AgJOBS Amnesty Sneak Attempt Thwarted, How to Do More

NumbersUSA ^ | 07-07-2004 | Roy Beck

[NewRomeTacitus]

Victory!!! All of your phone calls and faxes have made the AgJOBS amnesty so controversial that Senate leaders a few minutes ago barred the AgJOBS amnesty from being submitted as an amendment today to the legislation on the floor.

As of last night, that amnesty definitely was coming up for a vote today. The power of constituency reaction was proven spectacularly this morning.

The open-borders Senators and lobbyists had failed to bring the AgJOBS amnesty up for a vote on the Senate floor in previous attempts to add as an amendment to Department of Defense appropriations and others. The only reason is that citizens like you have made the amnesty so controversial that Senate leaders have been fearful of putting it up for a vote.

But yesterday, Senate leaders had decided that they would allow a vote on adding AgJOBS amnesty to S. 2062 (the Class Action Reform Bill). The thought apparently was that this would help get more Democrats to eventually vote for the overall bill which is primarily supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

But a few minutes ago, the leadership decided that AgJOBS would actually decrease the number of votes for the overall bill and ruled that only amendments that are related to the actual subject of the bill would be allowed. That ruled out AgJOBS.

Sen. Craig (R-ID) was furious and immediately took to the floor to make an emotional speech pledging to eventually bring this essential piece of legislation to a vote. But not today and probably not this week.

You now have an opportunity to influence at least two very important votes tonight in the House of Representatives.

Please make the phone calls requested below.

In the House of Representatives, in votes expected for this evening, two good immigration amendments will be offered to H.R. 4754, the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. These amendments would improve enforcement against illegal immigration. Their only chance of passage is if thousands of you call your Representative.

1. NEW ACTION TOOL-One click provides all phone numbers for your OWN 2 Senators & 1 Representative

As a NumbersUSA member, you now have a customized page reserved for you that provides all the contact information for your own three Members of Congress.

Any time we ask you to phone your own Members, you can do one click and get all the phone numbers you need.

www.numbersusa.com/myMembers

There you will find: * Photos of your 2 Senators and 1 Representative * DC phone numbers * Phone numbers for all offices in your state * Addresses for offices in DC and state * Links to each Member's immigration Grades and Profiles

The only reason the above link won't bring up your customized page is if your computer has erased your NumbersUSA cookie or you have logged off NumbersUSA for some reason. For the small percentage of you in that situation, just go to the NumbersUSA.com home page and log in.

2. ACTION-Phone your Representative to support appropriations amendments that fight illegal immigration

These amendments are expected to come up for votes on the floor of the House TONIGHT.

Call up your Reprsentative and ask her/him to support all amendments offered to H.R. 4754 that would strengthen our fight against illegal immigration.

You may want to use this script:

"I am calling about H.R. 4754, the spending bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State.

"Please support all amendments offered to strengthen the fight against illegal immigration.

"In particular, I urge Rep. xmxmxm to vote YES on an amendment being offered by Rep. King that would provide funding for the Justice Department to more fully enforce federal laws against cities offering sanctuary to illegal aliens.

"I also ask that Rep. xmxmxmx vote YES on an amendment from Rep. Tancredo that would provide disincentives for cities to violate federal law by offering sanctuary to violators of immigration laws."

The amendment, to be offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), would essentially direct the Department of Justice to use $1 million of its total enforcement funding to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373, the federal law that prohibits states and localities from enacting sanctuary policies.

This federal law was passed by Congress in 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

Thus far, the Justice Department has completely ignored blatant violations of the law by countless cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and Chicago, and by the State of Maine, all of which have enacted sanctuary policies to protect illegal aliens from deportation by federal authorities.

Soon after the law was passed, New York City actually sued the federal government in an attempt to overturn the law. The court ruled in favor of the federal government, said the law was valid, and found that New York City's sanctuary policy violated it.

New York City has since repealed the policy.

The purpose of the King amendment is to force the Justice Department to challenge sanctuary cities and states in court so that they will repeal their illegal policies.

The amendment to be offered by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), is similar to the one we asked you to call about before the holiday recess. This amendment would prohibit State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funds for states and localities that have enacted "sanctuary" policies in violation of federal law (8 U.S.C. 1373).

SCAAP was created to reimburse states for some of the costs of incarcerating illegal and criminal aliens.

The Tancredo amendment would deny such reimbursement to sanctuary cities and states on the grounds that, since they have chosen to violate existing federal law by refusing to share information on illegal and criminal aliens with federal immigration authorities, they should not be given federal funding under a program designed to increase cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

These two amendments are part of a broader strategy NumbersUSA has been working on to use the appropriations process to:

1) force a wider debate in Congress on immigration issues so that Members will begin to see it as a mainstream issue about which Americans are concerned; and

2) improve enforcement of existing immigration laws. We are working closely with Members of Congress to ensure that at least one immigration-related amendment will be offered to as many appropriations bills as possible.

This means we will be coming to you for help many times over the next few months. We can persuade a single Member to offer a particular amendment, but we have no chance of getting other Members to vote for the amendments without your help.

In the few instances of votes on these amendments over the last year, we have barely succeeded in getting 100 of the 218 votes required. But we are building up a fine voting record on which to hold Members accountable. And we have been gaining votes every time.

It is far preferable to lose votes than to not have any votes at all. By constantly putting up amendments like this, we create more and more of a record on which to embarrass and "out" the open-borders Members.

Eventually, of course, the goal is to actually pass one of these amendments.

Will today be "eventually?"

You demonstrated remarkable power over the last day in fighting AGAINST the AgJOBS amnesty in the Senate. What can yuou accomplish in SUPPORT of good legislation today?

3. ACTION-Send the rest of your faxes to oppose amnesty and to fight illegal immigration

Thousands of you have many fax messages in your customized fax page that have never been sent.

Please go to that page now, and click to send those messages. We need every office of Senator and Representative to have fax machines running all day with these messages. Don't worry about sending several faxes to the same recipient. Our computer automatically spaces out your messages to the same recipient by several hours to increase the effectiveness of them. The computer also prioritizes the faxes you send according to the priorities that we set for each day in what Congress most needs to hear.

Send more faxes at:

www.NumbersUSA.com/fax

After I sent my 4th of July message to you late Sunday night, NumbersUSA faxers:

sent 11,149 faxes on Monday

sent 6,544 faxes on Tuesday

sent thousands of faxes between midnight last night and 8:00 this morning, and many more since

You can't imagine what a constant drumbeat of faxes like this does to an office. Keep up the good work.

4. VICTORY-AgJOBS threat averted again in Senate

The open-borders Senators and lobbyists had failed to bring the AgJOBS amnesty up for a vote on the Senate floor in previous attempts to add as an amendment to Department of Defense appropriations and others. The only reason is that citizens like you have made the amnesty so controversial that Senate leaders have been fearful of putting it up for a vote.

But yesterday, Senate leaders had decided that they would allow a vote on adding AgJOBS amnesty to S. 2062 (the Class Action Reform Bill). The thought apparently was that this would help get more Democrats to eventually vote for the overall bill which is primarily supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

But a few minutes ago, the leadership decided that AgJOBS would actually decrease the number of votes for the overall bill and ruled that only amendments that are related to the actual subject of the bill would be allowed. That ruled out AgJOBS.

Sen. Craig (R-ID) was furious and immediately took to the floor to make an emotional speech pledging to eventually bring this essential piece of legislation to a vote. But not today and probably not this week.

Craig passed the 60 mark in co-sponsorships months ago that was supposed to ensure a vote and passage. But the efforts of the tens of thousands of you citizens in your faxes and phone calls has made the difference in holding off the votes thus far.

Part of the reason, the vote is not occurring is because you have persuaded a number of co-sponsors of the amnesty that they don't want to be saddled with a pro-amnesty vote. So they are asking leadership to keep the amnesty from the floor.

Our Capitol Hill team has discovered that the following AgJOBS co-sponsors privately now realize that they OPPOSE AgJOBS even though they remain on the bill.te the way they believe:

Senators McConnell, Thomas, Burns, and Coleman. Congratulations to all of you in their states for helping them apparently see the light.

And here are AgJOBS co-sponsors whom our Capitol Hill Team has found to have become very nervous about this bill because of incredible constituency opposition:

Dole, Lott, Voinovich, Roberts, and Gregg

Those of you who are constituents of those 9 Senators, please keep the pressure on.

Now, please make your phone calls to your Representative.

If you feel energetic, consider making a phone call to the Representatives in nearby Districts.

-- Roy Beck, NumbersUSA

[bayourod]

"What do ya think? "

I think you are aiding Kerry.

What caused you to attracted to this old thread? Do you have a search program that automatically alerts you to the name "Buchanan"?

looking at your past FR history, you have never expressed any support for President Bush.

Does the "B" in AuntB stand for Bay?

[bayourod]

1. Do you employ Illegal Aliens, as you've implied?
Not currently.

2. Do you have Illegal Alien gardeners, as you've implied?
Probably. I personally know the man who owns the landscaping company that does my lawn. He does commercial work which means he has to be bonded and insured. He has told me of the difficulties in keeping his employees legal. The beuracracy at INS is the worse of all federal agencies. I rarely see the laborers. They're in and out in 15 minutes.

3. Should employers of Illegal Aliens be prosecuted under current statutes?
Yes.

4. Do you agree with provisions of the Cornyn Amnesty which absolve employers of Illegals of responsiblity for past criminal behavior? Probably, but this is the first I've heard of it.

Now permit me to ask you a question. Are you for Bush? Or are you going to continue to attack him. You and your little tiger have four months to show your stripes.

[Sabertooth]

1. Do you employ Illegal Aliens, as you've implied?
Not currently.

A. How recently have you employed Illegals?

B. How many did you employ?

C. Would you break that law again?

2. Do you have Illegal Alien gardeners, as you've implied?
Probably. I personally know the man who owns the landscaping company that does my lawn. He does commercial work which means he has to be bonded and insured. He has told me of the difficulties in keeping his employees legal. The beuracracy at INS is the worse of all federal agencies. I rarely see the laborers. They're in and out in 15 minutes.

D. So, you are currently using a landscaping company that you believe to be employing Illegals, in violation of federal law?

E. Have you told your landscaper not to bring workers to your property unless he can assure you that they aren't Illegals?

3. Should employers of Illegal Aliens be prosecuted under current statutes?
Yes.

F. Have you reported your suspicions about the probable Illegals your landscaper brings to your property to the appropriate authorities?

4. Do you agree with provisions of the Cornyn Amnesty that would absolve employers of Illegals of responsibility for past criminal behavior?
Probably, but this is the first I've heard of it.

Check it out, you qualify.

SEC. 218B. EMPLOYER APPLICATIONS FOR GUEST WORKERS.

(f) ABSOLUTION FOR PAST ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR- An employer who participates in a guest worker program shall be absolved of all liability for illegal behavior, as such behavior pertains to the immigration status of employees, that occurred before the employer's participation in the guest worker program.
Border Security and Immigration Reform Act | s1387
Chief Sponsor: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

G. Would you accept such an Amnesty?

H. If so, how do you reconcile that with your claim to support prosecution of folks currently breaking immigration laws you've admitted to violating?

Now permit me to ask you a question. Are you for Bush? Or are you going to continue to attack him. You and your little tiger have four months to show your stripes.

Voting for Bush; criticizing him where he's wrong. Same stripes as always.

[Carry_Okie]

If I read bayourod correctly, he is saying he hired a contractor who may have hired illegals. Having built a house and hired contractors who brought in their own subs, one of whom may have employed one illegal on the entire project, I may be guilty of the same thing.

How much control did I have of those circumstances? Not much, IMHO. Now, I could have stipulated in the contract that no illegals be allowed on the job, even when working for subs, but it just didn't occur to me at the time.

Does that make me a former employer of illegals? I didn't exactly do the "employing." Would I make such a stipulation now? Probably. I don't know how I would enforce it.

When in construction, the interest can cost $500 a day. If your contractor walks, you're dead. So, how do you enforce it through his subs, other than through persuasion? It can get pretty tough if not financially fatal.

Now I'm not excusing any of that. I do know that when fighting a battle it helps not to die needlessly. When outnumbered, one must sometimes retreat and reposition. It's just a fact.

[Marine Inspector]

are you on the side of President Bush or John Kerry; there isn't any middle ground.

You’re correct, there is no middle ground, and that is exactly what is destroying America.

Our choice is the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Marine Inspector]

I may be guilty of the same thing. How much control did I have of those circumstances?

You have complete control; you decide who works and who does not work on your property.

It's just a matter of whether you wish to wield that control.

As for breaking the law, most likely you did not and that is the crux of the problem. The current laws protect you in the employer / contractor / sub contractor relationship.

If people are not willing to wield the control they have over a situation, then the situation will never change.

[Carry_Okie]

If people are not willing to wield the control they have over a situation, then the situation will never change.

How would you reccommend enforcing such. Should I have demanded documents from every employee of every sub in advance? How could those be verified?

I'm not arguing here, I'm just wondering how to accomplish the goal in a practicable manner. It gets tricky, especially when you consider the nature of the construction supply chain.

Say my contractor orders concrete. Who verifies the credentials of the driver?

Say my contractor requests pre-cut blocking from the lumber yard. How does he know about the guys back in the lumber yard who handle the stock?? What about the choker setters on the logging job????

See how far that goes? There is a point beyond which it is stupid to go, simply because one person does not possess the resources of the entire INS. Should a person who makes a reasonable effort to verify citizenship go bankrupt trying to enforce legality of his subs and lose out to one who doesn't give a crap? Guess what happens to the composition of the industry then? I'd be interested in what you advise as to where it is practical to draw the line.

[Sabertooth]

How would you reccommend enforcing such. Should I have demanded documents from every employee of every sub in advance? How could those be verified?

There is currently a program which, though voluntary, enables employers to verify the validity of the SSNs given to them by prospective employees. It's one of the few, small measures taken by the Bush Administration to discourage the hiring of Illegals.

Can't recall the name of the act offhand, but I believe that Southack has it.

[Brian Allen]

<< Voting for Bush; criticizing him where he's wrong. Same stripes as always. >>

Me too.

But he is surely wrong wrong wrong -- and, to boot, a traitor to our nation's Rule of Law -- about the presence within our beloved FRaternal Republic's once-sovereign borders of fifteen or thirty-five million increasingly-hostile colonizing criminal-alien invaders!

[And don't get me started on feral gummint "education" and the blowout of feral squandering of our confiscated wealth]

Thanks for the ping, 'Tooth.

BORDERS!

LANGUAGE!

CULTURE!

BUMPping

[Marine Inspector]

Should I have demanded documents from every employee of every sub in advance?

Yes. That is what I do.

How could those be verified?

Your local BCIS (INS) office should have what is called a 'Status Verifier" who can help, but that takes time.

Personally, just asking and looking at any documents is all I would expect from you. You asked for the proper documents, and they either presented them or they did not.

You’re not a fraud document expert, so I would not expect you to be able to identify a good fraudulent document. Your gut will tell you what you need to know. If you think the document is good and the worker is calm and not showing signs of nervousness, then let them work. If you think the document is bad or the worker is nervous, then take the necessary steps.

While this may delay the work to be done or may even increase the expense of the project, at least you know you did the right thing. Just my opinion.

[Southack]

"There is currently a program which, though voluntary, enables employers to verify the validity of the SSNs given to them by prospective employees. It's one of the few, small measures taken by the Bush Administration to discourage the hiring of Illegals."

In a sane world it might be noted that the Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent this voluntary pilot program from being extended to all 50 states under President Bush. They know, of course, that now that the program is national that it is but an executive order or congressional law away from being made mandatory.

President Bush signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal Aliens
S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003, was signed by President Bush on December 3, 2003.
It extends for five years the workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. It expands the pilot programs from the original five states to all 50 states.

[Pelham]

That WSJ smear is word for word what you find at Morris Dee's hard left Southern Poverty Law Center website.

If the Abolish the Border fanatics at the WSJ want to parrot Morris Dees they ought to at least give him credit.

[Pelham]

Xenophobes, segregationists, you know such big words, bayou. We are all lucky to have someone like you, a Shining Light of Virtue to set all of us sinners straight. You're my hero. Please give some more pearls of wisdom to us. We are unworthy.

[lewislynn]

How much control did I have of those circumstances? Not much, IMHO.

If that illegal was killed on your project because he didn't understand the warnings in english, you might have found out how much control you SHOULD have taken over the people YOU hired.

[Carry_Okie]

If that illegal was killed on your project because he didn't understand the warnings in english, you might have found out how much control you SHOULD have taken over the people YOU hired.

First, the concrete finishing contractor hired the man in question. I didn't hire the concrete finishing contractor; my sub, the framing contractor, hired the concrete finishing contractor. That's a hireee of a sub of a sub of an owner builder constructing his first house. I didn't hire the guy nor did I even know he would be there. I should have, but that's now how I ran that job because I didn't know any better at the time. So sue me.

Second, I don't know for a fact that he was an illegal; nor did I have initial reason to expect that he was an illegal, in part, because he DID understand English. It is in retrospect that I have come to have visceral reason to suspect it, in part because of the way the sub was treating him.

Third, although an injury could have happened, most people who trowel concrete slabs don't risk their lives doing it. He was only on the job for one day. This was a slab poured near the end of the framing contract, not the foundation. The sub-contract was under the framing contractor who had proceeded over the rest of the job without indcident, and he was running under union rules (for insurance and health care reasons).

Finally, this was 1991. At that time, I was only dimly aware of the infiltration of illegals into the construction trades, in part because its scope was far less obvious than it is now and the rest was because I was an owner-builder constructing my first home in Northern California.

I might advise you to read a little more carefully and ask a few questions about the circumstances to advise me a little more effectively (much less politely), but then, I already know that's a lost cause.

[Marine Inspector]

nor did I even know he would be there.

They you can't be held responsible.

In big projects like this, it's very hard to control who is who and I understand that, but if we don't do all we can, then the situation (illegal immigration) will never go away.

[Carry_Okie]

In big projects like this, it's very hard to control who is who and I understand that, but if we don't do all we can, then the situation (illegal immigration) will never go away.

Agreed, and I had done, up to that moment, all that appeared to be necessary. I paid a fair amount more to assure that the people I was hiring quality people. It was safer than a fly-by night for a neophyte such as me. The framer had supervised construction on over 4,000 homes, had semi-retired, and gone into business building quality customs with his son. I knew I had an experienced pro.

Interestingly, I had taken a community college course on how to operate as an owner-builder prior to starting the job. They had covered all the necessary rules about insurance and terms and conditions, but had never mentioned what to do to verify citizenship under any circumstances. It was all, "licensed, bonded, and insured."

[Marine Inspector]

Interestingly, I had taken a community college course on how to operate as an owner-builder prior to starting the job. They had covered all the necessary rules about insurance and terms and conditions, but had never mentioned what to do to verify citizenship under any circumstances. It was all, "licensed, bonded, and insured."

I can believe it. Was this course at Cabrillo College?

[Carry_Okie]

I can believe it. Was this course at Cabrillo College?

No, it was at De Anza in Cupertino.