PDA

View Full Version : Senate passes immigration bill


Donger
05-25-2006, 04:14 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/immigration/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate approved an immigration bill Thursday that would toughen security at the Mexican border and grant many illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship.

The action set the stage for another battle as lawmakers try to mesh it with the stricter bill passed by the House in December.

The House version solely focused on border security and enforcement immigration law and did not contain any legalization provisions, which many conservatives, especially in the lower chamber, decry as "amnesty."

The House bill also contains a controversial provision that would make illegal immigration a felony.

The Senate legislation has a temporary-worker program, which President Bush supports but is not part of the bill the House approved.

The Senate voted Wednesday to cut off debate on its measure, setting the stage for Thursday's vote.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said that "the most contentious part" of the bill is handling the millions of immigrants now in the country.

Under the Senate bill, those who have been here two to five years would enter a temporary-worker program, while those here longer would be eligible for legal status or citizenship after an 11-year probationary period.

"I do support that provision as written in the bill," Frist said about allowing illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said, "I think it's really the only viable solution that you can arrive at, given that there's 11 million or 12 million people who are already here illegally.

"You can't send them back. The status quo is not acceptable, so you have to find a way to, I think, not forgive them and not say, 'Look, you can just be citizens,' but give them a very tough path to citizenship," McCain told ABC's "Good Morning America." (Watch McCain explain why he's proud of the immigration bill -- 4:55)

Under the Senate legislation, Illegal immigrants in the United States less than two years would be sent to their home countries.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, said that while he sees the bill easily clearing the Senate, reconciling it with the House version will require tough negotiation and compromise.

"I think one of the requirements is that it has to be a comprehensive approach, that you've got to deal with the 11 million that are here illegally, you have to deal with the future flow, and you have to secure the border," Brownback said Thursday on "Fox & Friends."

"If we do one, the rest of it isn't going to work, and you're going to be back in the same soup in a few years," he said.

McCain said he was optimistic the plans can be reconciled.

"We're not drawing any lines in the sand. And I think that already we are hearing at least some proposals from the House side that deserve consideration and certainly show some movement on their part," he said on ABC.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, noted the gulf between the two versions of the bill.

"We have two very separate and distinct directions that we're going [in] when it comes to controlling our borders, enforcing our laws, where the House was, where the Senate has provisions that go far beyond that. And I don't underestimate the difficulty in the House and Senate trying to come together in an agreement," Boehner told a news conference Thursday.

"But I'm hopeful that we will come to a resolution and pass a bill."

Boehner stressed the importance of the border issue to the House. "You can't control the problem without first strengthening the borders and beginning to enforce the laws," he said.

Frist had once supported the House version of the bill, which would send all illegal immigrants to their countries.

But the likely 2008 Republican presidential candidate said he has changed his position because "a mature understanding" over the handling of illegal immigrants has emerged in the Senate after two weeks of debate.

"Many have been assimilated into our society; 40 percent have been here longer than 10 years, have had kids go to high school and college and now have jobs," Frist said. "And therefore, we put together a compromise."

With Senate passage inevitable, a group of six Republicans held a news conference Thursday to stress their opposition to the bill -- and to ask that the House moderate its stance in conference committee.

"This legislation, I think, is well outside of what I would consider responsible reform. It's misfocused. It puts the cart before the horse," said Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, speaking with Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, George Allen of Virginia, John Cornyn of Texas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana.

Santorum said any final bill must include provisions for border security, employer verification of employees' immigration status and a temporary-worker program that fills needs in this country.

As the discussion continued in the U.S. capital, Mexican President Vicente Fox, on whose border a 370-mile fence would stand, was on a swing through three American Western states.

"Mexico believes that it will take more than just enforcement, building walls, to really solve the challenge posed by the migration phenomenon," Fox said Wednesday in Seattle, Washington, according to The Associated Press.

Donger
05-25-2006, 04:16 PM
I wonder, how exactly are they going to determine how long the illegals have been in-country?

jAZ
05-25-2006, 04:21 PM
Sounds like the Senate has it's head on straight in this case. The house on the other hand... :shake:

jiveturkey
05-25-2006, 04:36 PM
I wonder how this will affect legal immigrants.

I have a friend from India that's been here for 7 years as a computer programmer and his green card process keeps getting canceled because the companies that sponsor the process have gone under or have had hiring freezes.

I would certainly hope that immigrants that have been paying taxes and contributing valuable services would be included in this type of legislation.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 04:49 PM
I wonder how this will affect legal immigrants.

I have a friend from India that's been here for 7 years as a computer programmer and his green card process keeps getting canceled because the companies that sponsor the process have gone under or have had hiring freezes.

I would certainly hope that immigrants that have been paying taxes and contributing valuable services would be included in this type of legislation.
I think these illegals get at the back of the line once they become legal.

unlurking
05-25-2006, 05:54 PM
I wonder how this will affect legal immigrants.

I have a friend from India that's been here for 7 years as a computer programmer and his green card process keeps getting canceled because the companies that sponsor the process have gone under or have had hiring freezes.

I would certainly hope that immigrants that have been paying taxes and contributing valuable services would be included in this type of legislation.
Doubt it. To the back of the bus would be my guess.

banyon
05-25-2006, 06:08 PM
This should certainly make for an interesting conference committee. Bet the seats for that party involve some pretty hefty political favors.

unlurking
05-25-2006, 06:21 PM
Sounds like the Senate has it's head on straight in this case. The house on the other hand... :shake:
Gotta disagree on this one. Not a fan of Mr. Bush's amnesty program.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 06:30 PM
Gotta disagree on this one. Not a fan of Mr. Bush's amnesty program.
I thought they were forced to pay a fine of $2000. If so, how in the heck is that amnesty? And is it similarly amnesty for getting and paying a speeding ticket?

SBK
05-25-2006, 07:46 PM
I thought they were forced to pay a fine of $2000. If so, how in the heck is that amnesty? And is it similarly amnesty for getting and paying a speeding ticket?

$2,000 is not a big fine. Do you know how much those Coyote dudes charge?

This amnesty plan is a joke, and political pandering of the worst order I've ever seen.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 07:51 PM
$2,000 is not a big fine. Do you know how much those Coyote dudes charge?

This amnesty plan is a joke, and political pandering of the worst order I've ever seen.
Can you explain how paying a fine somehow == amnesty (http://www.answers.com/amnesty&r=67)?

It's one thing to say that these folks should pay a bigger fine, but you paint yourself as a liar and a fraud if you call paying a fine "amnesty (http://www.answers.com/amnesty&r=67)".

unlurking
05-25-2006, 09:17 PM
Do you have any idea how much it costs to become a legal citizen of this country?

I know people who have spent over $4000 in fees and paperwork (more than double that with attorney's fees), just to try get relatives into this country.

And guess what, they have to WAIT to come here until they are approved. The illegals plop down $2000 (AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PAY UNTIL EOY 2007!!!) and they get to REMAIN here while waiting for approval?!?!

Screw that jAZ. This "reform" is bullshit. Do you have any idea how many people on the waiting list will be pushed back because of this? The illegals in this country will be pushed to the FRONT of the quota count.

This is a disgusting slap in the face to anyone who immigrated legally, and a fist in the ass to any American paying to give these people healthcare and send their children to school.

Did I mention that you and I will be paying welfare based services for people for ELEVEN YEARS before they are granted or denied citizenship?!?!

jAZ
05-25-2006, 10:17 PM
This is a disgusting slap in the face to anyone who immigrated legally, and a fist in the ass to any American paying to give these people healthcare and send their children to school.
It might very well do exactly that, but it's a reality of life that these 11 million people are already here. It sucks that we didn't establish a more effective security and work visa program 20 years ago, when the problem first became noteworthy.

But we will *never* spend the effort and resources to export these people. It's a political reality that this will *never* happen.

So what does that leave? It leaves 11 million people here, who are more productive for our society than many citizens.

I think the Senate has come up with something pretty close to the best available and obtainable option.

unlurking
05-25-2006, 10:23 PM
It might very well do exactly that, but it's a reality of life that these 11 million people are already here. It sucks that we didn't establish a more effective security and work visa program 20 years ago, when the problem first became noteworthy.

But we will *never* spend the effort and resources to export these people. It's a political reality that this will *never* happen.

So what does that leave? It leaves 11 million people here, who are more productive for our society than many citizens.

I think the Senate has come up with something pretty close to the best available and obtainable option.
Not even close. Getting these people to go home wouldn't cost a single penny. In fact, it would MAKE money. Start fining companies that hire illegals. And I mean make it hurt so much that the thought of hiring illegal aliens makes them cringe. The jobs dry up, the people go home. Simple.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 10:30 PM
Not even close. Getting these people to go home wouldn't cost a single penny. In fact, it would MAKE money. Start fining companies that hire illegals. And I mean make it hurt so much that the thought of hiring illegal aliens makes them cringe. The jobs dry up, the people go home. Simple.
I'm in favor of putting much harsher penalties on the businesses that do hire illegals. However, our economy would suffer greatly by trying to squeeze these people out of the country. Think about the impact it would have on the housing market alone? 4% of all housing demand would simply vanish. Unemployment would shrink to dangerously low levels (yes there is such a thing).

The solution to this problem (like most things) is one of balance and not one of absolute ideology.

1) Secure the borders to stop the problem from getting worse
2) Keep most of the the 11 million people here
3) Give them a path to citizenship and a guest worker program
4) Hold the employers accountable with substantial penalties for non compliance

Most of this is accomplished through the Senate bill.

WoodDraw
05-25-2006, 10:41 PM
Not even close. Getting these people to go home wouldn't cost a single penny. In fact, it would MAKE money. Start fining companies that hire illegals. And I mean make it hurt so much that the thought of hiring illegal aliens makes them cringe. The jobs dry up, the people go home. Simple.

Unless this will be running off the honor system (that seems to be working well so far), some serious money will be spent enforcing the new rules. And I think you'd be disappointed with the effect of having 10+ million unemployed and disenfranchised people roaming the streets. It's kind of like inviting crime, no?

jAZ
05-25-2006, 10:54 PM
Unless this will be running off the honor system (that seems to be working well so far), some serious money will be spent enforcing the new rules. And I think you'd be disappointed with the effect of having 10+ million unemployed and disenfranchised people roaming the streets. It's kind of like inviting crime, no?
Holy crap... that never even occured to me. It costs money and takes effort to move from Kansas City to Juarez. It's substantially easier to steal and sell drugs. The "and they will just go home" is a little pie in the sky.

Hadn't thought about that.

WoodDraw
05-25-2006, 10:59 PM
Again, these solutions are just inane. For whatever reason the immigration opposition has thrown out their normal economic beliefs for whatever emotional attachments they have to "enforcement".

When did the free flow of labor and less regulation become bad things? If you want to stop illegal immigration fine, but recognize that the strong supply is there for a reason. Fix the inadequacies that lead millions to turn to illegal immigration and the whole security enforcement becomes a lot easier. Plus, it's accomplished without a laundy list of illogical regulations and counterproductive laws.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 11:08 PM
Again, these solutions are just inane. For whatever reason the immigration opposition has thrown out their normal economic beliefs for whatever emotional attachments they have to "enforcement".

When did the free flow of labor and less regulation become bad things? If you want to stop illegal immigration fine, but recognize that the strong supply is there for a reason. Fix the inadequacies that lead millions to turn to illegal immigration and the whole security enforcement becomes a lot easier. Plus, it's accomplished without a laundy list of illogical regulations and counterproductive laws.
It's an interesting issue because it unites me with Bush on one side against RWers and organized labor on the other side.

SBK
05-25-2006, 11:29 PM
Can you explain how paying a fine somehow == amnesty (http://www.answers.com/amnesty&r=67)?

It's one thing to say that these folks should pay a bigger fine, but you paint yourself as a liar and a fraud if you call paying a fine "amnesty (http://www.answers.com/amnesty&r=67)".

ROFL Ok, I am a fraud and a liar.

Anywho, I was listening to Rush today for the first time in quite sometime and I heard this segment. I will highlight the part I am talking about here. The link has the whole thing, which is quite long, but you can listen to it if you would like to hear El Rushbo conduct his broadcast excellence. ROFL (fat chance of you listening to him I know)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052506/content/immigration_stack.guest.html (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052506/content/immigration_stack.guest.html)


J. D. Hayworth, also from Arizona, who gets it, has written a piece today in National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzk5OGU3YjZiNDZlZTUwMmYxMDI0ZTVhOTQ4MGZjZTQ=): "Call It What It Is. The president's plan is an illegal-immigrant amnesty. Am-nes-ty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals." Now, J. D. starts this way. He says:

"Last week, I had the honor to travel to Arizona aboard Air Force One with President George W. Bush to see firsthand the situation along the Mexican border. President Bush is a good man, and when he is right I am among his strongest supporters in Congress. But on the issue of illegal immigration, he is profoundly wrong. In Arizona, President Bush said: 'First of all, in this debate ... nobody should be given an automatic citizenship. That's called "amnesty."' But this is a strange definition of amnesty, considering that illegal aliens aren't breaking the law by trying to become citizens they are breaking the law by crossing the border illegally. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/0.gif<A id=0009>"If you let them stay here, if you pardon them for their crime of entering the country illegally, that's an amnesty. The president is trying to redefine amnesty because he knows that admitting his plan is an amnesty would doom it. But in fact, Bush wants to add eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants in addition to letting them stay here. This makes his plan more than an amnesty call it an amnesty plus. The White House claims that the president's plan is not an amnesty because illegals will face penalties and 'benchmarks.' Here is what Tony Snow (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052506/content/eib_interview.guest.html) says awaits those who are allowed to stay under the president's plan: ... you (the illegal alien) will pay fines, you will have a criminal penalty; you will also have to pay taxes; you will also have to keep your nose clean, you can't break the law; you will also have to stay continuously employed ... you will have to pay your taxes, you will have to have a secure, tamper-proof identification.

"And when all of that is done, you get to go to the back of the line, and you wait, what, 11 years or more for a chance to become a citizen, at the end of which you have to have a command of English, as well, to be able to become a citizen. Now, with all those benchmarks, it is hard to square that with the idea of amnesty." Well, really? "Let's go through it. Illegal aliens will have to 'pay taxes': That's no penalty; they're supposed to pay taxes. In fact, according the Sen. Chuck Grassley, under Bush's plan illegals would have the option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes," and that is on Senator Grassley's website. He has a list (http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=5073&Month=5&Year=2006): "The Top 10 Flaws" of the Senate's immigration bill, and that's one of them: they only have to pay their back taxes for three or five years.

"They have to 'keep their nose clean': Big deal. So does everybody else. They have to get a tamper-proof ID card: Oh, the humanity! They'll have to stay employed: But isn't that why they came here, to do jobs Americans won't [do]? They'll have to learn English: That's [not a penalty. It's] a benefit to the illegal. Most of these 'benchmarks' would be required of any legal immigrant. They are in no way burdensome, yet [The White House] makes them sound almost oppressive. The only real punishment on the entire list is the fine. Know what it is? A measly $2,000 payable in two $1,000 installments. When you consider what illegals get for their two grand, it's the deal of a lifetime. The penalty for using a phony Social Security card is a fine of up to $250,000 and/or five years in jail.

"But Bush wants illegals to get pardoned for that serious crime and all their other immigration-related crimes. In the president's plan, illegals get to have what they earned illegally counted toward Social Security benefits for themselves and their survivors. They get to send their children to American schools and bring their family into the country. They get access to public services, including the best health care in the world, and they get to enter and leave the country freely. In other words, they get to do everything a regular citizen can do except vote and serve on a jury. To top it off, illegals are allowed not only join the citizenship queue, but also to legally live and work here while they wait.

"This privilege is worth thousands upon thousands of dollars for any individual illegal. And for the child of an illegal who is born in the United States and thus becomes an automatic citizen during this time, the privilege is almost priceless: John O'Sullivan (http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200604140919.asp) writes that the going rate for a green card on the world market is $100,000. If for some reason you still think Bush's plan is tough on illegal immigrants, ask yourself what would happen if we set up a booth at the border charging $2,000 to come and live and work in the U.S. with the possibility of citizenship down the road. My guess is the line would stretch from Nogales to Buenos Aires and we'd erase our budget deficit overnight. The idea that this plan would be onerous for illegals is insulting, especially to legal immigrants who have patiently gone through the laborious process of lawfully coming into this country. The American people see through this...spin."

and this too...

There's something else (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060522-122916-4917r.htm) to consider, too: "Under current law, simply entering the country illegally can result in a six-month prison stay and a $250,000 fine. Aiding in that crime carries a similar fine and a five-year prison sentence. Once ordered deported, an illegal racks up $500 per day of continued 'illegal presence.' In addition, there are the perjury and false statements associated with fraudulently filling out federal tax forms. Each instance carries up to a five-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

"Also, there are crimes relating to the misuse of Social Security numbers needed to obtain work. Those crimes can result in five years in prison and a $250,000 fine." So let's review: Under the Senate's amnesty plan, a US citizen committing forgery and tax fraud could get 25 years in jail. An illegal alien committing forgery and tax fraud, US citizenship is what they get! No jail time, and they get to keep the Social Security benefits of the forgery and the fraud -- and yet they maintain that this is not amnesty.

KC Jones
05-26-2006, 06:21 AM
Again, these solutions are just inane. For whatever reason the immigration opposition has thrown out their normal economic beliefs for whatever emotional attachments they have to "enforcement".

When did the free flow of labor and less regulation become bad things? If you want to stop illegal immigration fine, but recognize that the strong supply is there for a reason. Fix the inadequacies that lead millions to turn to illegal immigration and the whole security enforcement becomes a lot easier. Plus, it's accomplished without a laundy list of illogical regulations and counterproductive laws.

So make America poorer with shittier living conditions and then we won't have this problem?

Or do you propose massive American investments to make Mexico a place people will want to stay?

We have absolutely valid reasons for having borders and controlling who crosses them.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 08:14 AM
WoodDraw and jAZ...

Regarding enforcement, their is ALREADY a database in place with a 1-800 number for employers to call and verify SSNs. The problem is that using it is voluntary. Make it a mandatory process, all you would need to do is hire more operators.

As far as the cost of enforcement, have you not been listening to the news or reading the papers?!?! Over 2000 illegals were caught in EMPLOYER raids in the last month or two alone. From all reports I've heard, 90% of those illegals were released. If the employers were actually PUNISHED, the fines would cover the cost of increasing enforcement. Hell, if growing a single plant in my home allows the DEA to legally confiscate and sell all my posessions to fill their coffers, I think employing 50+ illegals should easily cover some added operating costs.

Which brings me to the drug mythos. Numbers are pretty wildly debated, but I think everyone agrees that a significant portion of the drugs in this country are imported from Mexico. Securing the border would help keep these people from being able to "turn to that". This is just a straw-man. Besides, give officers the ability to do something about them (rather than simply releasing them), and I am not worried.

And traveling from KC to Juarez is a HELL of a lot cheaper than you think. Have you never seen those Mexican tour buses? If they can't afford that, all they have to do is drop by a police station and say please deport me. Since it won't be an "all-at-once" thing, they will slowly trickle in. Hell, the $1000 estimate I heard that each CA resident pays for subsidizing illegals should cover the cost of buying them bus tickets home.

As far as "housing market" goes, that's a crock too. A landscaping company my father used in Denver is owned by a legal immigrant, and staffed by illegals. They all live in the owners basement through the season, and then go home for the winter. That will have ZERO impact on the housing market. Most of these people aren't buying homes, their living 4 or 5+ to a room, or crowding into someone else's basement.

These are all just rhetoric and propagandist claims that enable business's to keep cheap labor.

Bush and his FTAA is crap.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 08:44 AM
As far as "housing market" goes, that's a crock too. A landscaping company my father used in Denver is owned by a legal immigrant, and staffed by illegals. They all live in the owners basement through the season, and then go home for the winter. That will have ZERO impact on the housing market. Most of these people aren't buying homes, their living 4 or 5+ to a room, or crowding into someone else's basement.
Listen to yourself. You are speaking in false absolutes. You might be right that some are living in people's basements. And you are probably right that many are living together with up to 5 people in one place. But that's not all of the activities going on here. It's likely the convenient extremes that advance your arguement. These people are a massive fixture of our economy. Had the problem not been allowed to grow (and a guest worker program been established decades ago), the illegals themselves would be a much smaller impact upon our society. But we are not living in such a world. we are living in a world where 4-6% of our entire population consists of these undocumented, illegal migrant workers. They buy clothes, rent apartments, drive cars, buy gas, eat food get their nails done, etc.

Your willingness to use a singlular experience to write off common sense ans assert that removing these 11M people from our economy would result in "ZERO impact" is intellectually dishonest.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 08:45 AM
That will have ZERO impact on the housing market

...

These are all just rhetoric and propagandist claims that enable business's to keep cheap labor.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 09:03 AM
OK, we'll say it has some impact, although it is being greatly overexagerated if you count HOW MUCH WE PAY for these people. CA estimates that it's residents pay $1000 a year for services. I live in CO, which is also a sanctuary state (to my utter disgust).

If my home doesn't appreciate for a year, OH NOES! If I have to pay $1000 a year extra for services I normally get, OH NOES!

Republican Party = Too bent on making money at the corporate level to do what's right for the people.

Democratic Party = Too afraid to do ANYTHING that might mean having to work to fix something.

jAZ, you're swallowing this doom 'n gloom about immigration reform the same way you chastise people for swallowing the terrorism doom 'n gloom.

Donger
05-26-2006, 09:17 AM
This is a disgusting slap in the face to anyone who immigrated legally, and a fist in the ass to any American paying to give these people healthcare and send their children to school.

Yes, yes it is. However, I've come to accept that rounding up and deporting 12 million people simply isn't going to happen. I think that the house is being somewhat over-aggressive and the senate too lenient. Hopefully, they'll meet somewhere in the middle.

And, this is all moot of they don't seal the border.

I still don't understand how they will ascertain how long the illegals have been here, though.

Donger
05-26-2006, 09:19 AM
Listen to yourself. You are speaking in false absolutes. You might be right that some are living in people's basements. And you are probably right that many are living together with up to 5 people in one place. But that's not all of the activities going on here. It's likely the convenient extremes that advance your arguement. These people are a massive fixture of our economy. Had the problem not been allowed to grow (and a guest worker program been established decades ago), the illegals themselves would be a much smaller impact upon our society. But we are not living in such a world. we are living in a world where 4-6% of our entire population consists of these undocumented, illegal migrant workers. They buy clothes, rent apartments, drive cars, buy gas, eat food get their nails done, etc.

Your willingness to use a singlular experience to write off common sense ans assert that removing these 11M people from our economy would result in "ZERO impact" is intellectually dishonest.

Have you considered that many (if not most) of these illegals have no desire to become legal? I'm of the opinion that not even half will sign up.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 09:56 AM
Have you considered that many (if not most) of these illegals have no desire to become legal? I'm of the opinion that not even half will sign up.
I think the biggest threat to not signing up is not trusting the system to do what it promises and they will end up in jail or deported. I'm sure there is some portion of the population that won't use the system by choice. But we will narrow down the pool substantially and reduce the burden of oversight by 50-75% or more.

Same applies to the border security.

If you provide a mechanism for legal entry for those with employment arrangements, many fewer people will risk the trek across the desert illegally. Leaving the only people moving across the borders and through the desert to be those that we really need to be concerned with (drug runners, terrorists, criminals, etc).

unlurking
05-26-2006, 10:13 AM
I think the biggest threat to not signing up is not trusting the system to do what it promises and they will end up in jail or deported. I'm sure there is some portion of the population that won't use the system by choice. But we will narrow down the pool substantially and reduce the burden of oversight by 50-75% or more.

Same applies to the border security.

If you provide a mechanism for legal entry for those with employment arrangements, many fewer people will risk the trek across the desert illegally. Leaving the only people moving across the borders and through the desert to be those that we really need to be concerned with (drug runners, terrorists, criminals, etc).

Burden of oversight??? There currently IS NO oversight. If you think managing this amnesty program (what else do you call giving someone who commits a crime a free pass) will be cheaper than enforcing CURRENT laws, you're crazy.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 10:24 AM
...
I still don't understand how they will ascertain how long the illegals have been here, though.

My guess is we will just TRUST them. :shake:

Apparently people are being led to believe that enforcement of the laws is too costly, so you really don't think we could afford to do background checks on them do you? And how are we supposed trust 200,000 people all using the same name and SSN for employment history?

Can't afford to inspect business or raid factories? My god how will we afford to staff and run the amnesty program?!?! :eek:

I know, we'll create a new department to handle everything!!!

Department of Sell Our Liberties and Country for Thirty Pieces of Silver.

<rant off>

Sorry Donger, not aiming at you. This policy is just really offensive to me.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 01:00 PM
The Senate Bill is so friggin putrid it's unbelievable. The rotten bastards sold us out and they are going to regret it come election time. Fortunately, the House KNOWS they are up for reelection and are not going to have any of this shite. They will take all of 30 seconds to tell the Senate Committee where and how deep they can stick this crock of shite.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 01:14 PM
(what else do you call giving someone who commits a crime a free pass)
Since when is $2000 "free"?

Can I have my $2000 free? Why don't you give me $2000 free? Shouldn't cause you any pain, it's "free", right?

Come on man. There is room to discuss this issue WITHOUT abusing the language and shredding all sense of your credibility on this issue in the process.

Your POV isn't without merit, but just stop lying about "free pass" and "amnesty" when what's proposed is a $2000 fine.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 01:21 PM
Since when is $2000 "free"?

Can I have my $2000 free? Why don't you give me $2000 free? Shouldn't cause you any pain, it's "free", right?

Come on man. There is room to discuss this issue WITHOUT abusing the language and shredding all sense of your credibility on this issue in the process.

Your POV isn't without merit, but just stop lying about "free pass" and "amnesty" when what's proposed is a $2000 fine.
Actually, he is 100% correct. READ THE BILL. They will be allowed to claim EIC on their taxes. What does that mean? They will get approximately the same amount in free money as they would have to pay in the so called "fine". It is nothing more than Senatorial sleight of hand. I am surprised you didn't pick up on that.

EDIT: BTW, it is amnesty if they are allowed to stay after breaking the law.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 01:28 PM
Actually, he is 100% correct. READ THE BILL. They will be allowed to claim EIC on their taxes. What does that mean? They will get approximately the same amount in free money as they would have to pay in the so called "fine". It is nothing more than Senatorial sleight of hand. I am surprised you didn't pick up on that.

EDIT: BTW, it is amnesty if they are allowed to stay after breaking the law.
You are kidding right?

First, EIC a component of our income tax system. It has nothing to do with or without amnesty. A $2000 fine is a $2000 fine. You take away the $2000 fine and we will have an EIC.

Second, look up the defintion of "amnesty". It is a "general pardon granted by a government". A $2000 fine is not a pardon, it's a punishment.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 01:36 PM
You are kidding right?

First, EIC a component of our income tax system. It has nothing to do with or without amnesty. A $2000 fine is a $2000 fine. You take away the $2000 fine and we will have an EIC.

Second, look up the defintion of "amnesty". It is a "general pardon granted by a government". A $2000 fine is not a pardon, it's a punishment.

No. I think you are either kidding or delusional. By qualifying ILLEGALS to STAY in the country WHERE THEY BROKE THE EFFING LAW and levying a "fine" that 'coincidentally' is the approximate amount they will receive from a tax benefit that ILLEGALS are not entitled to, they are receiving AMNESTY. No requirement to go home. No requirement to actually have to come out of pocket. The gubment is going to give them their "fine" money. You are trying to split hairs to put the best face on a bill that f*cks the American people, especially the middle class, in the hopes that the Democraps can somehow save face before the election with a nice spin job.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 02:10 PM
No. I think you are either kidding or delusional. By qualifying ILLEGALS to STAY in the country WHERE THEY BROKE THE EFFING LAW and levying a "fine" that 'coincidentally' is the approximate amount they will receive from a tax benefit that ILLEGALS are not entitled to, they are receiving AMNESTY. No requirement to go home. No requirement to actually have to come out of pocket. The gubment is going to give them their "fine" money. You are trying to split hairs to put the best face on a bill that f*cks the American people, especially the middle class, in the hopes that the Democraps can somehow save face before the election with a nice spin job.
Exactly!

And the fact that they have until the end of 2007 to pay the $2000 is laughable.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 02:14 PM
Since when is $2000 "free"?

Can I have my $2000 free? Why don't you give me $2000 free? Shouldn't cause you any pain, it's "free", right?

Come on man. There is room to discuss this issue WITHOUT abusing the language and shredding all sense of your credibility on this issue in the process.

Your POV isn't without merit, but just stop lying about "free pass" and "amnesty" when what's proposed is a $2000 fine.
The $2000 is less of a punishment, and more of a "sale". That's crap and you know it. Can anyone wanting to get in this country pay $2000 and STAY (sucking up services) while awaiting for approval?

Christ man, that's like going to a confessional asking for absolution for adultery.

Priest: Have you ended the affair?
Man: No, and I plan to continue shaggin' that bitch for several more years.
Priest: OK, $2000 and all is forgiven my son.

EDIT: I'll gladly give you $2000, if it means I can rob the liquor store across the street over and over and over and over and over again.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 02:15 PM
Exactly!

And the fact that they have until the end of 2007 to pay the $2000 is laughable.

Oh, but the horsecrap doesn't stop there. EMPLOYERS who hired illegals will receive amnesty as well! Let me see if that's fair. Hmmm....:hmmm: If I break FEDERAL LAW, I should get a stern talking to for my efforts just like them, right? :hmmm: And the measly 375 mile barrier on a TWO THOUSAND MILE border is likewise horsecrap.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 02:18 PM
Christ man, that's like going to a confessional asking for absolution for adultery.

Priest: Have you ended the affair?
Man: No, and I plan to continue shaggin' that bitch for several more years.
Priest: OK, $2000 and all is forgiven my son.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

REP.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 02:19 PM
Yep, this is a total ****ing snow job.

But, as others have stated, I guess it's just not cost-effective to enforce current laws regarding employers.

/sarcasm

The US is getting shafted by BOTH parties on this.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 02:23 PM
Yep, this is a total ****ing snow job.

But, as others have stated, I guess it's just not cost-effective to enforce current laws regarding employers.

/sarcasm

The US is getting shafted by BOTH parties on this.

That's because the majority of the Senate is effing SPINELESS. ALL the Dems and half of the Reps. Thank goodness no Missouri Senator voted in favor of this horseshit.

unlurking
05-26-2006, 02:34 PM
I have to admit, this will be the first time I go to the polls and vote based on a single issue.