|
Posted on 06/25/2009 2:29:28 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
President Obama moved the goalposts on getting immigration reform accomplished, saying Thursday that he wants a bill he can sign either this year or early next year.
Shortly after the president adjourned a meeting with a bipartisan group of members from both chambers, a number of senators and congressmen from both sides of the aisle demonstrated why next year might be aiming too high.
The White House has said that the president would like to see something this year, but a number of skeptics have questioned whether Congress can or will take any floor action in 2009.
Obama said he is committed to getting something done, and he said the members he met with appear ready to join him.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said it is now or never to get something passed.
"We've got one more chance to do this," Graham said. "If we fail this time, no politician's going to take this up for a generation, and that'd be a shame for the country."
(snip)
It's time to kill the amnesty bill.
|
Obozo wants to get it done before more Americans become unemployed and figure out they can’t find jobs even at Wal-Mart.
And so many Freepers said that McCain was utterly irrelevant and impotent after he threw the election for the 0. /sarc
Talk about political suicide. An amnesty bill during an election year? Does 0 want to out do what happened to Clinton in 94? And how is McCain going to spin this for his reelection campaign?
This is really going to infuriate voters and especially the 10% of Americans that are unemployed.
It won’t matter if Cap & Trade, National Healthcare and other leftwing programs come to pass. This amnesty will kill the nation as we know it.
“Talk about political suicide. An amnesty bill during an election year? Does 0 want to out do what happened to Clinton in 94? And how is McCain going to spin this for his reelection campaign?”
Good points.
My bet is Emanuel, Axelrod, and the Teleprompter will promise STRONG (”and we mean it”) border control to sell the bill and, once amnesty is in place, look the other way as masses continue to cross the border as the Feds have been doing for decades.
Shove it, Hussein. And all your RINO buddies, too.
obama and Congress are destroying our sovernty minute by minute and are driviging us toward one world government at the speed of light.
Does that concern most of the members of this forum? Apparently not. They appear to be more interested in some governor’s letters to some whore he was screwing than things that effect their future.
The border is irrelevant if an amnesty is passed. We could have a fully secured border, but the damage will have already been done by an amnesty. It is game, set, and match for this country.
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
If amnesty passes with mcinsane supporting it, AZ voters MUST reject him in 2010!
I am so grateful to Mr.Obama for letting me and my family stay in this contry, and I will vote for him in 2012.
Thanks, rabscuttle, for making me unashamed of my third party vote last November.
Either you forgot the sarc tag, or you're about to meet the Viking kittens.
I think actual shamnesty has at best a 10% chance of passing.
Something short of shamnesty (allowing people to stay but no path to citizenship and no taxpayer-supported freebies) would probably have a better chance.
He gets amnesty, he doesn't have to worry about p-o’d Americans voting him out. Dems guaranteed re-election.
We have a trifecta approaching that we must destroy:
Cap and Trade
Socialized medicine
Amnesty.
Start the dominoes with Tax and Ra*e.
And here I was holding out SC as a good conservative state to move to. First Sanford and now you’ve reminded me about Grahamnesty.
Allowing them to stay and work here is amnesty. And how can you stop them from bringing in legally their children, wives, parents, etc. thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification? Don't let the Dems fool you with language.
Words have meanings. The Democrats and the mainstream media have hijacked the language surrounding the immigration issue to the point that we had Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security and our nation’s top immigration official at the time, testifying before Congress using the term “undocumented workers” to describe illegal aliens. John McCain and Barack Obama studiously avoided the term “amnesty” to describe their comprehensive immigration reform plans and despite the evidence, baldly declared that it was not an amnesty. Instead, they used such euphemisms as “getting to the back of the line,” “an earned path to citizenship,” and “coming out of the shadows.” The Democrats and pro-amnesty crowd know full well that the American people are against amnesty, hence the avoidance of the “A” word.
Carville today was saying the senate might be in play in 2010.
I think the house could be too if this bastard pushes too hard.
Dems are going to get nervous come election time and they show very poorly.
Did I not see a few days ago that McAmnesty indicated that he was not going to seek re-election?
If that is true, his working for immigration amnesty is the first stop on his FTRP (F*** The Republican Party) tour. He will probably vote with the Ds a few times on extremely crucial issues just to make sure that we are well and truly screwed. Then he and Cindy will move their millions to a nice Brazilian bank and retire in Rio. Actually I would bet the money is already there, moved it before Jan 20 to avoid any ‘grandfathering’ issues.
Once a week he will drive up the mountain, stand next to Jesus’ statue, face North and give us the finger.
I’ll bet his grandfather is rolling in his grave ...
“The border is irrelevant if an amnesty is passed. We could have a fully secured border, but the damage will have already been done by an amnesty. It is game, set, and match for this country.”
I agree.
(almost) All of DC is an enemy of the US people.
I'm with you. Hand-wringing and despair and outright giving up as expressed by some on this thread won't cut it; faxing and calling not only hometown congressional members but also others and talk radio and c-span shows will eventually make the difference--just as we did two years ago.Finally, joining FAIR.org and NumbersUSA.com can make a HUGE difference because they have the kind of membership those cowards in our paid-for congressional offices do fear, especially as the next election cycle nears.
Regards . . . Penny
The high unemployment should not be used as a reason to not pass amnesty, if it is, it will be used against us, by the left to pass an amnesty when unemployment goes back down.
Well if you look at it that way, they already have amnesty.
And how can you stop them from bringing in legally their children, wives, parents, etc. thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification?
Limit this to individuals who have green cards and/or American citizens only. Not allow it of people who have been given a waiver to stay but not an actual green card. And make anyone who came here illegally or overstayed a visa permanently INELIGIBLE for a green card.
ping
The fact that Obama can't connect the presence of tens of millions of foreigners to the unemployment of real Americans is evidence that he's seriously mentally deficient.
Best Congress get to work on replacing him.
No, you are missing the point. If you legalize their status, then it is an amnesty. Right now, they are violating our laws by being here and are subject to deportation. And some are deported.
Limit this to individuals who have green cards and/or American citizens only.
That is already the case. An amensty will not affect them.
Not allow it of people who have been given a waiver to stay but not an actual green card.
What do you mean by a "wavier to stay?"
And make anyone who came here illegally or overstayed a visa permanently INELIGIBLE for a green card.
This covers all of the 12 to 20 million illegals here. You are setting up at totally different class of people--second class citizens. I gather they must pay taxes. Would they have to contribute to SS? Would they have access to social welfare services? Would they be able to sponsor their children and spouses to come to this country to reunitied with their families?
What message does this send to the millions of legal immigrants waiting overseas to come in? The message will be that it is ok to violate the rule of law and that our borders are meaningless. Self-selected immigrants are welcome, even if they don't have the skills needed to assist our economy.
What you suggest would never fly politically. Why not have a policy of attrition thru enforcement? Why is it necessary to leagalize the status of those who have entered our country illegally?
Even without amnesty, mass immigration is killing this country. The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 306 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 133 million to 439 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975 percent (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.
GOP seems to suffer from that too. This is their chance to jump on the thing. If they don’t, they’ll continue their pitiful decline.
I’m on contract now. Tried to do some of that stuff. Nothing to be found. Yeah, I’m way over-qualified but it’s still a new world.
They have broken our laws. I don't see what is so horrible with them being "second class" [if that is the term that suits you] if they want the privilege of staying here. Apparently, they greatly prefer that to going back to where they came from.
I gather they must pay taxes.
Yes
Would they have to contribute to SS?
The way the system currently works I am guessing the answer would be yes. A lot of them currently do according to the rhetoric.
Would they have access to social welfare services?
There are scores of such services. Decisions would have to be made as to what they are eligible for and what they are not. Some services are required by the courts (e.g. schools).
Would they be able to sponsor their children and spouses to come to this country to reunitied with their families?
Absolutely positively not.
Why not have a policy of attrition thru enforcement?
Fine with me, I just don't think the powers that be will be satisfied with that. They want to do more.
We must take care of the border first ~ gain control ~ and then we can figure out what immigration levels make sense.
Of course the illegals and their allies want more. Attrition thru enforcement is the only reasonable approach. If you reward people who entered this country illegally, then you are just setting up a third amnesty. Inj 1986, it was supposed to be a one-time event. The USG estimated that 1 million would apply, but the true number was 2.7 million. The USG estimates there are 12 million illegals today, but other estimates range as high as 30 million. You can kiss this country good-bye if there is an amnesty.
Multiply 138,000 times 12. Now, we take in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year. Approximately 500,000 come in illegally either across the border or visa overstays. Legal immigration is more of a problem than illegal immigration in terms of its impact on the country.
Legal immigration is less of a “problem” because we have some control over the quality of the newcomers. Mass murderers have been allowed by the government to just walk in without visas and kill people by the carload. You rarely see that with legal immigrants.
We actually don't have that much control over legal immigrants because it is based on kinship rather than merit. And legal immigrants have access to all of our services. Here are some stats on how immigration is affecting us:
Jobs and Wages – The latest data show 22.1 million immigrants holding jobs in the U.S. with an estimated 7 million being illegal aliens. By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
Energy Independence – Our pro-population growth immigration policies will account for about three-quarters of the projected increase of 135 million in our population over the next 40 years. This is the equivalent of adding approximately the combined populations of the UK and Germany. How does population growth impact our energy needs? According to Population-Environment Balance (PEB), 93 percent of the U.S. increase in energy use since 1970 can be attributed to population growth. In 1970 the US consumed 14.7 million barrels of oil a day compared to approximately 22 million barrels today with about 70% of the total now being imported. The Democrats are preaching conservation and Green technology, but fail to mention increased demand due to immigration-fueled population growth. We will have to run just to stand still in terms of meeting our future energy needs. If we were to reduce our annual immigration to 300,000 from the current 1.2 million, by 2060 the population would be 80 million less than the projected 468 million. How much energy would that save?
Health Care – 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989. Our Emergency Rooms have been turned into free health care clinics for immigrants, legal and illegal, affecting the quality and timeliness of services and increasing medical costs subsidized by the insured and the taxpayers.
Education – Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the U.S. Although immigrants account for 13 percent of the population, they comprise 21 percent of the school age population.
Social Welfare Programs – The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households. The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children. Massive low-skill immigration works to counteract government anti-poverty efforts. While government works to reduce the number of poor persons, low-skill immigration pushes the poverty numbers up. In addition, low-skill immigration siphons off government anti-poverty funding and makes government efforts to shrink poverty less effective. Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”
America must decide whether our immigration programs are to serve the long-term interests of all Americans or the short-term interests of corporate and special (often political, religious and ethnic) interest groups. History is replete with the carcasses of empires, nations, and city-states that failed to “get it right” on the issue of immigration. After five decades of grossly misguided immigration policy, this may be our nation’s last chance to “get it right.”
You must have an immigration visa to be an immigrant. Otherwise, you are simply a visitor.
Due to an improper understanding of the "born" clause in the 14th Amendment, ICE, and earlier INS, have made it possible for children born to visitors to this country to claim American citizenship.
That right there amounts to several tens of millions of the current population of this country.
Shutting down tourism and the borders would eliminate that source of population growth and since the INS/ICE standard is nothing other than an administrative error, we could probably change the status on all those "anchor babies" and send them on to their own homelands.
Slipped? Actually the correct legal term is unauthorized aliens.
Due to an improper understanding of the "born" clause in the 14th Amendment, ICE, and earlier INS, have made it possible for children born to visitors to this country to claim American citizenship.
Yes, it is called birthright citizenship. We need to eliminate it, but it will more than likely take a constitutional amendment. There is a proposed law in Congress now to eliminate it, but I personally don't believe it would pass constitutional muster, even if it were to pass, which is doubtful. There are 400,000 "anchor babies" born every year in this country or more than one in ten of the births.
Shutting down tourism and the borders would eliminate that source of population growth and since the INS/ICE standard is nothing other than an administrative error, we could probably change the status on all those "anchor babies" and send them on to their own homelands.
There are more than 50 million people who enter this country on tourist/business visas or come in under the Visa Wavier program or BCC's. There is no way we are going to shut down tourism, which is a major source of revenue in this country.
Sorry, but there will be no sending back of "anchor babies." Even if we were to eliminate birthright citizenship, it would not be retroactive. No one is proposing that now and it would never survive the legal challenges.
While "family visas" were still issued (as late as last year) visitors who had a baby in the US were instructed by INS/ICE to immediately add the child to their visa.
There's your law ~ visitors add their babies born here to their visas and go home fat dumb and happy.
Since American citizens do not need a visa to be here, it's pretty obviously been an assumption of longstanding law in this country that children born here to visitors are not citizens.
Here is a decent summary of the issues even if it is from Wikipedia.The Wong Kim Ark case is of interest.
There's your law ~ visitors add their babies born here to their visas and go home fat dumb and happy.
You don't have to have a visa if you are from the following countries, which are part of the Visa Wavier Program.
Based on personal knowledge and experience, there are people who come here to have their babies so they can get a US passport for their child. Once they have certificed birth certificate, the parents can apply for a US passport for their child. It is done all of the time.
Since American citizens do not need a visa to be here, it's pretty obviously been an assumption of longstanding law in this country that children born here to visitors are not citizens.
Sorry, that isn't true. A valid US birth certificate is sufficient to get a passport. I say that advisedly having worked for the State Department for 28 years.
American Citizenship Draining Away Through “Citizen Child” Loophole
By Michelle Malkin
Thousands of people from around the world will raise their right hands, swear allegiance to the United States, and become proud American citizens this weekend. They will become Americans because they choose to do so, they love what we stand for, and they are willing to renounce any loyalties to all other foreign governments in order to become one of us.
And then there are “Americans” such as Yaser Esam Hamdi. These are “Americans” by accident. “Americans” on paper. “Americans” who invoke their citizenship privileges only when it comes time to save their hides or cash in on government benefits.
Hamdi was born in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 26, 1980. His parents were both citizens of Saudi Arabia. Hamdi’s father was here on a temporary work assignment as a chemical engineer for the Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp., a Saudi government-controlled industrial giant. When Hamdi was three, his family went back to Saudi Arabia.
For the next two decades, Hamdi was raised in the Saudi kingdom. He spoke their language, not ours. He went to their schools, not ours. He embraced their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Not ours.
In late fall of 2001, Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan by our boys. He was armed with a Kalashnikov rifle, fighting as part of a Taliban or al Qaeda unit, which surrendered to Northern Alliance forces. Our government declared him and hundreds of his comrades “enemy combatants” and sent them to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation and detention.
The feds soon discovered that Hamdi had been born in the U.S.A. Press reports and civil-liberties activists last spring decried the cruel fate of this “Yankee Taliban.” Yankee? If Hamdi’s a Yankee, I’m a Mayflower descendant. The captured warrior was transferred to a naval brig in Norfolk, Va., and lawyers quickly claimed Hamdi’s right to counsel as an “American.” His Saudi parents indignantly demanded that their “American” son be freed.
Hamdi got his hearing. In January, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled [PDF] unanimously in Hamdi’s case that American citizens captured on foreign soil can be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants without the usual constitutional protections afforded to citizen-defendants: “For the judicial branch to trespass upon the exercise of the warmaking powers would be an infringement of the right to self-determination and self-governance at a time when the care of the common defense is most critical.”
The panel of Reagan and Clinton appointees noted: “Hamdi is not any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant by the government; he is an American citizen captured and detained by American allied forces in a foreign theater during active hostilities and determined by the United States to have been indeed allied with enemy forces.”
Left unresolved, however, was whether Hamdi should even be considered an American at all.
As the Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, a New York-based immigration reform group, noted in a complaint seeking federal court review of Hamdi’s claim to birthright citizenship: “Mr. Hamdi is not an American in any real sense of the word.”
The citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment states: “[A]ll Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” But FILE argues persuasively that the custom of blanket birthright citizenship is supported neither by the Fourteenth Amendment nor by legal precedent.
American Indians who, as members of foreign tribal governments, were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., did not receive birthright citizenship until more than a half-century after the 14th Amendment was enacted. Moreover, the long-upheld practice of excluding children of foreign diplomats from birthright citizenship shows that the amendment allowed for exclusion of certain U.S.-born children based on the legal status of their parents.
Clearly, the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as Hamdi, tourists, and to countless “anchor babies” delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship—not to mention national security. Originally intended to ensure the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves and their families after the Civil War, the citizenship clause has evolved into a magnet for alien lawbreakers and a shield for terrorist infiltrators and enemy combatants.
If the courts refuse to close the birthright citizenship loopholes, Congress must.
Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only.
BTW, the issuance of a passport to such babies is simply an extension of the same erroneous INS/ICE administrative determination ~ made contrary to law.
Since it's "administrative" in nature, recission can have an ex post facto effect ~ stuff is done all the time like that.
Michelle Malkin is one of the people who’d be in danger of being sent back.
You can be added to the parent's passport and still apply for a US passport for the child. The US recognizes dual nationality. And it can be done at any time.
Note that "visa waiver" doesn't eliminate the requirement ~ just the initial "visa" (or permission) to visit here.
"The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business [visitor (B) visa purposes] for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was established in 1986 with the objective of eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulating the tourism industry, and permitting the Department of State to focus consular resources in other areas. VWP eligible travelers may apply for a visa, if they prefer to do so. Not all countries participate in the VWP, and not all travelers from VWP countries are eligible to use the program. VWP travelers are required to apply for authorization though the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), are screened at their port of entry into the United States, and are enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security’s US-VISIT program."
Since it's "administrative" in nature, recission can have an ex post facto effect ~ stuff is done all the time like that.
You couldn't be more wrong.
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.
