Posted on 06/27/2007 2:45:12 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Background Information on Major Enforcement Provisions of the Graham-Kyl-Martinez Amendment
‘TOUCHBACK’ Z-VISA APPLICANTS MUST LEAVE THE UNITED STATES TO BECOME A Z-VISA HOLDER
The legislation has been criticized for allowing z-visa applicants to stay in the United States indefinitely in z-visa status. Others have claimed said z-visa holders will never have to leave the United States.
*
The illegal alien head of household – currently residing in the United States -- will have to leave our country within 3 years and return to their home country.
*
Once in their home country, they can complete their z-visa application.
*
After 3 years, if the illegal alien has not 1) left the United States, 2) returned to their home country, 3) submitted the appropriate paperwork from their home country, then their probationary status will be revoked. They will be deported along with their spouse and any non-American citizen children.
VISA OVERSTAYS
Approximately 40 percent of the illegal aliens in the United States today did not come across our nation’s southern border. They came to the United States legally on visas and simply refused to leave the when their visa expired. The Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment builds upon a provision already in the bill requiring mandatory jail time of at least 60 days to a maximum of 1 year in jail for aliens who illegally reenter the United States after being deported.
Graham-Kyl-Martinez would:
*
PERMANENTLY bar from the United States any alien who overstays their visa.
*
Aliens who overstay their visa by more than 60 days will be apprehended, detained, and deported.
*
Establishes and deploys a biometric tracking system that records the entry and exit of all temporary workers and visiting family members to ensure we have a record of who overstayed a visa.
*
If the alien refuses to depart in a timely manner, DHS will – within 48 hours – enter the alien’s name in a database of overstays accessible for local, state, and immigration law enforcement officials.
*
Authorizes an increase of 6,250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel hired to carry out the removal of illegal aliens, to investigate immigration fraud, and to enforce illegal hiring at the workplace.
24 HOUR BACKGROUND CHECKS
The bill has been criticized for allowing probationary status to be granted to z-visa applicants 24 hours after they file an application, even if the alien has not yet passed all appropriate background checks. The Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment addresses those concerns.
*
Ensures probationary status will only be granted after passing all appropriate background checks regardless of how long it takes for DHS to complete them.
*
Z-visa applicants can pre-register online with DHS to speed their application and to make appointments for getting their fingerprints taken.
GANG MEMBERS NEED NOT APPLY FOR A Z-VISA
Critics have said illegal alien gang members will be allowed to receive legal status under the legislation.
*
Graham-Kyl-Martinez makes it clear that gang members – even those who have renounced their gang ‘membership’ – are ineligible for the z-visa program.
CHILD MOLESTORS NEED NOT APPLY FOR A Z-VISA
Critics have said some child molesters will be allowed to receive legal status under the legislation.
*
Graham-Kyl-Martinez makes clear that illegal aliens convicted of sexual abuse on a minor are ineligible regardless of when the offense occurred.
ADDRESSES VISA OVERSTAYS USING THE ‘PARENT’ VISA
Critics of the legislation have criticized the new ‘parent’ visa which allows parents of American citizens and the spouses and children of temporary workers to visit a worker in the United States.
*
Graham-Kyl-Martinez raises the bond for visiting family members from $1,000 to $2,500 to help ensure they depart when their visa is up.
*
Overstay provisions described above apply to the ‘parent’ visa holders.
ILLEGAL ALIEN DRUNK DRIVERS FACE HARSHER STANDARDS
*
Illegal aliens who have 2 state or federal convictions or 1 felony conviction for drunk driving will not be allowed to gain legal status.
Second, it seems to have the same "touchback" provision as the "approved" Hutchison amendment (which unfortunately Hutchison says eliminates amnesty, but does not).
Third, I don't think this amendment will pass, but if it does, it's still amnesty and a "desmadre" as Mexicans would say.
Fourth, any even slightly "tough" amendments that manage to pass will be zapped in the senate/house Dem/RINO conference. According to numbersusa, there are a couple of "approved" amendments that would be true "poison pills" but I don't think they will come close to getting enough votes:
# Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
# Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is “probable cause” to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
Now they expect us to believe they'll enforce this legislation that is more complicated than previous? It's a juvenile attitude.
The GOP is rapidly going the way of the Whigs. They could save themselves by taking a stand and declaring current laws should be enforced prior to any new legislation being introduced.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Just say NO to Illegal Alien Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Toll free to the US Senate:
1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)
Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
>>It will STILL be amnesty. These amendments don’t change the core of what is a bad bill. The changes contemplated don’t ELIMINATE amnesty and put the emphasis on enforcement and securing the borders. The turkey needs to be chucked since there’s no time to really write good legislation... they want to get this wrapped up before July 4th.<<
True. The only good thing that could result from this amendment is that it will be voted down, which will show again that the Senate will not tolerate changes which inconvenience illegals in any way.
If the amendment does pass, it’s lipstick on a pig, which apparently some senators are too dumb or corrupt to care about.
How about this? How about they just go back, touch down and STAY THERE?
If there’s no wall or fence on the border, no overhaul of the immigration system to speed up processing and begin immediate mass deportations (even of a few thousand at a time), and no defunding of “sanctuary cities” to bring them back into the fold...none of the rest of it matters.
}:-)4
>>So why do they insist on holding enforcement hostage to amnesty?<<
They may be starting to talk about budging a little on this:
“The bill has been criticized for allowing probationary status to be granted to z-visa applicants 24 hours after they file an application, even if the alien has not yet passed all appropriate background checks. The Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment addresses those concerns.
*
Ensures probationary status will only be granted after passing all appropriate background checks regardless of how long it takes for DHS to complete them.”
The claim is that, assuming that DHS would be willing and able to do meaningful and complete background checks (which I doubt) illegals would not get “instant legalization.”
I frankly don’t trust senators not to write loopholes, and don’t trust DHS either.
One other interesting detail is that this amendment supposedly requires:
“Establishes and deploys a biometric tracking system that records the entry and exit of all temporary workers and visiting family members to ensure we have a record of who overstayed a visa.”
WHEN?
This is one of Sessions’s pet peeves about the bill.
That's no enforcement.
They should be kicked out IMMEDIATELY.
It's a farce.
The really irritating part of all this is how these senators think we are stupid enough to buy this crap.
Stupid is as stupid does!
I would expect this from the socialist party but from some who have a big (R) after their name?
Kick the stupids out of this party!
I’ve been trying to read the amendment(s) but not being a lawyer it’s tough going. I’m wondering if you’ve come across anything about funding this. In the original bill- after many of the provisions there was a disclaimer that said (something like) subject to funding....
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION VOTE & UPDATE
We have approximately 36 hours until the do or die second cloture vote on Thursday. That is the last chance we have to the kill the bill in the Senate.
1. Cloture motion passed 64-35. Senators Alexander and Corker kept their word and voted NO! (Full vote below).
2. The Senate has released the text of the “clay pigeon**” (See Division list below). On Wednesday the Senate convenes at 10:00 am. They will immediately begin consideration of the bill, which will be divided into 27 divisions and expect votes on divisions of Reid amendment #1934 to occur throughout the day. This procedure (called the “clay pigeon”) has only been used 2 times in the history of the Senate. It intent is to limit consideration to only the hand-picked amendments approved by Reid, McConnell, the White House, and the “Masters of the Universe.”
3. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) just required the entire bill – all 373 pages -- (S. 1639) be read on the Senate floor (this is great! It forces Reid to take up time).
4. 2nd cloture motion will take place Thursday
ACTIONS:
* Calls to Senators and the White House; also calls into the Senate Campaign Headquarters (Chairman Sen. John Ensign voted YES on cloture today—inexcusable! We have heard they are losing hundreds of donors today—let them know if one is you!)
o Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-1213
o National Republican Senatorial Committee: 202-675-6000
o White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
* Thank Senators Alexander and Corker for voting NO and tell them we are depending on them to vote NO again on Thursday.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senatep Vote Summary Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S.1639 ) Vote Number: 228 Vote Date: June 26, 2007, 12:16 PM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 1639
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. Vote Counts: YEAs 64
NAYs 35
Not Voting 1
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---64
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---35
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 1
DIVISIONS OF REID AMENDMENT #1934
**{Clay Pigeon}**
DIVISION SENATOR TOPIC PAGE #
I Hutchison Early touchback 1-115
II Webb Community ties/2003 cutoff for Z Visas 116-120
III Bond No green cards for Z holders 121
IV Dodd More Green Cards for Parents 122-128
V Republican Side By Side for Dodd 129
VI Menendez Additional Family Points 130
VII Baucus Strike Real ID 131
VIII Grassley Title III Substitute 132-199
IX Domenici Additional Federal Judges 200-205
X Chambliss SS Totalization 206-212
XI Graham Enhanced Enforcement/High Tech Improvements 213-246
XII McCaskill/Durbin Illegal hire penalties/H1B Reforms 247-261
XIII Cantwell High Tech Improvements 262-271
XIV Coleman Sanctuary Cities 272-273
XV Byrd Additional $500 Fee 274-275
XVI Thune No probationary status until triggers met 276
XVII Sanders H-1B Restrictions 277
XVIII Alexander Oath of Allegiance at Naturalization 278-290
XIX Brown Job posting requirement/duration 291-293
XX Levin Religious minorities 294-95
XXI Isakson Preemption 296-297
XXII Schumer Tamper proof SS Card 298-303
XXIII Ensign Social Security Benefits 304-306
XXIV Leahy Refugee Scholars/EB 5 307-309
XV Graham Mandatory Minimums 310-322
XVI Boxer Reduce # Y Visas by # of overstays
XVII Managers Assorted 324-373
Aw come on! This time they REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY MEAN IT!
We are used to Dems and Libs having absolutely no sense of honor or justice and lying through their teeth to sell us on their latest “savior” program, but to have the kon-servative RINOs try the same puffery and believe if they just repackage this mess with a new pink “touchback” bow it becomes what they SAY it is rather than what we know it is fills me with contempt and disgust.
One simple question that should be asked of every politician - How exactly is this good for the average American citizen? Details please. Omit the puffery too.
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
There are numerous threads today. So instead of pinging each one which will be frustrating for you, I'm including links so you can view at your leisure.
Hiding The Cost Of Amnesty (George W. Wants To Expand Welfare State Alert)
SENATOR INHOFE CREATES INTERNET PETITION TO HOUSE TO STOP AMNESTY - PLEASE SIGN NOW.
You may want to read this:
Borderline Insanity
Will the Senate allow the U.N. to control U.S. immigration law?
S.1639 states on pages 388 -389:
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
(i) supersede obligations under any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party, including –
(I) the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague, October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670);
(II) the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at Vienna, June 25, 1993; and
(III) the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York, November 20, 1959; or
(ii) limit any right or remedy under such international agreements.
The United States is “a party” to a good many international agreements. These agreements are all too often “wish lists” unconstrained by economic reality or fallen human nature.
Examples:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees “continuous improvement of living conditions” as well as “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women includes a demand for “complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
Congress can transform any treaty into American law
Some people, Thomas Geoghegan of the American Prospect among them, actually think we should junk our Constitution’s treaty-ratification process:
Let’s just ignore the Treaty Clause (Article II, section 2, clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution. … [W]e just pass a simple law. “Yes we will comply with Kyoto.” Or: “We’re in the ICC.” It’s a straight up or down vote in the House. Then it’s 50 votes plus the veep in the Senate, if we get rid of the filibuster under special fast-track-type rules.
I asked Matthew Spalding, director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, about the legal impact of the Senate passing any legislation which includes references to unratified treaties. Spalding said:
The Senate can’t ratify treaties that have not been presented to them by the executive. They can only provide advice and consent after the president exercises the power “to make” the treaty.
Nevertheless, they can incorporate the provisions of the treaty as law, and commit us as law (but not international treaty commitment). There have been other cases in which we agree to abide by something not ratified.
WE ARE THE WORLD
Both the Vienna Declaration of 1993 and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child of 1959 have dreadful implications for any American concerned about mandatory multilingualism, a reasonable border control policy or abuse of public benefits by immigrants.
The 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action guarantees the right of linguistic minorities to “use their own language in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination” and insists upon “the elimination of all forms of discrimination against” migrant workers as well as “the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services.”
Note that there are no distinctions made between legal and illegal residents of a nation. All are to receive “necessary social services” and have those services provided in their own language.
The Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959) cited by the Senate immigration bill is a U.N. resolution. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is a formal international agreement signed in 1995 by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the United States Senate.
The 1989 Convention, not the 1959 Declaration, was cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons in 2005.
Because of the Kennedy opinion, the 1989 Convention is “radioactive” in a way that the 1959 Declaration is not. Still, the rights granted by the 1959 Declaration are spectacularly sweeping:
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour [sic], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family. … The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services. … [A] child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.
Given the creativity of immigration lawyers and the willingness of federal judges to rewrite legislation according to their personal beliefs, chances are good that these endorsements of U.N. resolutions will be strictly enforced.
The Senate has a choice: (A) pass a 21stt-century version of the Bricker amendment making our Constitution superior to any and all international agreements or (B) continue to oppose limiting debate (cloture) on the immigration bill. Given this is but one of many problems with the legislation, “B” seems like the right vote.
— Jim Boulet Jr. is the executive director of English First.
Links at site:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWNjM2M1YjYzNzIyNjM3NDkwY2YxMjNhN2U0ZDI0NWU=
This is all a sham. Just window dressing. It is still amnesty. All of these enforcement measures could have been taken six years ago.
Exactly. When you read this nonsense, it is clear that we don’t have the resources or will to enforce these laws. And more importantly, once these people are granted legal status, they will be entitled to legal protections. Trying to deport just one person will take years. It will tie our legal system into knots.
The traitors might have forgotten their sworn oath, but we won't. Lightloafer Lindsey is GONE in 2008!
U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
One other aspect of the “touchback” provision is that it is a massive sellout to Mexicans. Only Mexicans (and a few Canadians?) will be able to take a cheap busride for a border touchback. For everybody else, it’s a major expense and problem.
But anyway, they get their Z-visas automatically, touchback or not.
S.1639 states on pages 388 -389:
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
(i) supersede obligations under any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party, including –
(I) the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague, October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670);
(II) the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at Vienna, June 25, 1993; and
(III) the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York, November 20, 1959; or
(ii) limit any right or remedy under such international agreements.
This is even worse than I thought. If you are unfamiliar with the UN “Rights of the Child” please read it at this time. It is an extremely frightening document. If this “Rights of the Child” takes president then none of the amendments are worth a darn. Read the exemption that says no child of tender years may be seperated for its mother.
Sorry Triple D, I must rant. And no, it’s not that nothings good enough for some folks or it’s better than nothing... it’s just bullshit.
First of all why three years to touchback?
Who provides for the family while they’re gone?
As far as completing Z Visa App in home country, why should they? They get all services when this is signed anyway. We all know the family will never get deported.
re: Approximately 40 percent of the illegal aliens in the United States today did not come across our nation’s southern border. They came to the United States legally on visas and simply refused to leave the when their visa expired. The Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment builds upon a provision already in the bill requiring mandatory jail time of at least 60 days to a maximum of 1 year in jail for aliens who illegally reenter the United States after being deported.
That’s two totally different things.
On 9-12 the holders of visas should have been sought, sorted (for our wonderful agencies like to lose things and is backlogged, hello... fix that as well), to kick these folks out.
This states Aliens who overstay by plus 60 days will be apprehended and deported... mmkay; Like above, they can’t even do that now others.
re: Establishes and deploys a biometric tracking system that records the entry and exit of all temporary workers and visiting family members to ensure we have a record of who overstayed a visa.
Ummm... last year (as well as in the 9-11 Comm. report (as incomplete as it was), this was done... we were told (exit still tested at 12 airports, entrance at 200+ locations), it was too expensive and there are glitches in the 12 exit locations... so someone has to show me what changed. (Kinda like the fence).
re: If the alien refuses to depart in a timely manner, DHS will – within 48 hours – enter the alien’s name in a database of overstays accessible for local, state, and immigration law enforcement officials.
What the hell does this mean? If the alien refuses to depart in a timely manner?
re: database
Um, but does accessible mean actionable? Can state and local even ask status or have to wait from their nearest Homeland reps to pick him up or say “We don’t have anyone to come down... let them go? (Again, refer to the UN Treaty on page 388-89).
re:
Authorizes an increase of 6,250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel hired to carry out the removal of illegal aliens, to investigate immigration fraud, and to enforce illegal hiring at the workplace.
Mmkay... like 86 (that wasn’t done), like last years (still can’t seem to hire enough). Since they want to use agents to do applications instead of their jobs, why the misdirection... never happen.
re: Z-visa applicants can pre-register online with DHS to speed their application and to make appointments for getting their fingerprints taken.
I have a problem with this... but it would take all day, would give more time to check background up to fingerprinting appt.
re: Critics have said illegal alien gang members will be allowed to receive legal status under the legislation.
Graham-Kyl-Martinez makes it clear that gang members – even those who have renounced their gang ‘membership’ – are ineligible for the z-visa program.
How would you know?
re: Graham-Kyl-Martinez makes clear that illegal aliens convicted of sexual abuse on a minor are ineligible regardless of when the offense occurred.
Okay, maybe it’s me... again, illegal, convicted... almost an oxymoron. They don’t get a name, get a fake name, they let them go... who’s convicted and illegal?
re: Illegal aliens who have 2 state or federal convictions or 1 felony conviction for drunk driving will not be allowed to gain legal status.
Sigh... again, what the hell are they talking about, like the two others above, they should’ve been thrown out as soon as it happened... not let go. And we’re supposed to trust them to enforce this... I don’t think so.
Like I posted, the UN treaty has tied our hands in our own country... damn shame.
Only Nixon Could Go to China, and Only Pence Could Sell Amnesty to the House
Oh, check this out:
Hiding the cost
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856928/posts
They won’t go back anyway. They get the Z-visa for life the day the bill passes.
"The illegal alien head of household – currently residing in the United States -- will have to leave our country within 3 years and return to their home country."
"Once in their home country, they can complete their z-visa application."
"After 3 years, if the illegal alien has not 1) left the United States, 2) returned to their home country, 3) submitted the appropriate paperwork from their home country, then their probationary status will be revoked. They will be deported along with their spouse and any non-American citizen children."
Close the damn border and strictly enforce EXISTING law! When you have that accomplished then, and only then, get back to us!
If anyone believes that any of these “tough enforcement” provisions will be enforced by this incompetent government...I’ve got a bridge to sell in Brooklyn. These incompetents can’t even process passport applications. Graham & Kyl are throwing a bone for support while having no intention of enforcing the law.
Of all the provisions of this bill, that worries me the least. It makes muslims fly back to the middle east and thereby reduces muslim legal status.
from the “rights of the child”
Article 26
1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.
2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.
Article 27
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.
3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.
4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.
Article 28
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;
(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;
(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;
(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.
Most of these people will just simply walk into a Mexican Consolute here in the US and apply. There's always an escape clause..
sw
One of the most phony things about the totally phony "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is the mantra "you can't deport 12 million", then they turn around and promise to deport millions and millions, who don't comply with their idiotic law.
So, if they ever come out of their bunkers to discuss the substance of their phony bill, I'd like to nail down the number we can deport. 12 million is too many. Currently, we deport how many? A few thousand? 650,000 have deportation orders, but have disappeared. So, theoretically, let's say today, under the lax enforcement of current law, we're deporting say one million a year.
Sen Grahamnesty promises deportations with the new, new, super-improved Immigration Law, deportations will be somewhere between 1 and 12 million. So, what's the number going to be that can be deported? 3 million? 6 million? 9 million? Or theoretically, if no illegals sign up for the new, new, super-better law, Grahamnesty's Law would have to deport 12 million.
Logically, Grahamnesty claims to be able to deport 12 million, while at the same time, he says he can't deport 12 million. Okay, I understand this.
And all of those provisions will somehow magically be enforced? Like the 1986 laws were enforced?
By the same dolts who sent automatic visa extensions to the 9-11 hijackers six months after 9-11.
ping
They just voted to “table” the Hutchison “touchback” amendment.
Tomorrow (thursday) will tell the tale. If this cloture vote goes in, the fix is in.
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.