May 28: Immigration bill faces fire

Despite Congress being in recess for a week, the debate over a bipartisan immigration proposal continued with full force, with lawmakers on both sides raising objections.

One prominent critic of the deal, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.), said that the proposal improves on current law. But she had grave concerns, she said, over a provision that would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the United States without returning home to apply for legal status.

"That is what is causing the amnesty outcry, that you can stay here, you will never have to go home, as long as you don't want the permanent green card," she said on "Fox News Sunday."

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) criticized two elements of the bill that many Democrats have found objectionable.

Menendez opposed a provision that would give more weight toward job skills and English skills than to family ties in deciding who gets residency, a break with long-standing immigration law.

"It undermines the very core of family reunification, and in my mind, in the long term, it tears families apart," Menendez said on ABC's "This Week."

And he said a temporary-worker program in the bill "creates a permanent underclass." The program would allow illegal immigrants to take low-wage jobs in the United States for two-year rotations, but such people could not apply for permanent residency. "I think that ... exacerbates the very essence of what we're trying to resolve once and for all," Menendez said.

But Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, an architect of the bill, responded on the same show that the temporary-worker program responds to the needs of the "marketplace." He added, "Unless we have a legal system by which we can bring in temporary workers, then we're leaving a void that can be filled by illegals, and that's exactly what we're trying to avoid."

And as for families, Gutierrez said the legislation would relieve the constant stress undocumented families experience because of their illegal status.

2008: The Second Tier

Long-shot presidential candidates -- and longer-shot presidential candidates -- made the rounds this morning. Here are highlights for each:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) went on NBC's "Meet the Press," where most of the 50 minutes were dedicated to substance. But the appearance also included perhaps the most amusing exchange this year on the Sunday talk shows.

Host Tim Russert asked Richardson, who attended a boarding school and college in Massachusetts, if he is a fan of baseball's Boston Red Sox.

"I'm a Red Sox fan," Richardson said.

But Russert pointed out that Richardson told the Associated Press earlier this year that his dream job, if he were not running for president, would be playing for the New York Yankees - the Red Sox's archrival.

"I've always been a Red Sox fan. But I said if I weren't running for president, I would like to be No. 7 -- Mickey Mantle -- playing center field for the New York Yankees," Richardson told Russert.

Russert warned: "You can have different views of immigration, assault weapons, but when it comes to Red Sox-Yankees fans," you have to decide.

"My favorite team has always been the Red Sox. I'm a Red Sox fan. End of session," Richardson said. "I'm also a Yankees fan."

"This is the thing about me, I can bring people together," Richardson said.

"Red Sox fans and Yankee fans - not a chance," Russert chided.

Now, for the substance:

* Richardson wants all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of the year, saying, "Our presence has caused what I believe is a civil war." Pressed by Russert, who suggested that Richardson's Iraq plan "is not being supported by anybody of consequence," the candidate said two military experts, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and former Pentagon official Philip Coyle, backed it.

* Richardson said Democrats "missed a great opportunity" when they decided to send President Bush a war funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal. He said he would prefer a "de-authorization resolution ... which basically allows Congress to determine whether we're at war or not."

* Confronted with a passage from his book saying about Iraq, "We must see this situation through," Richardson said he regretted supporting the war in the first place and regretted not pushing for more diplomatic efforts early on, but he said he now believes it is time to go.

* Richardson, who earlier said he supported the immigration bill, has now come out against it, and explained his main concerns are "there are no labor protections for those guest workers" and the proposal to build a wall between Mexico and the United States, which he called a "terrible symbol"

* Richardson said he believes "nuclear power should be part of the mix" in securing the nation's energy independence and said technology would be key in devising ways to store waste.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and made the following points:

* He wants to shut down the Internal Revenue Service and replace income and corporate taxes with a "Fair Tax" -- a 23 percent consumption tax. "I'd like to be the president that nails the going-out-of- business sign on the Internal Revenue Service doors, a $10 billion-a-year industry," Huckabee said.

* Asked about reports by three fiscally conservative organizations -- the Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth -- that Huckabee hiked taxes and increased spending as Arkansas governor, he defended his actions, saying he did so only when the vast majority of the electorate favored such policies or when ordered to do so by a court.

* Huckabee said he was unique among the Republican field because of his emphasis on issues frequently not discussed -- such as the importance of preventive health care and the use of music and the arts in education -- but he acknowledged that his campaign could shutter if he does not do well in the August straw poll in Ames, Iowa.

Former Virginia governor James Gilmore (R) appeared on ABC, where he discussed:

* His nickname for three frontrunners -- "Rudy McRomney" -- which Gilmore said has received a lot of attention because "it expressed a reality." "The three people who have gotten themselves up into the eyes of the media, and therefore continue to get their poll numbers up, are not conservative candidates, and that is the reality," he said.

* As for the potential candidate many GOP faithful are looking to as an alternate -- former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson -- Gilmore had some reservations, too, saying Thompson didn't "step up to the plate" on a number of issues, such as terrorism, and his record would have to be closely scrutinized.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said on CNN's "Late Edition":

* That he voted for an Iraq war spending bill without a timeline -- a bill opposed by other 2008 contenders -- because "I'm not going to use the troops as a pawn in this game. This is for four months' funding."

* Asked if he is worried his vote will hurt him with Democratic primary voters, he said, "I know what the right political vote was. But some things just aren't worth it ... I'm not running for president to get the nomination by any cost. ... Democrats are a lot smarter than everybody thinks they are. They're not -- everybody is not Moveon.org. And I respect them. I respect their frustration."

Cycles of War

On this Memorial Day weekend, the Iraq war was discussed only sparingly on the Sunday shows, mainly though a cycle of arguments for and against the White House's strategy. The discussion seemed to indicate that all the focus will now be on September -- when evidence of whether Bush's troop "surge" plan is working is supposed to be available.

Some are already making judgments.

"The whole purpose of this surge ... was that it would give the Iraqis an opportunity to reach a political session. They have not done so," Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"Unless something extraordinary occurs," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said on CBS, lawmakers believe that by September "we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down."

On CNN, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a Korean War veteran, said "every civilized country in the world should have an interest in dealing with" Iraq, and not just the United States.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, "We've stood up a free government" and over time it will become clear that it was a historic, important mission.

Rangel, however, countered, that that approach would be fine "if we were talking about the 51st state of the United States. We haven't supported a democracy in the Middle East in ages."

By Zachary Goldfarb |  May 27, 2007; 1:51 PM ET
Previous: Immigration and '08 Longshots | Next: June 3: Division over Iraq government

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



In a post 9-11 world, what do politicians -and the Post- find so incredibly difficult about securing the border first, then sorting out the rest of the illegal alien question? Why is anyone who wants a pragmatic solution to our sieve of a border labeled some sort of jackbooted neo-Nazi? Secure the border first, then move on to other aspects of illegal immigration - it's simple!

Posted by: muskrat | May 27, 2007 2:54 PM

In a post 9-11 world, what do politicians -and the Post- find so incredibly difficult about securing the border first, then sorting out the rest of the illegal alien question? Why is anyone who wants a pragmatic solution to our sieve of a border labeled some sort of jackbooted neo-Nazi? Secure the border first, then move on to other aspects of illegal immigration - it's simple!

Posted by: muskrat | May 27, 2007 2:54 PM

Because tying illegal immigration to 9-11 is idiotic. The notion that terrorists are going to spend days or weeks crossing the desert to sneek in through our southern border is crazy. These guys will get student visas and board a plane, or make fake documentation that looks better in some cases than the real thing and simply walk through the border. The border talk is about Know-Nothing xenophobia, that's why it's all lumped into that category. The other aspects of illegal immigration need a serious look first, and others who want to come here and work for a living need a mechanism to do so. Those who cry out for a stronger border seldom seem willing to address either of those issues, however, the border is the end-all-be-all for them, and I wonder why...

Posted by: Michael | May 27, 2007 4:18 PM

If you violated a law, you committed a crime. If you committed a crime, your a criminal. No one's above or below the law. These bunch of illegals, undocumented, unauthorized foreign nationals, overstaying violators have committed a crime. Giving and issuing them Z visas which allows them to stay is tantamount to "SCAMNESTY". Imagine, rewarding law breakers for their actions!!!! Many US citizens and legal residents came here the right and legal way. Why can't others? Why? Are they "UNTOUCHABLES, SACRED COWS, EXEMPTED"? The problems is in the present Administration who doesn't want to order and declare (openly) war on illegals because of "COMPASSION" at the expense of US taxpayers money. The present administration pushes for these so called "comprehensive immigration reform Senate version bill thanks to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who co-sponsored these Senate version bill (bunch of traitors/sell-outs). In these bill also, they will slash the propose existing Security Fence Act of 2006 into half, imagine instead of adding teeth to our current immigration laws (passing HR 4437) they are trying to circumvent the existing laws to accomodate, please, reward law breakers. Question to all readers, can you remember our current President ordered or declared war (openly) on these bunch of law breakers, illegals, undocumented, unauthorized foreign nationals, and overstaying violators? Can you? Now they are spreading statements that it is unfeasible and impractical. Yes, it is impractical and unfeasible easy to say if you haven't done it (all out war) with conviction and will starting from the President and Commander-in-Chief himself.

Posted by: Navajo-Lawyer_NativeAmerican | May 27, 2007 4:33 PM

I used to be Democrat but they are lall idiots now that they are getting so Politically Correct. The idiots who have never been to the border do not see thetruckloads of drugs and other suspicious cargo that come across daily - truckloads and people. Why do we owe Mexican druglords and corrupt federalis a free passage into the US. Why do we owe Mexican border jumpers welfare checks, free hospital care, free Education in their own language? Telemundo ought to pay for that. I'm sick and tired of whining lying pro LaRaza Democrats calling me names for telling folks we have to secure MY border!
Secure the Border Congress!

Posted by: Hillary | May 27, 2007 4:45 PM

Call, email, fax your Senators, House of Representatives, Office of the President, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Commerce Secretary and express your disapproval in these Senate version "comprehensive immigration reform" bill which allows law breakers be rewarded by being issued with Z visas which is tantamount to "SCAMNESTY", by allowing them to stay instead of being deported for violating our US immigration laws. It also provides cutting the proposed Security Fence Act 2006 by half exposing our Southern Borders to hoards and marauding law breakers, who openly mock our US immigration laws. This is not to mentioned "FREEBEES" to Healthcare (Medical/Dental) Public Legal Services, Child (NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND FEDERAL LAW) and Adult Education, lowering of wages as a result of their presence, lost of American jobs, and others.

Posted by: US Citizen_former Legal Immigrant | May 27, 2007 4:55 PM

We came here the right and legal way!!!!! Why can't others? WHYYYYYYYYYYY????????? I voted for Bush twice in 2000 and 2004 inspite being a Democrat, now I regret that moment. Worse is the party "DEMOCRATS" I supported (includes financially) now are in cohorts, connivance with illegal advocates group to push for rewarding law breakers.

Posted by: US Citizen_former Legal Immigrant | May 27, 2007 5:04 PM

The vote will for whoever believe ILLEGAL immiganta should be treated as other law breakers. I'm fed up with some politicians, McCain, in particular, selling out for his pathetic presidential bid. No others have been engaded in such a massive sellout.

Posted by: DD | May 27, 2007 5:12 PM

The vote will for whoever believe ILLEGAL immiganta should be treated as other law breakers. I'm fed up with some politicians, McCain, in particular, selling out for his pathetic presidential bid. No others have been engaded in such a massive sellout.

Posted by: DD | May 27, 2007 5:12 PM

The vote will for whoever believe ILLEGAL immiganta should be treated as other law breakers. I'm fed up with some politicians, McCain, in particular, selling out for his pathetic presidential bid. No others have been engaded in such a massive sellout.

Posted by: DD | May 27, 2007 5:12 PM

I'm of Mexican heritage who came here legally way back in the 80's. I would like to comment that I personally don't condone, tolerate and encourage Mexicans who, to come here illegally by crossing the US-Mexican border. There are proper procedures in order the come here that must be observed or else your creating anarchy. We have association of various Mexican and other Hispanic/Latino group which disagree on how La Raza in being run to cater to law breakers and illegals. Like others, we suppport the rule of law. No one's above or below the law. They must be "DEPORTED IMMEDIATELY".

Posted by: Vicente Calderon Mexican Now Proud to be American | May 27, 2007 5:23 PM

I'm Ricardo de Cuidad Quezon (of Quezon City) who speak Spanish fluently whose country of origin is Philippines (former US territory). Whose both parents are Americans (Father born 1919) (Mother born 1932) Philippines still under United States of America. But was betrayed by a law passed in 1946 leaving USAFFE Veterans for more than 60 years without receiving full equity benefits just like current American Veterans receive. I can't get the rationale behind why rushing to give amnesty to so called 12 - 20 million or more law breakers and violators of our US immigration laws. Why we can't expedite the processing of special visas to the remaining USAFFE veterans and their family up to their grandson/s and granddaughter/s who are old and dying for their gallant, bravery and heroic services to United States of America? Why? We are talking here of about 300,000 to 500,000 compare to 12 - 20 million law breakers and violators.

Posted by: Ricardo de Cuidad Quezon | May 27, 2007 5:49 PM

I support for the "IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION" of all violators and law breakers of our US immigration laws. If there is to be rewarded to come here are the people who are next in line who waited and gone through the proper legal procedures and channels. NO TO ILLEGALS! NO TO AMNESTY! DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS! UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW!

Posted by: Ricardo de Cuidad Quezon | May 27, 2007 6:00 PM

We no longer even have a two political party system since both the yellow coward
Nutty Nancy Pelosi Democrats sold us out
on every issue so far and only want 20
Million More Illegal Alien Voters while
the Gutless Bush Butt Kissing Republicans
are too busy pandering to cheap labor big
business like the US Chamber of Commerce!
So lets start Recalls against them and vote
out every remaining Incumbent Democrat and
Republican in 2008! Take Back America!

Posted by: redheadclaudine | May 27, 2007 6:17 PM

Here's an eye opener worth knowing about and demanding an explanation for:


READ: Rudy Giuliani TIed to 'Superhighways
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?AR TICLE_ID=55695

It will make more sense if you read this as well:

READ: TREASON ABOUNDS
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/Treason Abounds.html

Posted by: Debrar | May 27, 2007 6:28 PM

READ: Bush - Ring Leader of Plot to Grant Amnesty to 20 Million Illegal Aliens at a Cost of $2.5 Trillion

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28070


You need to read this and pass it on!!!

Outrageous!

This explains the situation we Americans are in...

Posted by: Debrar | May 27, 2007 6:31 PM

Yet, once again, the American public is right. The American public's mandate, in respect to terrorism, and the security of our country, is to have Border Security.

The American public also, in the same breath, completely understands the very simple truth that we should not reform our immigration law, until we are able to control illegal immigration, They alone seem to know that we cannot control illegal immigration, until we finally control our borders, and our ports.

In signing the Immigration, and Nationality Act, of 1965, into law, President Lyndon Johnson, with great fanfare, and promises, to the American public, overturned 60 years of U.S. immigration policy, with national origin quotas, and this eventually led to the currrent situation of explosive chain migration, much of it illegal, without much thought, or respect, given to our country's borders.

Then in 1986, 21 years later, President Ronald Reagan signed into law, an immigration bill, that granted amnesty to more than three million immigrants who had entered this country illegally. That 1986 Immigration Act, believe it, or not, had, as its very foundation, the issue we are dealing with now, Border Security. But, somehow, the Border Security provision, that was the very foundation of the 1986 Immigration Act, was never funded, or acted on, in any real way. Can any of you imagine that??

President Reagan, even then, promised the new employer sanctions would "remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities," and that the law's amnesty provision would allow millions who were hiding in the shadows to "step into the sunlight."

We've now had an ample opportunity to see the effects of that toothless 1986 legislation.

Now, here we are, once again 21 years later, again promising the American public, Border Security

Only this time, in 2007, we are allegedly going to make Border Security, a trigger, to enact the other provisions in this bill. This time, we want to get it right. The American public wants, no, DEMANDS, Border Security. If we fail them this time, we (you) all deserve to lose our (your) jobs, and be pilloried in the public square.

Therefore, since all else, in regard to 2007 immigration legislation, has been deemed, or should be deemed, absolutely dependent upon the construction, and operational status, of this Border Security, what is to prevent immediate passage of the 2007 Border Security Act--once it is satisfactory, so the work can be funded, and Border Security may finally, 21 years later, after it was originally legislated, begin to become a reality in 2007.

Pass the Border Security provision first. Pass the Border Security first, before any other immigration issues are even decided.

370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 110 camera snd surveillance towers, 20,000 new border patrol agents, 31,000 detention beds..

Fund them now!! Build it now!!

Border Security First, Foremost, and NOW!!

Then, between now, and the time Border Security is fully in place, which is a year, or two, down the road, fully debate the other issues, and allow the American public to be heard. We feel as if you, collectively, are forcing this issue down our throats.

Why put any other portion of the bill in place now, before anything at all is enforceable?? It only serves to allow illegal imigrants, a heads-up, to map out strategies that will only serve to counteract the effectiveness of the overall bill.

Border Security, First, and Foremost!!!

Thank you for listening,

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 27, 2007 8:20 PM

Actually, McCain has moved to the right on the issue for political expediency for his election. He was a sponsor of the more centrist bill passed last year, the one without additional border security, etc.

For Bush and most Republicans, it's not about "compassion" and being PC, it's the ties to the business community and the realization that the US economy would collapse overnight were we to imprison or deport that many people. Sure, the markets would right themselves in the long run, but after too much damage has been done to too many in the short run (People aren't standing in line to take those jobs, it will take time for prices to rise to correct that, while the uncertainty will drive up prices nationwide while the market failure is corrected, and tere may even be shortages). With that in mind, Bush recognizes if they're here to stay, he'd prefer the Republican Party not turn that many people off as they did in California (Up until Prop 187, despite liberal pockets, California was a fairly purple state. It's been solid blue since and they don't want that to happen nationwide, but thanks to folks like you guys it probably will so I thank you in advance for that added benefit).

BTW- "US Citizen_former Legal Immigrant," glad you didn't throw in learning how to speak proper English as a requirement, given your posts you could probably take a few lessons yourself (I'm not talking typos, but big gramatical and verbiage errors).

Posted by: Michael | May 27, 2007 8:29 PM

The Heritage Foundation estimates, that with the Bingaman amendment, reducing the annual guest worker program to 200,000 per year, that, the immigration bill, will only allow 66 million new immigrants into our country, on a path to citizenship, over the next 20 years. That's 22% of our current population. As daunting as that number may sound, rest assured that the final numbers will far exceed anything that our government tells us now. There are more special visas, and riders, on this immigration legislation than Carter has little liver pills. The mid to lower class Americans are going to take it on the chin with this one. Pension Plans, Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare, and Education, already suffer; this will only exacerbate their ills, and have them fail more quickly. How is it that our government always manages to make things worse. Nevermind that business is going to be smiling all the way to the bank while the rest of us will need to redouble our efforts to eke out a decent living.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 27, 2007 8:41 PM

CALL THIS HOTLINE!
This is all from Michelle Malkin's website. It is a SPECIAL HOTLINE TO SENATE OFFICES PAID FOR BY ILLEGAL ADVOCATES- BUT WE CAN USE IT TOO!!!

If you are having trouble getting through the Capitol switchboard to express your opinion about the Bush-Kennedy shamnesty, there's a special hotline number you might like to try.

1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)

Freepers picked up on it this morning. Bryan Preston dialed it earlier today and captured audio of the hotline. He reports:

The hotline is paid for by something called the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and it's being blasted to pro-open borders groups all over the country. The hotline gives its callers access to their senators that average Joes don't have.
Here's what the "Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is directing its pro-illegal alien activists to do:

Call between 9:00am and 5:00pm Eastern time to have a better chance of connecting with the Senate offices.
When you call, you will hear a recording

1) The system will scan your phone number (or ask you to enter it) to verify your Senators.

2) The system will ask which Senator you would like to be connected to.

3) Before connecting, you will hear a brief message about immigration reform to deliver.

4) After the message, you will be connected to your Senator.

5) After you are done, be sure to call again and connect to your other Senator's office.


Now, you can use it, too:

1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)

Operators are standing by...

Posted by: Debrar | May 27, 2007 9:06 PM

IMMIGRATION BILL UPCOMING AMENDMENTS

Grassley SA 1166 (for himself and Sens. DeMint and Dole): Prohibits judicial review of visa revocation following admission into the United States in instances where revocation is the sole reason for an alien's removal. I urge you to VOTE YES

Clinton SA 1183 (on behalf of herself and Sens. Hagel and Menendez): Expands the definition of "immediate relative" to include minor children and spouses of lawful permanent residents for the purposes of family-sponsored immigration and increases the family-sponsored immigration visa cap. VOTE NO

Menendez SA 1194 (on behalf of himself and Sens. Hagel, Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye) : Changes the cut-off date for reducing the "backlog" of family-sponsored immigration applicants from May 1, 2005, to January 1, 2007, the same date by which illegal aliens must have been unlawfully present in the United States in order to receive amnesty under this bill. Adds 110,000 green cards a year for adult children and sibling backlog reduction. VOTE NO

Durbin SA 1231 (for himself and Sen. Grassley): Eliminates provisions authorizing the Department of Labor to waive requirements that employers in "labor shortage areas" offer jobs to U.S. workers before seeking to import foreign workers. I urge you to VOTE YES

Sessions SA 1234: Prohibits foreign workers imported through this bill's new Y "guestworker" program and illegal aliens granted "probationary status" (i.e., amnesty) from claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit unless their status is adjusted to lawful permanent resident. I urge you to VOTE YES

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/s...ction0507.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2007 9:07 PM

IMMIGRATION BILL UPCOMING AMENDMENTS

Grassley SA 1166 (for himself and Sens. DeMint and Dole): Prohibits judicial review of visa revocation following admission into the United States in instances where revocation is the sole reason for an alien's removal. I urge you to VOTE YES

Clinton SA 1183 (on behalf of herself and Sens. Hagel and Menendez): Expands the definition of "immediate relative" to include minor children and spouses of lawful permanent residents for the purposes of family-sponsored immigration and increases the family-sponsored immigration visa cap. VOTE NO

Menendez SA 1194 (on behalf of himself and Sens. Hagel, Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye) : Changes the cut-off date for reducing the "backlog" of family-sponsored immigration applicants from May 1, 2005, to January 1, 2007, the same date by which illegal aliens must have been unlawfully present in the United States in order to receive amnesty under this bill. Adds 110,000 green cards a year for adult children and sibling backlog reduction. VOTE NO

Durbin SA 1231 (for himself and Sen. Grassley): Eliminates provisions authorizing the Department of Labor to waive requirements that employers in "labor shortage areas" offer jobs to U.S. workers before seeking to import foreign workers. I urge you to VOTE YES

Sessions SA 1234: Prohibits foreign workers imported through this bill's new Y "guestworker" program and illegal aliens granted "probationary status" (i.e., amnesty) from claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit unless their status is adjusted to lawful permanent resident. I urge you to VOTE YES

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/s...ction0507.html

Posted by: buzzm1 | May 27, 2007 9:08 PM

IMMIGRATION BILL UPCOMING AMENDMENTS

Grassley SA 1166 (for himself and Sens. DeMint and Dole): Prohibits judicial review of visa revocation following admission into the United States in instances where revocation is the sole reason for an alien's removal. I urge you to VOTE YES

Clinton SA 1183 (on behalf of herself and Sens. Hagel and Menendez): Expands the definition of "immediate relative" to include minor children and spouses of lawful permanent residents for the purposes of family-sponsored immigration and increases the family-sponsored immigration visa cap. VOTE NO

Menendez SA 1194 (on behalf of himself and Sens. Hagel, Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye) : Changes the cut-off date for reducing the "backlog" of family-sponsored immigration applicants from May 1, 2005, to January 1, 2007, the same date by which illegal aliens must have been unlawfully present in the United States in order to receive amnesty under this bill. Adds 110,000 green cards a year for adult children and sibling backlog reduction. VOTE NO

Durbin SA 1231 (for himself and Sen. Grassley): Eliminates provisions authorizing the Department of Labor to waive requirements that employers in "labor shortage areas" offer jobs to U.S. workers before seeking to import foreign workers. I urge you to VOTE YES

Sessions SA 1234: Prohibits foreign workers imported through this bill's new Y "guestworker" program and illegal aliens granted "probationary status" (i.e., amnesty) from claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit unless their status is adjusted to lawful permanent resident. I urge you to VOTE YES

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/s...ction0507.html

Posted by: buzzm1 | May 27, 2007 9:08 PM

Reason for amnesty?
Reason for illegal alien invasion?
Reason for border patrol guards in prison?
Reason for "Press 1 for English"?
Reason for this chaos?


READ: North American Union Timeline

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41736

Posted by: Debrar | May 27, 2007 9:12 PM

The most important issue facing the country today is immigration. Granting amnesty to millions of people who crossed our border illegally, commited identity fraud, didn't pay taxes while utilizing our education and medical systems for their anchor babies is an outrage. They will even give amnesty to the 30,000 gang members in east L.A. In 20 years we will have 100 million mexicans in our country - why so many people of one nationality? These new immigrants don't want to follow the rule of law, won't be celebrating this memorial day or fourth of July. They want the gov't. and media to communicate in spanish not english and remember this - whatever bill passes now will only become more liberal as time passes. Unlike so many other important issues this one can not be reversed by the court - once they are in they will bring millions more and america will be changed for the worse forever. The agenda here is to change the fabric of our nation.

Posted by: mike nicosia | May 27, 2007 9:18 PM

Good Post mike nicosia

Americans had better step up and forcefully urge their Senators to vote NO on the immigration bill, otherwise most of us average citizens will soon be wondering why we can't earn a decent wage, and complaining about being over run by the number of immigrants in this country.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 27, 2007 10:07 PM

Someone earlier wondered why people who support a border fence are labeled xenophobic facists, I hope they read the posts on this board...

Substitute "Japanese" in the 1930s, "Chinese" in the early 20th Century, "Italian" after the Civil War, or "Irish" before that in the place of "Mexican," and you ge the same old tired pathetic arguments.

Posted by: Michael | May 27, 2007 10:38 PM

If you read the articles above, you will see that immigration and amnesty are only a small part of the problem.

The reason why Bush and others are pushing this is so that we can become the North American Union.

We will lose our sovereignty, our Constitution, the middle class, and MANY of our rights.

Being "politically correct" is only to help us shut up. We have been conditioned; and we have helped the process.

If you put a frog into hot water he will jump out.

If you put a frog into cold water,
and slowly turn up the heat,
he will not know that he is being cooked,
and it will be too late to jump out.

READ !!! Educate yourselves.

Amnesty is just a means to an end.


Posted by: Debrar | May 27, 2007 10:41 PM

Au Contraire Michael:

From the Heritage Foundation Study:

Dwarfing the Great Migration

Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration known as the "great migration". During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13 and 15 percent of the population.[17]In 1924, Congress passed major legislation greatly reducing future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5 percent of the population.

In the last three decades, immigration has increased sharply. The foreign born now comprise around 12 percent of the population, approaching the levels of the early 1900's. However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population.[18] There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 27, 2007 10:48 PM

And here is the clencher:

Read: Treason Abounds
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html

If you have never heard about ALL of that is documented in this article ... WHY?

Posted by: Debrar | May 27, 2007 10:57 PM

I love it when a bunch of conspiracy nuts get all twisted over immigration. Guys, settle down... this bill is going to pass and you can't do jack about it. American is a melting pot and its going to stay that way. You don't like it... leave!!!

Those 12 million illegals have contributed significantly to our economy. If there are 12 million people who have come into this country and have become a burden on our resources, how come our economy has been growing at rate faster than ever in the last 20 years?

Just because you are dumb and/or uneducated and live in a trailer park, don't blame the our guy for your screw-ups.

Love live America, long live freedom and long live immigration.

Posted by: mk | May 28, 2007 12:20 AM

"However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population.[18] There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history."

A couple of really big ifs to justify a faulty conclusion....

Agree with MK, get out of the trailer park qand stop blaming immigrants for your sorry existence.

Posted by: Michael | May 28, 2007 12:45 AM

If Americans don't stand up and fight against this, we are going to be defeated by a much smaller, but very, very, determined collective group of immigrants.

It seems that the majority of Americans are completing underestimating the determination of those who want this wholesale immigration bill passed.

The Mexican immigrants have spent their lives earning $5 a day, more, or less, and suddenly they have a way of earning, anywhere from $50-$100, per day.

Would any of us, everything else being equal, be willing to go somewhere else if we were going to be paid, somewhere between $500-$1000, per day. It's the same difference.

Keep in mind that the biggest ally of that collective group of immigrants, are ALL OF THE BUSINESSES in the United States. It's all about lower wages. Why pay any more for labor, than necessary??

So now, rather than envision whether you would go somewhere else to earn $500-$1,000 a day, instead realize that, within a relatively short period of time, you are going to be paid much less for the job you are doing now. If you are earning minimum wage, you have nothing to worry about, as the minimum wage has just been increased, but, you will have to work much harder to keep that minimum wage job, as there will be stiff competition.

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 28, 2007 12:51 AM

Hey MK:

Read the facts, then get back to me. Wish it were a conspiratory.

Read: Treason Abounds
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html


READ: Bush - Ring Leader of Plot to Grant Amnesty to 20 Million Illegal Aliens at a Cost of $2.5 Trillion

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28070


READ: Rudy Giuliani TIed to 'Superhighways
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?AR TICLE_ID=55695

Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 1:05 AM

MK:

I think you must be talking to the illegal aliens when you mention trailer parks and lack of an education ... or maybe this is your own personal profile?

You are part of the problem, and your arrogant, juvenile rants are just that. You do not speak for most American citizens .. so, once again, I guess you need to start collecting the facts.

And what is your definition of contributing to our society? Does it begin with breaking the law from the git-go? Read on:


"One of the more popular claims by illegal immigration proponents is that those who enter the U.S. by breaking the law are invariably "hard-working" and "law-abiding" once they get here...."

READ: Justice Dept. Figures on Incarcerated Illegals
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml


"The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003.

Of those, 108,000 were in California.

Some estimates show ILLEGALS NOW MAKE UP HALF OF CALIFORNIA'S PRISON POPULATION, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."

READ: Justice Dept. Figures on Incarcerated Illegals
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114 208.shtml

Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 1:19 AM

Debrar, there is no historical precedent for the explusion of 12 million people. It could only be done by employing inhumane tactics. Earned legalization is a far better strategy.

Posted by: RealChoices | May 28, 2007 2:42 AM

RealChoices:
That's not really true. I can try to look up the facts that I found which negate what you just said.

Plus, this is about more than immigration and amnesty. Pretty disgusting:


READ: Treason Abounds
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html

Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 3:44 AM

RealChoices:

For some reason -- hmmmm -- I'm not too concerned about ILLEGAL aliens who have been abusing America.

So, if they think it will be tough and inhumane on them being forced to go home, they can just go home on their own; after all, that's pretty much how they got here to begin with.

It was all fun and games -- until the enough is enough!!!

I live in California, San Diego at that -- and the American citizen is the one being abused, not the illegal alien!!

READ: Comprehensively Bad
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGZiYTRmNDk2Y2Y3MmU2MTk2YzU2N2RmZWU0NzY4MGE=


READ: You Can Stop America's Suicide
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=27684


Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 4:02 AM

For MK, Michael, RealChoices you three are the reasons why violators just laugh, mock, insult your and now my beloved country. You give them reasons, alibi, encouragement to commit/violate your (our) US immigration laws. People like you doesn't know legal (laws) point of view. For obvious reason your an illegal advocate or worse an illegal individual!!!!!! For RealChoices, the proper way to be legalized is to go home file the necessary documents/requirements in your country of origin, and wait for your priority date be process. Not breaking the line. I pity you people what legacy or role model do you set example to your siblings or children if your a parent. Can you still sleep and eat?

Posted by: Vicente Calderon Mexican Now Proud to be American | May 28, 2007 11:31 AM

DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS!!!!!NO TO AMNESTY!!!!! PASS HR4437!!!!!YES TO TOM TANCREDO AND DUNCAN HUNTER!!!!!YES TO RULE OF LAW!!!!!

Posted by: Vicente Calderon Mexican Now Proud to be American | May 28, 2007 11:39 AM

Nobody is talking about how this SHAMNESTY is a slap in the face of every law-abiding legal immigrant. Why are they getting a raw deal? What kind of message does the U.S. want to send to the whole world? Break the rules and you'll be rewarded, follow the rules and you'll be screwed??

This is unbelievable. In addition, why give SHAMNESTY to those who don't want to assimilate and don't want to speak ENGLISH? Today, we have Spanish ballot boxes, tomorrow, are we going to have Chinese ones and then Italian ones? Stop the BALKANISATION of AMERICA.

Posted by: David | May 28, 2007 12:37 PM

Legal immigrants who have been paying taxes and have been living in this country abiding all the laws have been given a VERY VERY raw deal by Senator Kennedy in favor of illegal immigrants and those with family ties.

One hopes Americans will contact their congressional representatives
to vigorously oppose the so called comprehensive immigration reform
in its current form.

There are hundreds of thousands of higher skilled, highly educated
professors, doctors, scientists, high tech workers who have been
languising in legal limbo for 5-8 years due to huge greencard
backlogs. These legal immigrants contribute to the US economy
and make America competitive in this era of gloabalization. This
"Comprehensive" immigration reform proposes very
little or nothing to clear these huge back logs.

INSTEAD,
It proposes to punish the legal immigrants and set aside
huge green card numbers to illegal immigrants.
People who broke the law and came in ILLEGALLY,
people who did not pay taxes will get a Z visa INSTANTLY
without any restriction can work for any employer.

THE BILL ALSO boosts Family Migration. The lay American public are lied to when they are told that this compromise
would favor skilled migration. SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Posted by: LEGAL IMMIGRANT | May 28, 2007 12:41 PM

Legal immigrants who have been paying taxes and have been living in this country abiding all the laws have been given a VERY VERY raw deal by Senator Kennedy in favor of illegal immigrants and those with family ties.

One hopes Americans will contact their congressional representatives
to vigorously oppose the so called comprehensive immigration reform
in its current form.

There are hundreds of thousands of higher skilled, highly educated
professors, doctors, scientists, high tech workers who have been
languising in legal limbo for 5-8 years due to huge greencard
backlogs. These legal immigrants contribute to the US economy
and make America competitive in this era of gloabalization. This
"Comprehensive" immigration reform proposes very
little or nothing to clear these huge back logs.

INSTEAD,
It proposes to punish the legal immigrants and set aside
huge green card numbers to illegal immigrants.
People who broke the law and came in ILLEGALLY,
people who did not pay taxes will get a Z visa INSTANTLY
without any restriction can work for any employer.

THE BILL ALSO boosts Family Migration. The lay American public are lied to when they are told that this compromise
would favor skilled migration. SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Posted by: LEGAL IMMIGRANT | May 28, 2007 12:42 PM

Since Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) co-sponsored the Senate version of the "comprehensive immigration reform bill" together with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) remember readers his name Sen. John McCain who is running for President under Republican Party, come this 2008 Presidential election (if chosen to be the standard bearer of GOP) drop him like a hot potato. Also Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) remember his name. He also supports illegals/law breakers and illegals advocate. He was present in last 2006 illegals/law breakers (foreign nationals) rally in Chicago even made a speech. We will remember your punch line "fear not the immigrants", does he know that they are "NOT" immigrants but law breakers and illegals that he is making a speech with foreign national audience who demands so and so while openly violating, insulting, mocking us Americans and our US immigration laws? That also include former Mayor of New York Rudy Guiliani who also support views of illegals/law breakers and illegal advocates group. NO TO CUDDLERS AND SUPPORTERS OF LAW BREAKERS/ILLEGALS!!!!!DEPORT THEM ALL!!!!!

Posted by: Vicente Calderon Mexican Now Proud to be American | May 28, 2007 4:28 PM

For all you political robots, including the common American citizens who do not use their brains

AND

the snake-in-the-grass talking heads that is intentionally trying to destry America,

here is another article that portrays the real facts:


READ: Exposing the myth that there are no Americans who will fill certain jobs

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/voigt/070524

Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 4:44 PM

You guys should see the polls:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


There are more americans in support of a solution for immigration then to plain deport people.

Thank God for sanity.

Posted by: MK | May 28, 2007 5:20 PM

DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS SAYING -- IT DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT MOST AMERICANS FEEL

MK-
I can see what your agenda is, and that you are biased towards helping out the illegal aliens, regardless of the destruction they cause to the American citizen.

The liberal media would have people believe that we have benefitted so much from these law breakers, but if you look closer, you will find that this is just garbage, bunk, pure lies.

You are nothing but another snake-in-the-grass yourself. Of course, I am sure that you already know that.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/pulsepoll0507.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2007 7:03 PM

DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS SAYING -- IT DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT MOST AMERICANS FEEL

MK-
I can see what your agenda is, and that you are biased towards helping out the illegal aliens, regardless of the destruction they cause to the American citizen.

The liberal media would have people believe that we have benefitted so much from these law breakers, but if you look closer, you will find that this is just garbage, bunk, pure lies.

You are nothing but another snake-in-the-grass yourself. Of course, I am sure that you already know that.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/pulsepoll0507.html

Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 7:03 PM

DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS SAYING -- IT DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT MOST AMERICANS FEEL

MK-
I can see what your agenda is, and that you are biased towards helping out the illegal aliens, regardless of the destruction they cause to the American citizen.

The liberal media would have people believe that we have benefitted so much from these law breakers, but if you look closer, you will find that this is just garbage, bunk, pure lies.

You are nothing but another snake-in-the-grass yourself. Of course, I am sure that you already know that.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/pulsepoll0507.html

Posted by: Debrar | May 28, 2007 7:03 PM

Dear Lord God,
I pray that you may have mercy on us and upon every single individual that seems to have to much hatred for people who are ripping what the U.S. has sowed...
Forgive us for our ignorance and the many ways we offend you.
You are the only One that has control of this land and over every human being in it. I believe you have the power to change laws according to your Will.
In Jesus' name,
Amen.

Posted by: Patricia | May 29, 2007 12:59 AM

To MK, I don't know where did New York Times, is that right? (www.nytimes.com)conducted their interview or poll. In Mexico City maybe. Or places where violators/law breakers/illegals stay or gather. We would like to invite nytimes to conduct poll in our 75 million strong members nationwide who are former legal immigrants. Now most of them are US citizens and legal residents who professionals and retirees of different races and culture but solid in one cause and that is to "UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW" We don't condone or tolerate extending special privileges to violators/law breakers of our US immigration laws. Issuing of Z visas and allowing them to stay here is tantamount to giving "SCAMNESTY". We support the idea that the people who should be given a chance to come here and stay are people who are next in line and waited for their priority date be process not unlike opportunist, anarchist who disrespect, mock, insult us Americans and our US immigration laws.

Posted by: PRO-LEGAL | May 29, 2007 3:27 AM

There are no more Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independent, Conservative, Liberal here if United States of America laws are openly being mocked, insulted, humiliated, laugh, and attacked by law breakers/violators/illegals and the worse part elected officials who are suppose to be to "serve and protect" our Constitution, citizens, laws, and our Nation. Either your an illegal advocate or law abiding US citizen and legal resident (American). Because of these issue on immigration it has a domino effect on other matters, law and order, State bankruptcy, abuse of US taxpayers money and so on and so on.......

Posted by: PRO-LEGAL | May 29, 2007 3:42 AM

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers

by Robert E. Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Welfare and Family Issues
Domestic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation

In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household:
received $30,160 in benefits
paid only $10,573 in taxes
fiscal deficit of $19,588 per low skill immigrant household per year

At the state and local level, the average low skill immigrant householdL
received $14,145 in benefits
paid only $5,309 in taxes
net fiscal burden on state and local government of $8,836 per year per low skill immigrant household per year

fiscal deficit for 4.54 million low skill immigrant households at the state and local level:
in 2004 was $49.1 billion.
Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit caused by low skill immigrants on state and local governments will approach a half trillion dollars

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Imm...tst052107a.cfm

The Drain:
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Posted by: Buzzm1 | May 29, 2007 1:36 PM

IMMIGRATION BILL UPCOMING AMENDMENTS

Grassley SA 1166 (for himself and Sens. DeMint and Dole): Prohibits judicial review of visa revocation following admission into the United States in instances where revocation is the sole reason for an alien's removal. I urge you to VOTE YES

Clinton SA 1183 (on behalf of herself and Sens. Hagel and Menendez): Expands the definition of "immediate relative" to include minor children and spouses of lawful permanent residents for the purposes of family-sponsored immigration and increases the family-sponsored immigration visa cap. VOTE YES

Menendez SA 1194 (on behalf of himself and Sens. Hagel, Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye) : Changes the cut-off date for reducing the "backlog" of family-sponsored immigration applicants from May 1, 2005, to January 1, 2007, the same date by which illegal aliens must have been unlawfully present in the United States in order to receive amnesty under this bill. Adds 110,000 green cards a year for adult children and sibling backlog reduction. VOTE YES

Durbin SA 1231 (for himself and Sen. Grassley): Eliminates provisions authorizing the Department of Labor to waive requirements that employers in "labor shortage areas" offer jobs to U.S. workers before seeking to import foreign workers. I urge you to VOTE YES

Sessions SA 1234: Prohibits foreign workers imported through this bill's new Y "guestworker" program and illegal aliens granted "probationary status" (i.e., amnesty) from claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit unless their status is adjusted to lawful permanent resident. I urge you to VOTE YES

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/s...ction0507.html

Posted by: Sen Engineer | May 30, 2007 1:46 PM

Sen Engineer --

You're nuts !


The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers

by Robert E. Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Welfare and Family Issues
Domestic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation

In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household:
received $30,160 in benefits
paid only $10,573 in taxes
fiscal deficit of $19,588 per low skill immigrant household per year

At the state and local level, the average low skill immigrant householdL
received $14,145 in benefits
paid only $5,309 in taxes
net fiscal burden on state and local government of $8,836 per year per low skill immigrant household per year

fiscal deficit for 4.54 million low skill immigrant households at the state and local level:
in 2004 was $49.1 billion.
Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit caused by low skill immigrants on state and local governments will approach a half trillion dollars

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Imm...tst052107a.cfm

The Drain:
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/


Cumulative Ten-Year Impact of the
Mass Immigration Reduction Act (H.R. 41)*

http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=177

Posted by: Debrar | May 31, 2007 1:55 AM

We have had so much baloney on this issue you cannot trust a single political voice here.

This is a bedrock Immigration Bill, and it would be supported by almost all of us who pay taxes and vote.
--To be successful, here's what immigration bill must do

May 30, 2007

http://www.suntimes.com/news/feulner/406010,CST-EDT-FEUL30.article

BY ED FEULNER

It's difficult to write about the Senate's proposed immigration reform bill, because it's such a moving target. And yet the branch of our government that calls itself "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" intended to have a final vote last Thursday, even though most senators hadn't even seen the massive bill (350 pages in one printing) until a few days earlier.

Luckily, cooler heads prevailed, and we'll actually have some debate before any bill is voted on in the weeks ahead. That's good, because if our leaders want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, they need to ensure their bill accomplishes at least three critical objectives.

1. Any immigration reform must enhance national security and uphold the rule of law.

No nation is safe unless it can control its borders. Uncontrolled immigration sends a message that our government can't enforce its own policies and provides a tempting opening to those who wish to attack us. It's hardly a surprise that three of the men caught recently while plotting to attack Fort Dix had been here illegally for years. Fox News reported that the three had been issued 19 traffic citations, yet they were never deported. When a nation declines to enforce its laws, criminals take advantage.

In the same vein, immigration reform will work only if it cracks down on those who employ illegal immigrants. A simple step in that direction would be to amend the tax code to remove the tax deductibility of wages paid to unauthorized aliens.

Meanwhile, Washington must make it easier for the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS to target employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. It isn't just illegal aliens gaming the current system, but those employers who exploit illegal workers.

2. It must reject amnesty.

If our government rewards those who've been breaking our laws by allowing them to remain legally in the United States after a mere slap on the wrist, that's amnesty.

As a first step, our government must insist that, before an illegal immigrant can apply to live in the United States, he or she must leave our country and get right with the law. To encourage them, Congress should ensure that individuals living in the United States illegally should receive no federal benefits or advantages while they remain here.

3. It must strengthen citizenship.

For centuries, the U.S. system has worked because it has taken in immigrants from around the globe and made them Americans. We've assimilated immigrants, and they've agreed to speak a common language and abide by our political principles and assume the responsibilities of self-government.

Too often these days, though, U.S. citizenship is seen as something granted, not something earned. To succeed, any reform must reject the idea that anyone who happens to be born in the United States is an American citizen.

The very idea of "anchor babies" runs counter to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says those born here also must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," which the children of illegals -- like the children of tourists -- are not, because their parents aren't legal and permanent residents. Immigration reform legislation must fix this misunderstanding.

Immigration is a major concern to Americans. We need our lawmakers to do more than simply address the problem of illegal immigration. We need them to solve it.

The current Senate bill is bound to fail. When Congress returns, lawmakers should revisit it and begin fashioning an immigration bill that serves our nation as a whole. Let's slow down a bit and get this right.

-------------------------------------------

Posted by: Joel E. Wischkaemper | June 1, 2007 5:47 PM

I urge you Senators who voted against the
recent Immigration Bill to continue to
vote to defeat amnesty. Do not let anyone,
our President, Senator Kennedy or the
bleeding heart democrats or anyone to
convince you to sell out OUR AMERICA/

Posted by: Thomas Hensley | June 11, 2007 7:33 PM

I urge you Senators who voted against the
recent Immigration Bill to continue to
vote to defeat amnesty. Do not let anyone,
our President, Senator Kennedy or the
bleeding heart democrats or anyone to
convince you to sell out OUR AMERICA/

Posted by: Thomas Hensley | June 11, 2007 7:33 PM

I think we are wasting computer space and hearing time to report a conversation asking whether Bill Richardson is a Red Sox fan.

The amount allocated for "immigration benefits" is unlivable and most of the potential citizens live with relatives or in shared apartments. The payment is something like $200 a month; the amount has remained the same since the 30s! Even in states where there is a low rent program, $200/mo. would not be enough to pay any rent in the US.

There DOES have to be an increase in this amount for those who have gone through the ordeal of immigration applications with retarded officials carrying little pellet guns and applied for citizenship.

Ruth Ginsberg said that people that owe child support couldn't have drivers licenses. The person she takes advice from believed that the child support payment victims would pay it out of their "personal fortunes."

The concept of "personal fortunes" went out with the Depression. People that are willing to work such as the immigrants or the victims of child support enforcement prcedures have to drive to the job, right?

$200 a month is not enough to pay for a drivers license, vehicle registration, the electric, or most of all mandatory auto insurance in some states. Everybody walk to work like in Communist dorms stationed near the work site in the Soviet Union?

There needs to be an increase in the payment that legal immigrants get, but the govt should not have to pay the expenses of ethnic Russian criminals who have taken over apartment buildings, eat others' food, wear the clothes that are in the apartments, and use their "benefits" but cant figure out how to get more.

The govt should increase the immigration benefit amount for legal immigrants but go back to the system of hiring people with college degrees for the immigration offices, not illiterate retards who turn in their salaries to the Communists.

Bush made a mistake to end the INS and replace it with a department run by Communists. Communism appeals to uneducated people and subhumans in dirt warrens and Bush is susceptible to their appeals for aid since he has a dirt dugout under his farm in Crawford, near Waco, Tex.

We can figure out from his State Dept appointees that he has no idea what the State Dept is or does, but requests for development aid are not made by taking it out of a country's budget. If the foreign countries requesting the aid, would send it either to the proper UN agency or to the Russian senate rather than ours maybe they could get help.

We care about Mexico because it is on the border of the US, but why should the US have to give development aid to White Russia? Their place was an ancient Roman settlement called "Leopolis" that had a Senate that could allocate funds for primitive "zit-men" in dirt warrens or ladies that live in caves (a different group). They will have to find the proper local authorities in the Soviet Union and not bother us, since they are not really "immigrants" but "invaders" and "criminals."

Posted by: olive | June 16, 2007 8:11 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company