Posted on 04/25/2013 11:36:31 AM PDT by AuntB
Sen. Jeff Sessions demonstrated the complexity of the immigration bill Democrats are trying to rush through the Senate - by reading from it.
Sessions read a passage of the bill as it referred to citation after citation to exceptions, qualifiers, and additional details by referencing only by the numbers and alphabetic letters signifying sections, sub-sections and paragraphs of the bill.
Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) interrupted Sessions to argue that it is time to stop analyzing the bill and vote on it. But, Sen. Session responded that, since very skilled lawyers took their time carefully crafting the language of the bill, senators should have more time to examine it.
"Our staff has been working for days trying to decipher this gobbledygook," Sen. Sessions said.
See video at link.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held two hearings earlier this week in advance of marking up the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive amnesty bill. The first was a nearly 8-hour long marathon with a parade of witnesses from Big Business to Big Labor to Special Interest groups with just a few witnesses sprinkled in to testify about the need for more interior enforcement, better border security, and the huge fiscal drain that an amnesty would have on the nation’s future.
The following day, the Committee brought in DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Here’s what we learned. . .
NUMBER ONE
Every part of the bill was written as though America is facing a severe labor shortage crisis. Monday’s hearing featured one industry spokesperson after another who testified that Americans from high-school drop outs to the laid off engineer were either too lazy or too uneducated to fill U.S. labor needs at the wages being offered. The only guarantees in the bill concern large increases in the pool of available foreign workers, including millions of illegal workers who receive amnesty.
NUMBER TWO
The legalization comes first. There are no hard enforcement triggers for the initial amnesty (legalization + work permits). Chris Crane, ICE Officer and President of the National ICE Council testified to that on Monday. No one disputed that point and it has been reported in the press.
NUMBER THREE
Sen. Schumer and company called Sen. Rubio’s bluff: Back in January, Rubio promised, “If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there...if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.”
Since the bill has been available to read, Rubio has issued repeated statements that are contradicted by his own legislation and by Schumer.
NUMBER FOUR
No one seems capable of explaining what will happen to future illegal aliens if the bill passes (see Roy’s blog).
The bill excludes post-December 31, 2011 illegal aliens. What happens to them? The bill also calls for expanded guest worker programs. What happens to the guest workers who don’t go home when their work visa expires?
Will the administration ramp up interior enforcement to detect and remove illegal aliens not covered by the bill? Or will the administration adopt the “attrition through enforcement” approach both the White House and Gang of Eight have decried? Or will the bill preserve the status quo immigration enforcement that gives “prosecutorial discretion” to non-violent aliens unlawfully residing and working in the country, thus building up a new illegal population to be amnestied at a later date? The bill doesn’t say. The bill’s authors won’t say.
Title is altered due to space...
Flush the damned nation destroying bill down the TOILET!! McCain is an IDIOT for pushing this treasonous GARBAGE!!
and Now Rubio and even Paul who we had high hopes for are signing on to this nonsense. It’s MADNESS!!
WAKE-UP America!!
RESIST TYRANNY!!
Can’t say “gobbledygook”
Not PC.
Number 1 translation want very, very cheap labor.
bflr
Thanks AuntB for keeping us abreast of the Rubio/Schumer follies!
Seriously, FReepers, call your Senators!
STOP THIS INSANITY.
NO BILL SHOULD EXCEED 100 PAGES!
We’re entitled to be able to read it and fully understand it.
IT’S AMNESTY AND THE END OF OUR REPUBLIC!
Thank you, Jim. You are exactly right. Every single word!!
Any bill whose language is that complicated should be voted down on the principle that laws need to be clear and simply written.
Any bill whose language is that complicated should be voted down on the principle that laws need to be clear and simply written.
Yes, let's not set a precedent of having Senators actually understand what the heck they are voting on. That'd be crazy. Almost as if the Senate was intended to be a slow-moving, more deliberate body to place a check on the hot-headedness of the "populist" House.
Any senator or representative should live by one rule first, NEVER vote yes on any bill that cannot be comprehended by the people who are expected to obey the law. This would eliminate most proposed legislation and that would be a great thing, no “AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT” and you could add on a very long list of other abominations that have been signed into law. We have boatloads of laws that cannot even be understood by lawyers.
Seems like the authors of the various sections of the bill ought to be called to explain parts that are not clear.
There is no way I would sign off on something I didn’t understand.
You don't want that. They might "explain" that it means x, when the legal language means y. You really want to understand the legal language and you shouldn't need someone to explain it to you.
The fact that they are having to "decipher" it, means it's was probably deliberately written to be overly complex to hide it's true meaning.
You don't want that. They might "explain" that it means x, when the legal language means y. You really want to understand the legal language and you shouldn't need someone to explain it to you.
The fact that they are having to "decipher" it, means it's was probably deliberately written to be overly complex to hide it's true meaning.
NO BILL SHOULD EXCEED 100 PAGES!
We’re entitled to be able to read it and fully understand it.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Didn’t Obozo PROMISE that ALL bills would be presented on CSPAN, all arguments aired, a couple of days waiting period so us peasants could ‘review’ them THEN taken for a vote?
NO MORE SECRECY?
About the ONLY campaign promise he has kept/is keeping, is the one saying “This was a great country and he was going to change it so it would be better”?
Course he did change things, his ‘love of the poor’ caused him to create MORE poor people, Gasoline prices at the pump doubled - hurting the ‘poor - well working class’, with higher fuel prices being passed on to us at the Grocery store and other retail outlets.
Our take home dollar was decreased because of all the NEW food stamp people, SSI qualifiers and the end is not even in sight.
Yes, he promised CHANGE and we got it...To bad the rest of the ‘sheep’ didn’t realize that the Change was a Negative Change and those of us that ‘predicted’ it were deemed racists and troublemakers...
This PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL party is the SCHMOOS that Al Capp portrayed many years ago - in a comic strip.
Ol’ Man Mose saw it coming and NO ONE PAID ATTENTION..well some of us did.....
FYI - Just received
Boston Bomber’s Background Check Highlights Amnesty Flaw
11 million illegal aliens would undergo less vigorous screening process
WASHINGTON, DC (April 25, 2013) — While amnesty advocates are exploiting the horrific Boston Marathon attack as justification for quickly passing an amnesty, the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the failed FBI background checks of terrorism suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev indicate that the government does not have the capacity to adequately vet the backgrounds of 11 million illegal aliens, and that an amnesty might actually facilitate terrorism.
The FBI reportedly spent part of 2011 and an unknown amount of resources investigating Tsarnaev’s ties to terrorism after an apparent alert from Russian intelligence officials. The FBI said it “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign” after interviewing Tsarnaev, his family, his neighbors, and checking his travel records and Internet activity.
More details at: http://cis.org/feere/boston-bombers-background-check-highlights-amnesty-bill-flaw
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and his allies are arguing that because terrorists may be living in the United States illegally, passage of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty would benefit national security.
But the background checks in the Schumer-Rubio bill will be much less vigorous than the background check conducted by the FBI on Tsarnaev. The bill’s background check provision does not require face-to-face interviews with immigration officials. No provision requires an applicant’s neighbors or family members to be interviewed, and an applicant’s internet activity certainly will not be analyzed. Even with face-to-face interviews, the 1986 amnesty still resulted in massive amounts of fraud.
The fraudulently amnestied aliens included 1993 World Trade Center bomber Mahmud Abouhalima who used his new status to travel freely to and from the Middle East to pick up terrorist training. Had immigration law been enforced, he would have never received travel documents and instead would have been removed from the country as an illegal alien visa-overstayer, potentially preventing the attack.
Within six months of passage of the Schumer-Rubio bill, illegal aliens would be entitled to driver’s licenses, travel documents, Social Security accounts, and a significant number of state-level benefits.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony, and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
Contact: Marguerite Telford
202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org
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.