What will be in this Super Secret Immigration Bill?
I. just. don't. know.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Immigration — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As Erick reported, we were told that there was going to be a draft immigration bill. Now, we're told that there is no complete bill yet. The staff lawyers and throwing it together as we type or read, and it won't be ready until tomorrow at the earliest. This won't matter to us, of course, because we won't see it until it is put on the web site until after the vote. The vote will be as late as Tuesday, so we might not see it until Wednesday at an earliest. It is what Erick has heard from the sources on the Hill. (And may God bless them all.)
What will be in this SUPER SECRET immigration bill? Maybe they're guaranteeing that the illegals will receive $400 haircuts. Or free tickets to Padres games. Or genuine William Jefferson refrigerators. Harry Reid will help them with the land deals required to find residence. One of Paris Hilton's Get Out of Jail Free cards. A position in the soon-to-be-created U.S. Bureau of Paying Jobs for People who Need to Stay in the Country.
I have nothing against honest, hard-working immigrants of any kind. My gripe, right now, is with the Congress.
Perhaps Congress wants to give them Surplus Cheese. Or to require them to join Labor Unions
Play really bad '90s music at the border to repel those who would cross the border without a note from their parents or a judge.
This will work out, though they'll probably have to whittle it down to a more manageable length; I don't know, 750-pages not including footnotes, endnotes, appendices, and obiter dicta.
What do you think are the secrets?
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | There is No Bill — Comments (54) »
What will be in this Super Secret Immigration Bill? 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We have a lot of time to protest. And if we're going to protest, we'd better do it now. So let's get the phones working.
The AMNESTY bill has lots of dark secrets which cannot stand the daylight. Hence the vote before the bill, and before the people have a chance to see what is being done.
Maybe someone will put a hold on the vote?
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. It's time for everyone who reads this blog and everyone who has ever believed in enforcing our immigration laws to flood the Capitol, flood the White House, and absolutely make our presence known with calls, emails and letters.
If we do not do this now, we'll never be able to do it.
It bothers be that Kennedy\Bush are negotiating these amnesty bills in the dead of night. Aren't they both supposed to be out drunk driving or something...
over 78% of Americans want the border enforced first before anything else and yet the ego driven congress has decided that they know better then the majority of the American public. I forsee a "Boston" tea party where the public demands representation before taxes are paid:-)
the polls I have seen show that a large majority of Americans are in favor of a path to legalization
There is strong agreement on several measures to fix the immigration problem. Three in four (74%) voters agree that we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants before we address what to do about those already here. Two in three (63%) Latino voters agree with this statement as well. Voters cite the employment of illegal immigrants as a key factor in eliminating the problem. Voters think the best way to secure the United States-Mexican border is to prevent illegal immigrants from being hired for jobs in the United States (36%). Additionally, voters also say that the best way to stop illegal immigration is to stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants (23%).
Voters also seem to be in favor of tougher laws on deportation. Repealing local sanctuary laws that protect illegal immigrants by requiring local and state police to detain illegal immigrants when they are arrested or stopped for other crimes and to hold them for deportation is supported by 77% of voters and 67% of Latino voters. Nearly seven in 10 voters (68%) support enacting a new immigration policy of “zero tolerance,” where any illegal immigrant in the United States would be deported to their country of citizenship. Fewer Latino voters (56%) support this proposal.
The first poll does indeed show a majority of people in favor of doing enforcement first. I do have a bone to pick about the wording though, it might imply that we can only do one at a time. As to your second reply, did you look further down the paper where it talked about paths to legalization? The poll still showed a majority ( or plurality) in favor of a path to legalization, so the poll pretty much fit into the other polls I have seen, people are in favor of stricter enforcement, and they are also in favor of a path to legalization.
.. are and will not be contained in the bill! To see the secrets, examine the proposals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the emerging proposals involving the new "Amerocurrency".
IT's downright sinister...
Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
it says "Vote for Fred" (or maybe it's "Paul is dead" - it was a little garbled...)
On tonight's O'Reilly Factor he called the bill what it is. He called it the Amnesty Bill.
Also, he had some interesting facts. 60% of all illegal aliens in the country are high school drop-outs. And do you know what it cost each US taxpayer per year for each illegal alien in the country? $19,000!
I can't even given my grandchild that each year and he is a natural born citizen! We are led by fools!
Mexico in exchange for three packets of ketamine and a can of pork n' beans.
*Or* because the bill deals with immigration, and since it hasn't been written yet, we don't know what it says. I know that doesn't matter to most of the people commenting here today, but we're sticklers for that sort of thing.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
if proponents of the bill weren't already talking it up to the press. Why not take the proponents' description of the bill at face value? It certainly won't be any *better* than what they describe, now will it?
Then the Z visas don't kick in until the border is secure and workplace enforcement is in place, and you have to pay a $5000 fine (which no migrant worker I know can afford) before you can get one. You also can't bring your kids with you unless you can certify that you have health insurance for them *AND* you're 150% above poverty level, so that they won't be SUCKING ALL THE RESOURCES OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. Additionally, the Z visas are going to be handed out on the basis of a merit system and be contingent upon passing a background check and staying clean for a year, so the no skill ruffians I keep hearing about need not apply. Also, if you want to apply for permanent residence, you have to go back to your home country to do it, and you have to get in line behind those who are currently in line.
In other words, if I take the proponents of the bill at face value, it's 1) not amnesty (unless amnesty is defined as "any solution short of mass deportation") and 2) a pretty good bill, in my estimation. Certainly the best one that could be expected in light of the "elections have consequences" principle.
What I'm waiting for when it comes to seeing the bill is if the drafters put in there language that would have a likelihood of defeating these provisions.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
All the illegals get probationary legal status with immediate effect. That is they are made legal. To use a word you hate, they are given amnesty. There is no trigger for this.
The "triggers" will only determine when the legals (now to be the legals) can apply for a "path to citizenship".
IF they decide to apply for that path, then there are some fines/fees and so forth that will come into effect.
But the whole deal starts with an immediate amnesty. There is no question about it.
The problem, as usual, is that some people are using "amnesty" to mean "the granting of US citzenship". Clearly that is not what the word means. If understood in its proper meaning, as "an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole", then there is no dodging the fact that this is an amnesty.
I'll repeat this point from time to time. I'm sure it will be neccessary.
The information I have says clearly that even probationary benefits are not available until the triggers are met. There is no ambiguity about this point whatsoever. I guess we'll see when the bill comes out who is right, but I guess it makes sense to call it an "immediate amnesty" in the interim until we can figure out what it all says. No sense in giving the bill a fair shake (or actually reading it), after all. Just ask Mitt, who is clearly not engaging in pandering of the basest sort right now.
The outline I have says nothing - nothing about a path to citizenship. It says some things about a path to permanent residency. THere's a significant difference. Also, the payment of at least $1,000 will be mandatory and up front, even if they never apply for permanent residency.
If understood in its proper meaning, as "an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole", then there is no dodging the fact that this is an amnesty.
An act of forgiveness usually does not mean, inter alia, the levying of a $5,000 fine. I'll repeat this point from time to time. I'm sure it will be necessary.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
....when he knows that it is pretty much universally disapproved of by conservatives? Bush has nothing to lose, his popularity is in the tank and he's not running for reelection. Why is he bucking his base so blantantly and enthusiastically? What is the reasoning here?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The upper crust, Pious blueblood. They are filled with paternal affection to all the have nots, In the past it would have been blacks who they wished to bestow their affection on, but in todays world its the hispanics. You have to understand he really does believe that we need more and more of these industrious brave people and that they have no net negative effect on the nations unity, laws, or economy.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Precisely when Sen. Kyl went on CNN to (justifiably) announce chain migration would be eliminated in the final bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed "concerns" about that very provision. Sen. Reid assured everyone chain migration would remain the very same as always, thank you, and any illegal alien with a crippled uncle abroad could sponsor the poor guy to come to the United States and draw SSI and help bankrupt Social Security.
This is a great country.
If ever there were a blanket indictment of the state of this nation and both political parties, there it is. A respected United States senator was suckered into a "compromise," and the only thing he apparently extracted was given the death penalty as he announced it.
Meanwhile back at the lunatic asylum, our fine idiots in the United States Senate have not even finalized the bill, yet the White House and the left-wing and corporate hooker senators who support this nonsense have sent out their spinners to promote it. I even understand talking points were issued prior to the end of negotiations. My two GOP senators told everyone in the state the bill wasn't amnesty as a result--even as negotiations continued. I will name their names if they don't admit what happened by the morning. I'm sure it happened elsewhere.
There is a reason the GOP is referenced as the "Stupid Party." Today, as our near single-digit president stood with the fine folks who would cut his throat, he praised the love he felt.
Makes me feel comfortable about my national security. Indeed.
Now's the time to go to war. Whatever I can do... whatever this blog can do... we must.
at least McAmnesty's political career (in republican party) is over.
I have been a fanatical Bush supporter. No more. This is the end for me. I will support Bush's impeachment and any punishment lefties can think of. This man is a disgrace and danger to this country. He is a traitor. As for republicans who support amnesty: I will never support any of you.
I don't care about 2008 elections anymore or even Iraq war. What's the point? We'll have 75% tax rate and liberal super majority forever.
Mexico controls its southern border. Why can't we?
No, try really bad 60s music. Bobby Fuller Four. "I Fought the Law and the Law Won." Drove Noreiga to give up.
the ultimate torture is an endless loop of Yoko Ono, nothing even comes close.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I am certainly not one to draw premature conclusions without having read the entire bill. That said, the significant spin putatively representing this legislation as not having amnesty appears somewhat foretelling.
Why is there such an effort to promote this bill absent a review of the text? Why are there different representations of the same issue being made by the parties? Is this the way a democracy works; rely on faith and trust without supporting text to make final judgment. Nonsense is my retort, certainly no government in history absent tyranny has ever relied on such suspicious modus operandi
Surely this is in the interest of bipartisanship which we have heard so much about. Do OUR representatives use that nomenclature because they believe it sonorous to the citizenry? Certainly, they think us not to be fools who if provided pleasing platitudes will dismiss their increasingly corrupt and disconnected governance.
If passed without examination and including provisions demanded by our populace this will be a Pyrrhic victory. It will strongly say that government know better than those they allegedly represent, increasing the mistrust, changing the face of this nation and burdening future generations. This is not the time for legislative prestidigitation. It is a time for open, honest and frank discussion something that appear lacking in the current tactics.
We want nothing more than sound and fiscally responsive immigration legislation. We are not xenophobic, hateful or prejudice; nor are we grounded in any of the other fallacious mischaracterizations. It would be both misleading and dishonest to think otherwise.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
FYI:
Link to bill text for S.1348
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348:
Dated curiously May 9, 2007 (not today) Hmmmm.
This is Bush's domestic version of Iraq. Our president is dumber than a rock. He has messed our foreign policy up completely, and caused the country to vote Democrat in 2006.
Now he wants to create a even bigger domestic disaster version of his foreign policy here with his open borders bills.
of the situation in Iraq we are fighting AQ, killing them and we will defeat them if given time.
My fear is that this stupidity will drop the hard core 33% support that Bush has left. Pushing this bill right now may be the nail in the coffin that the left has been looking for.
The big push should have been the war funding bill. Now we have this bill as our priority? Something is seriously wrong.
I think that was the original point, as naive as it may have seemed at first blush.
I have concluded this Administration doesn't care if we either win or lose in Iraq (a position I don't hold, by the way). Bush simply wants to punt what he views as an inevitable defeat to the next president. I hope to be proved wrong, but don't expect to be.
I obviously can't speak for the Directors, but suspect the above isn't foreign to them, either.
You mean the amnesty bill..