Posted on 06/25/2006 12:10:17 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
The immigration bill I voted for in the Senate started the United States down the road to a much better immigration system. But it's not finished.
In its broad outlines, I support the comprehensive approach that the Senate bill takes. History has taught us that immigration reform measures cannot work in isolation. Simply strengthening physical border security or beginning a guest worker program will not fix the deep, underlying problems in America's immigration system. Any bill Congress sends to the president must enhance border security, create an operational temporary worker program, provide for work-site enforcement, and address the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.
As the House of Representatives conducts public hearings on immigration this summer, I believe it should aim to produce legislation that preserves the Senate's comprehensive approach while remedying certain flaws in the Senate bill. The Senate's legislation, I believe, is a mixed bag: It contains some good provisions, some that need work and some that have no place in a final bill.
Doc Frist, telling us why amnesty is so good...
Mr. Frist the Bill you voted for sucked. Thank the Founders that the House stopped it. As for the rest of your performance as majority leader ?? It sucks too.
Here's the link to the article:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060624-111827-5357r.htm
The Drudge Report today has an article
titled "Bush and Republican Leaders
Regroup on Immigration Reform"
But Drudge's minions forgot to post
the link. Anyone know where that
article can be found? I've been
looking at all my Bookmarked sites
with no luck.
You are a good man but are sadly on the wrong side of this issue.
It was atrocious. It's hard to believe Doc Frist is still attempting to peddle the scam that the Senate wasted our time with.
How would Frist know that stengthening our border security won't work? We've never done it! It's frightening to think a person this ilequipped to make proper logical decisions, is the Senate Majority Leader.
When our laws are not observed and we are serious about stopping crime, we strengthen the penalties, not do away with them. The Senate bill rewards illegality. It's a sham.
Frist, get a grip!
Who knows what it's going to take to bury this immigration "reform" beast once and for all. Bush simply will not take no for an answer.
Attention, Volunteers........
VOTE THE BUM OUT.
Thank you,
America
woo - hoo.
NY Times | 6/7/2005 | EDUARDO PORTER
Gerardo Luviano is looking for somebody to rent his Social Security number. Mr. Luviano, 39, obtained legal residence in the United States almost 20 years ago. But these days, back in Mexico....he is looking for an illegal immigrant in the United States to use it for him - providing a little cash along the way. "My brother in California has a friend who has crops and has people that need one."
Mr. Luviano's pending transaction is merely a blip in a shadowy yet vibrant underground market....undetected by American authorities, operating below the radar in immigrant communities from coast to coast, a secondary trade in identities has emerged straddling both sides of the Mexico-United States border.
Illegal immigrant workers usually earn so little they are owed an income tax refund...........The illegal immigrant "working the number" will usually pay the real owner by sharing the tax refund. Since legal American residents can lose their green cards if they stay outside the country too long, it is useful to have somebody working under their identity north of the border.
"Sometimes the one who is working doesn't mind giving all the refund, he just wants to work," said Fernando Rosales, who runs a shop preparing income taxes in the immigrant-rich enclave of Huntington Park, Calif.
The income tax "refund" is almost certainly generated by Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) fraud, which as a "legal resident" the number renter would qualify to receive, especially if they have have or claim children. The EITC is a "refundable tax credit, which means the IRS will pay it out even if no taxes have been withheld or paid in. So the IRS gives filers who claim the EITC "refunds," even if they have had no taxes withheld.
These number renters can claim up to $4,400 for the 2005 tax year in EITC "refunds," most of the number renters probably claim this maximum refund. The Additional Child Tax Credit is another "refundable" credit which is no doubt routinely claimed by these renters.
For 2005, if the number renter claimed $14,400 in wage income, and three children, between the EITC and the Additional Child Tax Credit the renter would, without having any taxes withheld from wages, receive a tax "refund" of $4,898, plus have $892 credited to Social Security; in addition to the potential of thousands of dollars in California unemployment compensation.
Dear Bill,
You suck and the Senate's bill sucks. I hope the American people with the help of the House shoves it down the Senate's throats and you all choke on it.
Sincerely,
Senator Frist, what such border security has ever been tried? It hasn't Senator, you cannot cite any history because there isn't any. So why are you telling us this?
Maybe you are telling us this because you can't tell us the truth, which is that you are merely shilling for the cheap labor open border lobby who needs continued access to cheap labor whatever the cost to the country. Since you can't tell us that, you make up a bunch of patently untrue risible blather.
Once they become citizens, they must have minimum wage. I say , let them in, pay 50 cents an hour, and I best be seeing strawberries and lettuce a very reduced prices.
This why every fund raising letter I get from the Repubs right now gets sent back with "Control the border, No amnesty, sanction employers of illegals" written across it in big black magic marker. Not 1 dime. No precinct work, no votes if they don't get straight on this issue.
"History has taught us that immigration reform measures cannot work in isolation."
What history amply demonstrates is that, when you don't enforce existing immigrations laws, you end up with a huge problem.
Don't take us for the kinds of fools that inhabit the Senate.
We don't need any new legislation at all -- proposed legislation is just another empty promise to enforce our laws if we agree first to give you the farm. Show us that you can enforce the laws that exist and we might give you an opportunity to make new or improved law. Until then, pound salt.
Well, I guess they finally got the message from me. They quit sending them to me! rofl Seriously, I have not received one in quite awhile, guess they took me off their lists because they got tired of reading my messages back to them.
The danger here is after the election. If the Republicans keep control, and that is not a given, then I see a chance that Bush, Kennedy, and the Republican leadership will cut a deal against the majority of Republicans in both houses. There is precedent of Presidents going against a majority of their own party. Bush did when he broke his no new taxes pledge and Clinton did it on Nafta. Of course both had severe consequences, Bush gave up re-election and Clinton lost the congress. But if Dubya would do that then the Republican Party would split in such a way that it would take a very long time to recover.But his old man ended his term in office waging war against conservatives in his own party. Many forget Newt did not appear in the Rose Garden when Bush signed the deal that broke his pledge. Of course Newt and conservatives were vindicated in 94. If Bush would go against conservatives on immigration, then he could feel very much at home after he left office with the three amigo President's tour of himself, his father, and the rapist in chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.