Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I think you missed the segment where someone posted a message saying that its only right and humane to have open borders and grant criminals amnesty. And those who believe that we have laws in place for a purpose and believe we should secure "our" borders are individuals on the "extreme right wing " of the Republican Party. Gee since I'm gay I really never thought anyone would place me in the extreme right of the Republican Party. TALK ABOUT PAINTING WITH A VERY VERY BROAD BRUSH. Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor after falling over.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Afterall if its "the only humane and right" to grant amnesty, financial and medical service to those south of US. I guess I won't hold my breath wating for the Catholic Church to get involved. Lets see the Vatican grant all those poor poor "people" south of US amnesty to live in the Vatican City or lets see the Vatican Bank step up to the plate and give 50 Billion a year to those improvished folks south of the US. Afterall its the only human and right thing to do.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>And those who believe that we have laws in place for a purpose and believe we should secure "our" borders are individuals on the "extreme right wing " of the Republican Party.<< This is a ridiculous statement on its very face. I would almost go so far as to say it's a total lie, but I don't know your heart, so I'm not going to go there. No human person, save for the mammonite wing of the Republican party, WANTS illegal immigration. Aside from a few radicals, no one wants open borders. The question at issue is how we are going to do these things. The problem is that the extreme right-wing of the Republican party is the side that is making all the hateful statements and cloaking themselves in under the rubric of law and order. >>Gee since I'm gay I really never thought anyone would place me in the extreme right of the Republican Party.<< What do your sexual attractions have to do with your politics? Ever hear of Al Rantel? >>TALK ABOUT PAINTING WITH A VERY VERY BROAD BRUSH.<< Tell me about it. >>Afterall if its "the only humane and right" to grant amnesty, financial and medical service to those south of US.<< Please provide links from the text of the Senate Bill that would do any of these things. Otherwise, I'm calling this statement a bald-face like. >>I guess I won't hold my breath wating for the Catholic Church to get involved.<< Have you read the USCCB's statement on the subject? >>Lets see the Vatican grant all those poor poor "people" south of US amnesty to live in the Vatican City or lets see the Vatican Bank step up to the plate and give 50 Billion a year to those improvished folks south of the US. Afterall its the only human and right thing to do.<< Reductio ad absurdum. Vatican City is the headquarters of the Cahtolic Church and a country unto itself. Aside from the Pope and a few members of his court, no one LIVES inside the Vatican itself. And Catholics of GOOD WILL (which leaves out a LOT of Catholics in the US) ARE doing a great deal to assist those who are in poverty, both in the US and outside. A lot of non-Catholic Christians are also doing much to help the poor. After all, next to the proclamation of the Gospel, helping the poor (the corporal works of mercy: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger, visiting the sick and imprisoned, etc.) is a major part of our vocation as Christians (Catholic or otherwise). Too bad the Republican Party is oppoosed to the practice of the Corporal Works of Mercy. :-(
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Aside from a few radicals, no one wants open borders.<< Then how come everytime someone proposes actually guarding the border or building a wall, they are shouted down, tarred and feathered? I would say that there are plenty of people who want open borders: the hispanic lobby, the cheap labor lobby, just about any large city that hs a "sanctuary" ordinance for illegals, etc. Doesn't anyone remember the guest worker program that Bush was proposing prior to 9/11? It was basically: get a job offer and you get a visa. If that isn't open borders, then what is? Heck, even unions want open borders (potential future members I guess).
Originally Posted By Moderation A Moderate response to the top 10 reasons. Before specifically responding, I wish to note that I reject the term 'Amnesty' co-opted so lovingly by Senator DeMint. The position set forth in the bill is in no manner an amnesty, it lays down procedures that individuals who have entered the country without leave may change thier status through the completion of several punitive measures. Some may find the measures to be insufficient, myself included, or the terms too lax, myself again included, but the term amnesty is clearly not supported by the facts. Second, I find over critique of the senate bill to be a bit of a red herring- whatever comes out of the conference committee it will not be this bill nor the rather draconian House meassure. The solution to the immigration issue needs to consider why these people have come here, not just what to do with them, and needs to create a viable legal alternative to self help. >>1.Rewards Illegal Behavior with Clear Path to Citizenship and Voting Rights – Amnesty The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. << Where Ed Moose is being disengenuous here, is that there is no line for them to get into. US immigration quotas and conditions for both citizenship and work visa are laughably insufficient to meet even a portion of business demand. There essentially is no legal manner for a person without seriously desirable college education or without an immediate family member who is already a citizen to apply to immigrate. The work visa program suffers from much the same problems- the visa numbers are very limited, are expensive to process, and must be generated by the US employer, not by the party wishing to work. In other words, for the vast majority of illegal immigrants currently here, there is no legal option- righteous indignation on behalf of the people who have "played by the rules" is nonsense. That being said, are not the catogies set up by the senate a tad too generous? We have a national interest in retaining people who have been in the US illegally for an extended period with no criminal record- a plurality of them have children who are US citizens and have no recourse to welfare benefits, and if they can keep thier nose clean for 10-12 years working hard and not getting into trouble, it is time to bring them into the fold. I would set the fine significantly higher however, would require the learning of english and perhaps have a longer qualification period if they have called upon the welfare net extensively or have minor legal infractions. >>2.Creates Temporary Worker Program That is Neither Temporary Nor Work-Based The bill’s guest worker program would allow millions of illegal immigrants to qualify for permanent green cards within four years. Additionally, the Senate approved Senator Kennedy’s amendment that each year would allow up to 200,000 immigrants who cross the border illegally and work just 6 days a year (including self employment) to qualify for a permanent green card. << Kennedy's amendment is a red herring that won't survive conference so I will ignore it. Perhaps the work and time requirements are set a tad too low, but I see nothing wrong with this. A green card is not citizenship, not even a permanent green card, and we are talking about steady, working individuals, not entire welfare gorging families. I think rather than worrying about how many are let in under the program, energy should be spent on stiffening a code of conduct that would eliminate thier fast track status, weeding out those we really don't want. >>3. Unprecedented Wave of Immigrants - 66 Million Over 20 Years << That's just silly I am not going to spend my time canvasing the Heritage Foundation's hysterically generated statistics. >>4. Insufficient Border Security I'm not going to spend too much time on this either, for the simple reason that I'm convinced that the confenernce will lean more toward the house version in the final bill, and rightly so- I don't see putting up a border fence as a human rights issue. >>5. Terrorist Loophole Disarms Law Enforcement Heritage Foundation reported May 24, 2006: “The Senate’s immigration reform proposal … would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous. All of the hijackers on (9-11) who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists.â€<< Poorly researched and untrue. Law enforcement at all levels have a myriad of laws available for detention of suspicious individuals. If any of the 9-11 terrorists had been identified beforehand, they would not have been detained for immigration violations, but using much more powerful tools. >>6. Social Security Benefits, Tax Credits for Illegal Work The Senate rejected Senator Ensign’s amendment that would have prevented Social Security benefits from being awarded to immigrants for time that they worked illegally in the United States. If the immigration compromise bill before the Senate were enacted into law, an estimated 12 million illegal workers would be able to use their past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits. Provisions in S. 2611 would require newly legalized immigrants to file tax returns for work they performed while in the U.S. illegally. And while some would be required to pay back taxes, many others could qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has a maximum payout of $4,400 per year.<< Pure pablum, which indirectly touches on something that should be tightened up in conference. 12 million workers may qualify, but almost none of them have to date contributed a penny to the system. A green card path that requires filing past due tax returns, and paying unpaid taxes together with penalties and interest, would be a huge tax windfall. When combined with a huge influx of young workers who won't be qualified for benefits before about 2040 just when the baby boomers are drawing down the program, and it may just save SS. The income tax credit is a red herring- it really only pays out for low income families, not individuals,you can't count families that don't live in the US, and is more than offset by the taxes, interest and failure to file penalties. If still concerned, then specify in the conference bill that returns filed under the citizenship program don't qualify for EIC, but really, the EIC profile here is nominal. 7. Costs Over $50 Billion A Year to Federal Government; States Foot The Bill for Immigrant Health Care Once again, these are ludicrous numbers from Heritage. In the first place, it ignores that much of this money is already being spent on this pool of people, it just identifies it. Second, it ignores the offsetting revenues that acompany expenditures. In reality, the money issue runs the otherway- by making these people pay taxes for the services they already receive, the govenrnment is better off. >> 8. Hurts Small Business The Senate approved an amendment by Senator Obama extending Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage†provisions for guest workers, but not American citizens, in all occupations covered by Davis-Bacon (currently limited to federally paid work). Small businesses would be forced to pay inflated wages to guest workers above the pay American citizens receive for performing the same work<< Another red herring, as this amendment also will never make it out ofconference. But the guest worker program will hurt small businesses some- they are currently paying illegals below minimum under the table to a large extent. Having to pay them according to law as legal guest workers will hurt some bottom lines. I have no problem with that though. >>9. Gives Some Immigrant Workers Greater Job Protection Than American Workers << Convoluted and inaccurate. Just cause is determined by reference to the job rules of the individual states, so 'termination at will' laws in all of the so called 'right to work states' would be uneffected. Not that I find termination at will to be a good thing for anyone, but I digress... 10. Weak Assimilation/English Requirements The Senate approved Senator Inhofe's amendment to make English the national language and require those seeking citizenship to demonstrate English proficiency and understanding of U.S. History. However, a far weaker amendment by Sen. Salazar gutted the Inhofe amendment, leaving it in doubt, and also giving immigrants the right to demand the federal government communicate with them in any language they choose.>> I agree with this criticism, but once again, I look to the conference committee to see this through. That's the thing with these tack on amendments- it is just politics and pandering, passing little codicils to hold up to one's constituents that are totally irrelevant to the bill as it will come out of conference. At best it gives the senate negotiators some cheap chips to throw into the pot during the haggle, but none of these will make the final bill. But then, isn't that the real purpose of Senator DeWitt's 10 points in the first place?
