Skip to comments.Senate immigration bill 'far worse' than in '86
Posted on 07/19/2006 4:21:49 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
The latest immigration bill approved by the Senate is "far, far worse" than the 1986 immigration bill that granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens and created the magnet for the millions more who have come here since, a House panel was told at a hearing yesterday. In addition to providing legalization to about four times as many illegal aliens as did the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act , witnesses said, the current bill also repeats mistakes made 20 years ago that will render the border-enforcement provisions and employer sanctions meaningless. "The Senate amnesty would condemn the United States to the same harmful consequences that IRCA caused," James R. Edwards Jr. of the Hudson Institute told the House Judiciary's subcommittee that handles immigration. "Only now, its effects would be far, far worse." Rep. Hostettler, who is chairman of the subcommittee on immigration, border security and claims, said the problem with the 1986 legislation was that it allowed legalization before measures were put in place to enforce immigration restrictions and punish those who violated immigration laws. "Time showed us that IRCA has utterly and completely failed," he said. "Illegal immigration has not been controlled, but has increased significantly in the past two decades." Democrats on the panel, for the most part, criticized Republicans for holding what they called a "mock hearing" and accused them of trying to score political points off the explosive issue just months before the next election. Rep. Jackson-Lee of Texas, ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said the reason the 1986 bill did not work is that it was not "comprehensive" enough, a criticism she also leveled at the enforcement-only bill approved by the House last year. "Although IRCA had legalization programs and new enforcement measures, it did not address all of the essential issues," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Which RINO Senator discussed the need to add staff and funding to CIS (INS), to accomodate 12 million (minimum) applications, as opposed to the 2 million that CIS can't handle already?
The actual logistics, staff, systems, and money needed to run this absurd program always seems to be lost in the conversation.
CIS can't handle what's on its plate now, which has been the case for decades.
More proof that Congress pays no attention to voters.
If it were left to the average American there is no doubt what would be done.
1. Deport all illegal aliens. It might take time but illegal aliens can be deported as they are rounded up.
2. Seal the borders with whatever it takes to seal them.
3. Stop giving welfare-state benefits to illegal aliens.
4. Stop giving Constitutional protection to citizens of other countries.
5. Heavily fine anyone who hires illegal aliens and that includes liberals who hire illegal aliens to do their yards.
What's so hard to understand? The btutal truth must be that our government does not want to stop illegal immigration. No other explanation fits.
Where am I wrong?
Where am I wrong?
It doesn't jive with the Globalist idea of utopia.
The Senate Dems voted 39-4 [includes Jeffords who is in their caucus] FOR the bill, and the Senate Reps voted 32-23 AGANST it. Hence there are almost two DEMS for every Rep who voted for the bill. This is a Dem bill with 63% of the FOR vote coming from them.
I agree that the RINOs provided the needed votes to pass the bill, but calling it Hagel-Martinez is ridiculous. Of the 23 Senate Reps who voted for the bill, some like Frist, McConnell, Brownback, and Bennet did so because the WH wanted the bill, not because they are RINOs.
You're not wrong - the open borders/globalists we wrongly elected are the ones who are wrong, and they don't give a damn about what we want.
They need to be voted out at the next election, all of them who turn their backs on Americans in favor of globalist big bucks interests.
It's a sad day in American history when the President of the United States is leading the open borders pack and refuses to protect this country.
You're right. The government wants to replace us Americans with a more easily governed population:
"3. Stop giving welfare-state benefits to illegal aliens.
4. Stop giving Constitutional protection to citizens of other countries."
The 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' clause is what was used to force states to provide free public education to illegal aliens. I assume that is one of the Constitutional items you refer to ?
I think the welfare-state benefits should be stopped for EVERYBODY. That way nobody can complain about targeting illegal aliens, "immigrants", etc. No conflict with the 14th Amendment that way.
If people insist on keeping the welfare-state benefits for anybody, then I wonder if local taxes that pay for schools and emergency services, etc. will need to be raised sky-high to pay for them. Say a $5,000 property tax were added to each residential property unit. With a $5,000 exemption for a US Citizen's primary residence only, so effectively only the illegals would pay it ?
I wonder if that would squeak by the 14th ?
To paraphrase a member of Congress from the old days: I cannot lay my finger on that provision of the Constitution which calls for members of the Senate to kowtow to the agenda of the Executive branch.
Party loyalty isn't in the Constitution, but it is a political reality. Most members of Congress would like the WH to assist them to raise money and appear with them on the campaign trail. Of course, when the President loses his popular appeal, they try to disassociate themselves from him. Also, the President does sign (or vetoes) the bills that come from Congress.
"Senate 'far worse' than in '86" bump.