Immigration Reform - Wedge Issue

[Nbadan]

It's incredible to me that Wing-nut politicians are giving so much face-time to this issue on the M$M. Sure there is a need for greater border security, although not a fence, but no one benefits from extracting 20 million illegal aliens estimated to be in the U.S., yet this is what the hard-right wants.

45 Percent of Republicans Approve of President's Handling of Issue


President Bush's immigration reform package has badly damaged his ratings on the issue from his core supporters, with his approval rating for handling immigration plummeting among Republicans and conservatives.

Fewer than half of Republicans, 45 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, now approve of how Bush is handling immigration, down from 61 percent in April — that's a 16-point drop in six weeks. Just 35 percent of conservatives approve, down from 48 percent.

This marks one of the few times in his presidency Bush has received less than 50 percent approval from members of his own party on any issue in an ABC/Post poll. On handling the Iraq War, for comparison, he's never gone below 62 percent approval from Republicans.

Among all Americans, just 29 percent now approve of his handling of immigration, a career low. And the public trusts the Democrats in Congress over Bush to handle the issue by 48 percent to 31 percent, essentially the same as in December.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=3240208&page=1)

Demos have nothing to lose with this issue, however, a wing-nut politicians stand on this issue will alienate half his base.

[Wild Cobra]

Demos have nothing to lose with this issue, however, a wing-nut politicians stand on this issue will alienate half his base.
Agreed. We conservatives have been saying that on this issue since before the '06 elections. We conservatives have been demanding border control first. Any talk of amnesty and timelines open a greater flood of illegal migration attempts to be here in time for the benifits. Personally, once the border is controlled, I don't care if we change their status to legal. Just get control first.

The thing about the polls, most of the people polled gets their information from the news sources which reveal very little of the bad parts of the bill. If the people polled actually understood the ramifications from reading and understanding the legislation, I'll bet the numbers would change dramatically.

[nsrammstein]

Agreed. We conservatives have been saying that on this issue since before the '06 elections. We conservatives have been demanding border control first. Any talk of amnesty and timelines open a greater flood of illegal migration attempts to be here in time for the benifits. Personally, once the border is controlled, I don't care if we change their status to legal. Just get control first.

The thing about the polls, most of the people polled gets their information from the news sources which reveal very little of the bad parts of the bill. If the people polled actually understood the ramifications from reading and understanding the legislation, I'll bet the numbers would change dramatically.

This is what is stoping the senate and the house from passing comprehensive immigration reform bill, this is not about politics its about doing what's best for the US and the Democrats are trying to do what is best for the US but the conservatives are stoping them why? because conservatives think this is about policits and its not its about doing what is best for the country. The current immigration bill provides both border security and it takes care of the 12 million illegals that are here and provides a point system for future workers.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's incredible to me that Wing-nut politicians are giving so much face-time to this issue on the M$M. Sure there is a need for greater border security, although not a fence, but no one benefits from extracting 20 million illegal aliens estimated to be in the U.S., yet this is what the hard-right wants.

45 Percent of Republicans Approve of President's Handling of Issue


ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=3240208&page=1)

Demos have nothing to lose with this issue, however, a wing-nut politicians stand on this issue will alienate half his base.

Unfortunately the Dems think they have the hispanic vote to lose, which is making them as big a pack of sellouts as Bush and Co.

[Wild Cobra]

This is what is stoping the senate and the house from passing comprehensive immigration reform bill, this is not about politics its about doing what's best for the US and the Democrats are trying to do what is best for the US but the conservatives are stoping them why? because conservatives think this is about policits and its not its about doing what is best for the country.
It's a sellout. Those of us who listen to informed commentary knows it has far worse elements in it than good.

The current immigration bill provides both border security and it takes care of the 12 million illegals that are here and provides a point system for future workers.
Border security? No it doesn't. Congress passed a bill to build over 700 miles of the fence last year. About half of it is being funded from the Homeland Security budget. The other half still has no funding, and this bill doesn't fund it either. This bill does call for the building and repair of fences also, but doesn't fund it either.

We don't need them. We have able bodied workers.

That 12 million is an old number. It's probably about 20 million now.

They are too much of a strain on the social welfare system. Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Have you even attempted to read Senate Bill 1348 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1348pcs.txt.pdf)? It's 790 pages long, and some pretty ugly things are hidden in it.

I still haven't read very much of the bill. One major drawback is that everything I read so far what they say they will do on the enforcement side is "subject to the availability of appropriations." Have a clue what that means? Simple. If they don't fund it, it doesn't happen. None of the enforcement is in stone, yet the amnesty is!

I have heard several things about this. I haven't verified yet, but I believe the sources I heard it from. This bill will allow 450,000 legal immigrants a year. Now add that to those still crossing illegally, what do you have?

I also heard that the process isn't suppose to allow any of the fines and penalty process to start until half the added fence is in place. Also that all illegals will be given a provisional status.

Something else I did see is that 2/3 of the funds it speaks of will give the states with the highest problems money for enforcement. That is so laughable as my state is one of the ones with the problems. This money will make things worse as my state is a sancuary state, not one of the ones trying to enforce the law, and that is why we have so many! They get free health care, food stamps, housing, easy drivers license, etc. Consider a typical illegal scammer (names changed to protect the innocent);

Jose and his wife have three children. Jose works and makes $30,000 a year using fake social security card for employment. He works construction, and took a job that used to pay $40,000 and displaced an American worker. Because documentation is overlooked on Hispanics in my state, his wife, Maria files for food stamps, gets free housing, medical, and money. The state thinks she is single. Meanwhile, they drive a spectacular SUV. By the way. Jose pays no income tax. On his W-4 form, he claimed 6 children. He doesn't file for taxes, and changes jobs every two years under a different social security number.

This happens a whole lot more than people are aware of. They are told how to get these benefits. Most Hispanics coming here from Mexico just want a better life. I understand that. We have lost control, and countless billions are shelled out on social welfare programs that we pay for.

Now riddle me this. If they get a provisional status to work and collect social benefits, and everything later is subject to appropriations, then when will we actually get some control on the issue?

No way around it. Enforcement first. We conservatives were duped in the 1986 Amnesty bill. Keep those promised of enforcement first before making more broken promises.

[xrayzebra]

This is what is stoping the senate and the house from passing comprehensive immigration reform bill, this is not about politics its about doing what's best for the US and the Democrats are trying to do what is best for the US but the conservatives are stoping them why? because conservatives think this is about policits and its not its about doing what is best for the country. The current immigration bill provides both border security and it takes care of the 12 million illegals that are here and provides a point system for future workers.

You really don't know much about this issue do you?
We have passed bills very much like this one about
seven times and it hasn't worked.

All that is needed, simply, shut down the borders, get
control of them. Increase LEGAL immigration if needed,
enforce the laws that are ON THE BOOKS NOW. Stuff
a rag in Kennedy's fat mouth, tell him he was wrong
in the past and is wrong now and tell McCain to get
a life. Bush is wrong as two left feet on this one. I have
told him so. I don't support him on immigration.

The dirty little secret in this bill is that there are really
no penalties for the illegals. Once the bill is signed they
become legal and have to pay nothing to anyone if they
simply want to stay in the country without obtaining
the citizenship. Only those seeking citizenship have
to pay any fees and that will never happen anyhow
because the folks in DC will say it isn't fair, LULAC,
MALDEF and the rest will demand it be dropped and
it will be.

[xrayzebra]

Here is some more information on the immigration bill.



Q & A on Immigration Reform



Compiled by Heritage Foundation policy analysts

June 4, 2007





Question: Supporters say this bill does not provide amnesty to illegal immigrants. Why does Heritage disagree?

Answer: Because we’ve read the bill. It grants amnesty. Immediately.



· The provisional Z visa acts as a magic wand, instantly conveying legal status on illegal immigrants. With a provisional Z visa in hand, immigrants are instantly protected from deportation and authorized to work anywhere in the country.

· The bill stipulates that the federal government can start issuing provisional Z visas immediately upon enactment, and must start issuing them within six months.

· The bill grants illegal immigrants massive benefits (subsidized college tuition rates, free legal counsel for agricultural workers, etc.) in return for a token fee--$3,000 for an individual, $5,000 for a family of five.





Question: Why does Heritage believe this bill would actually slow down immigration enforcement measures?

Answer: Because the bill effectively puts the immigration justice system on ice.



· ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents are barred from detaining anyone who may be eligible for a Z visa. Instead, they must give those they apprehend a chance to apply for the visa. It’s like turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-exchange program.

· Immigration judges are required to close any deportation proceedings against illegal aliens if it appears they may be eligible for the Z visa.

· Even absconders who have flouted previous deportation orders can avoid deportation by showing that it would result in “extreme hardship” for himself or a family member—a loophole so huge you could drive a truck through it.





Question: Does this bill strengthen U.S. border security?

Answer: No, it does virtually nothing new to secure U.S. borders.



· Its “proposals” to increase security personnel, surveillance technology, and crossing obstacles at the border are mostly already required by laws like the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Repeating the same requirements strengthens nothing.

· Instead, the bill assures illegals of amnesty before security is tightened. Amnesty provisions would take effect as soon as the 700-mile fence required in the 2006 act is 47% complete.

· The bill uses false metrics to measure security. It repeats requirements to take security measures (additional border Patrol Agents, expanded detention facilities, vehicle barriers and fencing) without requiring any reduction in the number of illegal entries. Border security performance standards are lacking.





Question: Should Americans be worried that some of the bill’s enforcement provisions will violate their privacy?

Answer: Yes, Americans should be deeply troubled.



· The bill requires that all 7 million U.S. employers use an electronic ID system for all job applicants—even their own relatives.

· Anyone that wants a job will have to first be logged into a massive, government database so employers can verify their eligibility.

· This expensive approach raises serious concerns about invasion of privacy and identity theft.





Question: What are the fiscal costs of this legislation? How will it impact taxpayers, both in the short-term and long-term?

Answer: The proposal will generate tremendous demand for costly public services and assistance programs.



· Just paying for the retirement portion of the amnesty provision of the bill will generate a net cost of some $2.3 trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers.

· Amnesty recipients are likely to impose a net cost (benefits received, minus taxes paid) on U.S. taxpayers throughout most of their lives.





Question: Does the bill adequately address the issue of guest worker programs?

Answer: Not really.



· While the bill includes many provisions that would help create a viable Temporary Worker Program, it unfortunately requires a cumbersome, bureaucratic approach to placing guest workers in jobs.

· Specifically, it would require the U.S. Labor Department to certify the need for each job opening.

· Worse, it would require guest workers in a variety of private sector occupations to receive “prevailing wages.” Why should non-citizens be guaranteed “prevailing wages” higher than the federal minimum wage for citizens?





Question: Does the bill currently being debated in the Senate parallel the failed immigration reform law passed in 1986?

Answer: Yes. The 1986 law granted immediate legal status to individuals unlawfully in the United States, as does this proposal.



· Like the current proposal, the 1986 law included additional conditions such as a criminal background check, payment of application fees, and acquisition of English language skills. The core of the law was nevertheless an amnesty that excused the intentional violation of American laws.

· About 2.5 million individuals applied for legalization under the 1986 law. Now the unlawfully present population in the United States is estimated at five times that number.

· The framers of the 1986 Act promised rigorous enforcement of immigration laws. This included an employer verification system and a focus on workplace enforcement. These efforts failed to stem the growth of the undocumented workforce. Nevertheless, the authors of the current bill propose a similar strategy.



Question: Will this bill adequately strengthen workplace enforcement laws and penalize employers who hire illegal aliens?

Answer: The bill requires every employer to use an invasive, unreliable employment verification system that civil libertarians and personnel executives view as hopelessly impractical.



· The bill would spend $400 million to build a new Electronic Employment Verification System—a monster database that would collect biometric data, photos, Social Security information and financial and licensing records for everyone seeking employment.

· Every employer would have to screen every job applicant—immigrant, citizen, even relative—through this system or face steep penalties.

· Unfortunately, EEVS will be based on a much smaller, error-plagued program (BASIC PILOT) established by a 1996 immigration law. A 2002 evaluation of that program determined it failed to protect employee privacy from inappropriate access by employers, government agencies and outside interests.

· BASIC PILOT is also plagued by frequent “false positives,” erroneous information that cost innocent workers their jobs. The law prohibits judicial review of such mistakes, making it virtually impossible to challenge errors or recover lost wages.





Question: What new rights and privileges will illegal immigrants applying for a Z visa obtain under this legislation?

Answer: It bestows all the rights and privileges sought by legal immigrants, as well as some privileges unavailable to them… and unavailable to U.S. citizens.



· Receipt of even a probationary Z visa instantly changes an illegal immigrant’s status to “legal.” They are free to seek employment, enroll in schools, travel throughout the country, etc., ahead of those individuals who played by the rules and await the opportunity for legal entry.

· They are eligible for in-state tuition rates at state universities, thereby entitled to tens of thousands of dollars worth of taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, those on regular student visas, as well as out of state citizens, must pay tuition rates three-to-four times higher.





Question: Many have expressed concerns about how this bill was put together and the short amount of time being allotted for full Senate debate. Are those concerns legitimate?

Answer: Yes.



*

The bill was written in secret, by only a handful of Senators, and brought to the floor without any meaningful scrutiny.
o

The “final” draft bill wasn’t available until after the bill was introduced. (Last year’s failed bill was used as a “dummy” bill during the initial votes.)
o

Meanwhile, Senators were working off different versions of the bill, promoting error and confusion.
o

Even the “final” draft featured major omissions and errors.
*

There have been no committee hearings, no expert testimony given, and no significant opportunities for debate. To date, there have been only seven amendment votes, despite the fact that hundreds have been introduced.
*

The American people have not yet had a chance to study the bill fully. The Senate should let them digest it, and make their views known, before taking up this bill.






American Family Association – Tupelo, MS 38803

www.afa.net

For the young folks or folks who have kids entering college
soon, doesn't it make you feel better that they can attend
ANY college or university at in-state tuition rates and you
will have to pay higher rates if you choose a college outside
your state.

[xrayzebra]

An email response to a letter I sent to Senator Hutchison.

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX

Knowing of your interest in the issue of immigration, I wanted to send you a copy of an opinion editorial that I wrote with Senator Cornyn three weeks ago about the immigration bill currently being considered by the U.S. Senate. The editorial appeared in newspapers throughout Texas.

Secure Borders and Immigration Reform Without Amnesty

by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn

Published in Texas newspapers the week of May 21, 2007

As your U.S. Senators, we have been heavily involved in the Congressional debate on immigration reform for several years. We have taken a leadership role on this issue because we represent a state that uniquely benefits from the contributions of legal immigrants, but is also uniquely vulnerable to the dangers of illegal immigration. Throughout this process, our principles have been clear and consistent: We must secure our borders, and we cannot encourage illegal behavior through amnesty.

Last week, the Bush administration, along with a small group of Senators, announced a compromise immigration bill that would take a necessary first step in improving border security. We did not join in the announcement. While our efforts had a positive influence, we were not convinced the announced proposal guarantees repair of our current broken system. We are particularly concerned that we may be repeating the mistakes of the failed 1986 national amnesty.

As of late Friday, the actual text of the “grand compromise” had not yet been published. Major questions remain about details of the plan, and how it would work. , We believe the bill – which was negotiated privately – deserves a full public airing before it’s considered.

The bill promises some long-term positive changes, including significant border security measures, an end to chain migration, and a switch to green card distribution based on merit.

But many problems have not been satisfactorily addressed. For example, we must make certain that convicted criminals are not eligible for any legalization, and if these individuals attempt to stay here, that they are arrested and promptly deported.

We must ensure that only those who have played by the rules – and not those engaged in identity theft – receive Social Security benefits. This proposal would enable illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits for the time they were unlawfully in our country. At a time when we are already facing major shortfalls in our ability to pay benefits for future retirees, this represents an unfair burden on the American taxpayer. We must end the rampant document fraud that plagues our workplaces today, and do it in a way that is legally enforceable.

Some of our colleagues, sensing the fragile nature of the proposed compromise, want to rush it through the Congress immediately. This would be a major mistake. It is too important and too complicated to rush. The legislation requires extended Senate debate, with full opportunity for public input and criticism, and an open process for amendments to strengthen its provisions.

In 1986, the Congress approved a similar compromise plan that, in return for amnesty for most immigrants here illegally, promised an end to porous borders and disregard for our laws. Those promises were not honored. The amnesty legislation instead actually encouraged further disrespect for our laws, and led directly to the situation we face today.

As the bill reaches the Senate floor this week, our goal will be restoring the integrity of our borders, providing guest workers with opportunity, not amnesty, and preserving our social security for all who legally qualify. Our contributions to the debate will continue to be positive, and constructive.

Our country needs immigration reform. We must ensure that it’s done, and done correctly.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The bold type is my doing, no Senator Hutchison.

[mookie2001]

I dont support Bush on this one either






Its the exact opposite of conservative, a NEW kind of conservative, a neocon

[Wild Cobra]

In 1986, the Congress approved a similar compromise plan that, in return for amnesty for most immigrants here illegally, promised an end to porous borders and disregard for our laws. Those promises were not honored. The amnesty legislation instead actually encouraged further disrespect for our laws, and led directly to the situation we face today.[/B]
And this bill like I pointed out with the wording offers empty promises. The 1986 bill probably also said "subject to the availability of appropriations" when it came to the eforcement and fence aspects.