Posted on 04/07/2006 5:19:38 AM PDT by GarySpFc
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
First time I've heard/seen this. Thanks EC!
I would say that when it comes to matters such as illegal aliens that the states should not have any ability to make self determinations.
Immigration into the republic is a matter for the feds and the feds alone.
In an instance like this it would only take California delaring it unconstitutional to not give them in state tuition to have that cascade into states that did not grant it and did not want to.
ya, it's not pretty, and folks really don't want too many people knowing this. The MSM has been completely silent. These spontaneous rallies are anything but. They are an act in a play to pull the wool over our eyes.
Feel free to post this link if you like. People NEED to know!
A 'Whoooa, Silver! Steady, big fellow!' bump.
That's reasonable.
The argument for providing illegal aliens in-state tuition of course is that the children have met the "residency requirements", and we shouldn't punish them for the crimes of their parents.
Also, since we know that attending college will make people more productive citizens, we might have a vested interest in educating them.
My response is that whe the college is rejecting in-state legal residents because they don't have money or room, we shouldn't be letting in illegals.
The crazy lady from Rush's program yesterday might instead argue that if we let illegals go to college, they'll be as uppity as americans, and we'll have to get a whole knew batch of illegals to come to the menial jobs we are too educated to do.
(If you didn't catch her, she argued we needed illegal immigrants because 30 years ago 43% of us didn't have a high school diploma, and now it was only 9%, so we didn't have enough ignorant people for the unskilled jobs).
I found the following from a McCain Press Release dated April 6, 2006.
Senators McCain and Kennedy first introduced The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 in May 2005. The bill was a bipartisan, bicameral, comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill cosponsored by Senators Brownback (R-KS), Lieberman (D-CT), Graham (R-SC), and Salazar (D-FL), and in the House by Congressmen Kolbe, Flake and Gutierrez.Doing a search for The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act at thomas.loc.gov turns up S. 1033, but that hasn't been updated since May 12, 2005.
Maybe this is the reason that fool judge who sat in on the Radio Factor yesterday was for this shamnesty?
You're response is reasonable as well, if Amercina citizens are getting denied illegals should nt be going at all.
I heard about her, typical wall street liberal, doesn't want to have to do her own housework but also doesn't want to have to pay anyone above slave wages.
She's as big a scum as the illegals she employs.
Thanks for the ping.
The sad thing is that most of our Senators probably don't even know this is in the bill. Not that they'd necessarily even object if they did...
They crafted this thing with five people at midnight and everyone was just to get in line in matter of hours and endorse it. Pathetic.
And they wonder why the American people aren't inclined to discuss what to do with current illegal immigrants and future immigrants? It's because they (rightly) do not trust D.C. has any interest in securing our borders. And this is further proof.
Borders first.
THEN we'll talk once they've established their sincerity.
Senate voting now on Hagel/Martinez Amendment
CSPAN 2
Mr. Martinez voted NO ---- and it is his amendment.
Please keep us posted on the votes.
Multiply that by the factor of unknown alien terrorists, that are really here, fruaudulently or not. Ninety-four is unrealistic, considering the aggregate of the hives.
Mr. Hagel votes NO.
Un-FReaking-believable ....!
Suspicious, it would seem to me that if they are voting no then something much more liberal than what they have in their amendment is in the compromise.
Hagel voted no on cloture of his own bill?
Leenie, clue us in! Are anchor babies NOT citizens?? thought I knew the Constitution.
Bumpin' the hell outta this one.
That was apparently a cloture vote on the Hagel/Martinez amendment. It failed significantly.
Frist asks for a 10-minute vote on some other amendment. Bill #S2454. This is a procedural vote on Frist's border security bill.
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.