote?
No provision is made for amnesty for illegal aliens, which is why the House Democratic leadership (and Juanito McCain) views this bill as welcome as a case of smallpox.
Who led the fight in the Senate last year for amnesty for illegals?
I would guess that most all of the republicans who signed the petition(I’d like to add all except for 1 co-signed the actual bill) will vote for the bill if it should reach the floor. Anti-illegal immigration reform tends to be a conservative cause. The only reason for the republicans not to vote for it is if they were trying to hide their conservative credentials to the voting public. Why co-sign the bill AND the petition if thats the case? I just don’t see the calculus where these republicans don’t vote for the bill.
Umm, haven’t all the signers of the petition already signed the bill? Do they have to re sign the bill if it goes to the floor?
Hmmmmmmm couldnt of been McBot man, lol....No not him, he wouldn’t do such a thing....lol
Yes, I know, but the reason it failed was because there were enough republicans in the house along with a few dems who beat it back.
“Do they have to re sign the bill if it goes to the floor?”
Well, they have to vote for it to pass it. Sometimes making up phoney excuses not to so they can have it both ways. I was for it before I was against if sort of thing.
btt
Ping!
Some folks see the magic “R” and automatically think “good guy” before actually “thinking” about the history of the person in question.
Interesting section:
______________________________
SEC. 203. Establishment of electronic birth and death registration systems.
(a) In consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of Social Security, the Secretary shall take the following actions:
(1) Work with the States to establish a common data set and common data exchange protocol for electronic birth registration systems and death registration systems.
(2) Coordinate requirements for such systems to align with a national model.
(3) Ensure that fraud prevention is built into the design of electronic vital registration systems in the collection of vital event data, the issuance of birth certificates, and the exchange of data among government agencies.
(4) Ensure that electronic systems for issuing birth certificates, in the form of printed abstracts of birth records or digitized images, employ a common format of the certified copy, so that those requiring such documents can quickly confirm their validity.
(5) Establish uniform field requirements for State birth registries.
(6) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish a process with the Department of Defense that will result in the sharing of data, with the States and the Social Security Administration, regarding deaths of United States military personnel and the birth and death of their dependents.
(7) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish a process with the Department of State to improve registration, notification, and the sharing of data with the States and the Social Security Administration, regarding births and deaths of United States citizens abroad.
(8) Not later than 3 years after the date of establishment of databases provided for under this section, require States to record and retain electronic records of pertinent identification information collected from requestors who are not the registrants.
(9) Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a report on whether there is a need for Federal laws to address penalties for fraud and misuse of vital records and whether violations are sufficiently enforced.
SEC. 102. Technology.
(a) Equipment Sharing between Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense.—The Secretaries of these two departments shall develop and implement a plan to use authorities provided to the Secretary of Defense under chapter 18 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the availability and use of Department of Defense equipment, including unmanned aerial vehicles, tethered aerostat radars, and other surveillance equipment, to assist the Secretary in carrying out surveillance activities conducted at or near the international land borders of the United States to prevent illegal immigration.
....
===end excerpt====
I wonder how this affects posse comitatus regarding the military?
Also not one SINGLE word regarding a phyical border fence.
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.