Skinning: Wordpress • Invision • Expression Engine • phpBB3
Outing of the Senate Immigration Reform Bill
by Sandi
Source Vdare.com

We need more Senators like Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama. Last Friday he gave one of the most extraordinary speeches on the immigration reform bill S-2611. Sessions is one of the few, if not the only Senators who has actually done some studies on the impact the bill will have.

Here is his concerns with enforcement. We are being told that enforcement will be forthcoming, and also that securing the border will come later. You might feel deja vu of Reagan's amnesty in the 80s that was supposed to fix everything.

In 1986, they passed comprehensive amnesty and immigration reform. Those who were in the Senate then–I was not yet here–and remember the debate know it was an amnesty to end all amnesties. It was supposed to create a legal immigration system, and we were told we would not have to do this again. Those concerned about it warned, however, one amnesty begets another amnesty. The more you go down that path, the easier it is. This sends a signal to the world that we are not serious about our laws. In that one bill in 1986, we passed the amnesty, and we authorized a number of things to occur that were supposed to result in an effective legal system. Well, the amnesty became law just like that. But the other things that the enforcement side took–the required funding and congressional assistance, and mostly Presidential leadership–never occurred. It didn’t occur.

So Senator Isakson came up with an amendment this week that I thought was pretty good. It basically would have ensured that the borders were secure before any of the amnesty provisions could be implemented. They are telling us constantly that the borders are going to be made secure if we pass this bill, so let’s hold their feet to the fire and say this time the American people want to have a little hold on you before you grant amnesty again. Let’s be sure the borders are secure first, that Congress won’t forget that goal after the bill passes. Without the Isakson language, the amnesty provisions in the bill take effect the day the bill is signed. But we didn’t accept that amendment. Instead, we will remain in the position where we hope that we will have immigration enforcement in the future. We accepted the Salazar trigger amendment that simply requires the President to determine that the bill’s amnesty and guest worker provisions will "strengthen the national security of the United States."

After rejecting such a comon sense amedment they also rejected an amendment that would prevent social security benefits to illegal aliens for the time that they were illegal, even those using fake illegal social security numbers. Apparently they are not worried about our already overburdened and broke social security system that they were unable address either last year.

Federal benefits was a key vote yesterday. The Senate shockingly rejected the Ensign amendment 50 to 49–close, close vote–that would have prevented aliens from collecting Social Security benefits as a result of their illegal entry into the country, their illegal work, and their illegal presentation of a Social Security number. Fraudulent presentation of a Social Security number and criminal entry into the United States, and this bill provides they can draw Social Security. We had an amendment to clarify that issue, and the Senate voted to keep the provision in the bill.

Maybe the worst part of this legislation is the so-called temporary worker program which in reality there isn't even one in the bill. This attempted fraud on the people of this country is not only shocking but a slap in the face to the concerns of the American people. I can only assume that Republican Senators are more concerned with large contributions from the business lobby, while Democrats are salivating over the millions of potential votes that they assume will predominately go to them.

The section we were trying to change was the section that is as bogus as any part of the bill. It is the section that is captioned in big print: temporary guest worker. That is what the President has been saying he favors. He told me that personally a couple of days ago. He told me, when he flew to Alabama, that he believed in temporary workers. But it is not so that this bill creates a temporary worker program. I challenge any one last night to tell me that what I am saying is not true.

Under this bill, under that rubric of big print language, “Nonimmigrant Visa Reform, Subsection A, Temporary Guest Workers'’–what it really says is if you come into this country under this work visa you get to convert your status to a green card holder–a legal permanent resident that can then become a citizen. Somebody said last night: Why are people afraid to discuss this issue? I say to the supporters of the bill: Why are you afraid to tell the truth about your bill? Why do you title the section one thing and then write it to actually do another?

Why are you putting in here “temporary guest workers'’ when there is nothing “temporary'’ or “guest'’ about them. Why? Are they afraid the American people will find out what is really in that provision which would have brought in, had it not been amended by Senator Bingaman, perhaps 130 million new people into the country permanently? What kind of temporary program is that?

How does it work? This is the way it works: You come in, get a job; you come in under this guest worker proposal, and within the first day you arrive, your employer can seek a green card for you. If you qualify–and most will–then that green card will be issued, and you are then a legal permanent resident. You are a legal permanent resident within weeks or months of entry into the country, and within 5 years of being a legal permanent resident and having a green card, you can apply for citizenship. If you know a little English and don’t get arrested and convicted of a felony, you will be made a citizen by right under that provision. So it is not a temporary guest worker program. We need one in the bill. It is not there. That is what the President says he supports.

The American people don’t think we ought to huddle up, have some groups come in and meet with a few Senators and have them foist on the American people an immigration bill that ignores their concerns about legality and their legitimate concerns over the depressing of the wages of American citizens. That is not a myth. The law of supply and demand has not been abrogated with regard to wages and labor.

In terms of lawfulness, decency, morality, and the national interest, the American people are head and shoulders above the Members of Congress who are asserting and pushing this flawed legislation. A huge majority of the American people have been right on this issue for decades. It is the executive branch and the Congress that have been derelict in their most solemn duties. If the American people had been listened to and not been stiff-armed by an arrogant elitist bureaucracy and political class, we wouldn’t have 11 million to 20 million people in our country illegally today.

The American people have been concerned about this issue–and the polls have shown it–for 20, 30 years. So what is our national interest and what policies should we pursue? What about border workforce enforcement? Any good bill would include a good enforcement system at the border and workplace.

Forget for the moment the insanity of amnesty without enforcement and concider the effect of the type of immigrantion encouraged by the bill on the economy. Obviously high-skilled immigrants are a plus and strengthen our country, while low-skilled workers are not. In fact low-skilled workers according to Stanford Law School Professor Dan Siciliano "have a modest net negative fiscal impact for all low-wage workers in the United States, not just immigrants."

We should focus our policies on higher skill needs, college degrees, instead of low-wage workers. Serious consideration should be given to how we welcome new immigrants into the American world and have them reach their fullest and highest aspirations. We are not able to do that under the current system, and we certainly should fix this illegality and actually provide some mechanism for a large number of people to come out from the shadows, as they say.

We should consider seriously the impact of wages on the American workers, and we need to consider what other developed nations, such as Canada, Britain, and France are doing. How are they confronting these questions? Why don’t we do that? I will tell you why we don’t. It is because this bill is totally incompatible and inconsistent with the principles those advanced nations are following.

But under the present bill a large amount of new labor, mostly unskilled, will pour into the American workforce. With competition for jobs at the unskilled low-wage level already stiff, I shouldn't have to explain the problem of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities.

Sixty percent of Nicaraguans say they would come here if they could. Seventy percent of the people of Peru say the same. I don't know what the percentage is in Mexico but it is probably similar. And how about the rest of the world, and how many can we take especially when we change from legally accepting those with skills (as we tend to prefer now) to accepting those without skills and in poverty? What will happen will be a huge drain to our already heavily used social services.

There is so much more enlightenment in Senator Sessions floor speech that should be required reading. Every citizen needs to know what this bill really contains, not what the partisan talking heads are spouting. I have already excerpted quite a bit though only a small portion of it. Please read his entire Senate floor speach posted at Vdare blog.

H/T The Immigration Blog

Posted Monday May 22, 2006 | Catagory: (Immigration) | Permalink
0 Comments | 0 Trackbacks
Senate Rejects Illegal Immigration Enforcement
by Sandi

Today casting their first votes on immigration, the senators rejected enforcement first before starting a guest worker program. This means we will be giving amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants. Meanwhile as we won't have implemented enforcement (and it's ulikely they want to), we will also encourage millions more to also come here illegally. How in the hell do these people look at themselves in the mirror?

The Senate defeated, 55 to 40, a proposal by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, that lawmakers demand that border-security measures be in place before beginning a guest-worker program of the kind envisioned by President Bush.

The 55 senators rejected Mr. Isakson's argument that, if the Congress did not act now, it would have to a decade or so from now, and that "instead of 10 million or 12 million, it will be 24 million" illegal immigrants at issue.

Opponents of the Isakson measure (36 Democrats, 18 Republicans and the independent James Jeffords of Vermont) maintained that it would be an obstacle to the kind of comprehensive legislation that is needed.

Enforcing the law would be an obstacle to legislation that is needed? What a crock of BS, we can only hope that the House won't succumb to this sham that caters to the employers that want to keep business as usual.

Both of my Wisconsin senators, Kohl and Feingold, voted to oppose enforcement first and sided with the open-borders advocates.

Emails get thrown away. It's time to get on the telephone.

All except Wisconsin Senators listed here.

Wisconsin:
Senator Russ Feingold
Wisconsin 608-828-1200
Washington 202-224-5323

Senator Herbert Kohl
Wisconsin 414-297-4451
Washington 202-224-5653

The vote (yeas and nays).
Posted Tuesday May 16, 2006 | Catagory: (Immigration) | Permalink
0 Comments | 0 Trackbacks
Unassimilated Migration
by Sandi
h/t Dean's World.

Eric, a Russian Naturalized Citizen and commenter at The Indepundit, resents the term "immigrant" being used for those that enter our country illegally whether preceded by "illegal" or not. Eric prefers "unassimilated migration." While I don't have a problem with the term "illegal immigrant" myself Eric does makes some good points, although I don't agree with him on everything.

To start with, let us clarify some terminology. I personally resent when people marching and waving other country's flags are called "immigrants" to this country. That is because I am myself a naturalized American, i. e. an immigrant. In my view, immigrants are supposed to learn the language of a new country, which is English in the case of USA, assimilate and become part of the new country. Those people waving Mexican flags and, as they say in Russian, pumping their right, are not immigrants. They are unassimilated migrants at best and foreign invaders at worst, their legal status notwithstanding.

Thus, we come to the core of the problem as I see it. The problem, in my opinion, is not "illegal immigration", as it is commonly called. The problem is unassimilated migration. The legal status of those migrants is absolutely irrelevant. I bet the majority of those people participating in so-called pro-immigrant demonstrations were in fact legal residents or citizens, many of them perhaps born and raised in this country. If you were illegal, would you risk attracting attention to yourself by going to such demonstration? Yet they cannot be called "Americans".

As a country, we failed to assimilate certain segment of newcomers. We did it by allowing the Left to declare them a protected minority and pander to them. Why do we keep hearing that if you speak Spanish, you'll get a better job? Better job doing what? Selling tacos in San Isidro?

I have to disagree with Erics contention that illegal immigrants would not "risk attracting attention." A few maybe but most are embolden by this country's lack of concern for decades. With a wink and a nod, thank you, please make yourself at home. Oh and help yourself to our schools, free medical services and financial aid and other services that many of our citizens don't even enjoy. If after all that you don't pay income tax, and send much of your money back to your own country that is ok too. Many states even forbid law enforcement when checking identification, to also check legal entry status.

He is dead on though about the lack of assimilation as well as pandering from the left. However I moreso blame the right who listen to business lobbyists that want cheap laborers who won't ask too many questions. They wouldn't be coming here for work to begin with if employers didn't hire them, knowing full well that they are not here legally. The vegetable and dairy farms owners who lament that they can't find willing workers. Business' from small restaurants to corporations like Tyson. Wealthy citizens who hire illegal immigrants as nannys, gardeners and servants. Encouraged in the past by Congress and a Justice dept that for the most part just looks the other way.

Now as for the lack of assimilation, yes illegal immigration is probably responsible for most of it, and Eric is correct that legal status doesn't matter. But there are many legal immigrants also preferring their own culture and are not assimilating. While there is nothing wrong with them keeping much of their culture, also trying to change the rest of the country to that culture to suit their comfort just won't fly.

That is what fired a light bulb in Eric's post. It's no wonder that so many legal citizens are demonstrating along side these bold illegals, although there are also plenty of non-hispanic citizens born here—mostly leftists—who think this is the land of opportunity for all, which is true if entry is legal. But not as so many on the left prefer it with open borders, and total disregard to legal status.

Take for example this article I read in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Mary Dejevsky. [emphasis added]

And while the white U.S. majority likes to think of the country as a land of opportunity for all, this is not today's reality. The frontier with Mexico is shielded with fences that dwarf anything Israel has built against the perceived threat from Palestinian bombers. Add to this the crude suspicion with which U.S. border guards interrogate new arrivals, and the armed vigilantes who roam the border areas that the federal authorities lack officers to patrol. Is this the land that promised refuge to Europe's poor and persecuted?

Good lord, I know that no one can really be that ignorant. The wall between Israel and the West Bank is 25 feet high in some places, about 400 miles long when finished, and made of concrete, not to mention armed watch towers. So how does this poor excuse for a journalist come to the idiotic conclusion that our southern border with Mexico where thousands pour across monthly if not weekly, dwarfs Israels wall? She doesn't. She has to be making it up with hopes to titillate our sympathy. Typical progressive liberal arrogance.

Mary Dejevsky also knows damn well why the border guards have a "crude suspicion" when masses stream across the border without a legal entry checkpoint in sight for miles. Nor is the unsubstantiated slam against the Minutemen much better. Yes this is still the land that promised refuge to Europe's poor and persecuted as well as the rest of the world too, but orderly, with regulations and screening.

But where Dejevsky's column really got to me was at the end with this Aaggrandizing arguement:

This migration will change the character of the United States forever. Where they are wrong is in believing or hoping the onward march of Hispanic America can be reversed. If the "illegals" are now numerous enough and bold enough to parade through U.S. cities, demanding their rights, any effort to legislate is futile. The revolution has already begun.

Not a chance. Yes I know that the Senate is trying to water down good sense legislation that was passed by the House, but the people have had enough illegal immigration as well as unassimilated migration. Many politicians that play feel good politics with this issue will be looking for another feel good job after 2006.

Posted Thursday May 4, 2006 | Catagory: (Immigration) | Permalink
0 Comments | 0 Trackbacks