Posted on 05/11/2006 11:27:54 AM PDT by Sharks
Senate leaders say they have reached a deal to revive a broad immigration bill that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. The agreement doesn't involve provisions of the law, but it does end, for now, a lingering political standoff.
The agreement brokered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., breaks a political stalemate that has lingered for weeks.
Key to the agreement is who will be negotiating a compromise with the House and its tough enforcement-only bill.
The House passed much more strict immigration legislation in December. It would subject the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to felony charges as well as deportation.
Republican leader Bill Frist says the Senate will send 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats to the other side of the Capitol to negotiate a compromise. Seven of the Democrats will be hand-picked by Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Frist said a "considerable" number of amendments would be debated when the Senate begins debating the bill early next week.
Reid acknowledged on the Senate floor Thursday morning that he "didn't get everything that I wanted" in the agreement, but said Frist didn't either. Reaching the agreement is "not easy with the political atmosphere," Reid said.
Reid had been taking some criticism for refusing to move forward on the bill after complaining that Republicans were trying to undermine it with amendments and insisting that Democrats be allowed to have a say in who serves on the conference committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs4denver.com ...
I wish the Senate would authorize a freakin' DeadLock, a deadlock on the southern border so we could stop this invasion which is taking over my neighborhood, and my country.
"...and end the remittances to foreign lands."
That's a bridge too far.
They may be illegal, but they performed labor, and earned income from it. The labor itself was legal (them performing it wasn't), so the pay was for that labor.
We can fine them for breaking the law, but we can't just take their property.
It's their property. If they want to send it to their families in Mexico, well, what people do with their money is their own business.
It was Ted the swimmer who gutted Reagans enforcement of the border provisions in the 1986 amnesty bill. Looks like poor court jester Frist doesn't keep up with his history of the 'sinate'.
"It is NOT the most important issue."
It IS the most important issue, because it is the issue that will determine control of Congress.
You assume that "the base will get in line before November", and it's there, FRiend, that I believe you are deceived.
If there is not a real border barrier voted on, with money allocated, and concrete being poured by mid-summer, the BorderBots will sit out the election in 1992-Perot-sized numbers, and the Democrats will sweep to power in both houses of Congress.
That's why I say it's THE most important issue.
It is determinative of Congress.
Now, if I'm wrong and a barrier is voted on and passed, and being put up, what harm done?
But if you're wrong and one isn't being put up by then, what harm done if Congress changes hands because of it?
Anyway, I think we're going to dodge the bullet here, because I think the GOP leadership understands that this is another Miers moment, and they have got to cave and give the BorderBots their fence.
That's a bridge too far. They may be illegal, but they performed labor, and earned income from it. The labor itself was legal (them performing it wasn't), so the pay was for that labor. We can fine them for breaking the law, but we can't just take their property.
It's their property. If they want to send it to their families in Mexico, well, what people do with their money is their own business.
So why do we confiscate property from drug dealers? They worked for their money.
Not likely with frist in charge......HE will cave....
There are here illegally. Taxing their remittances is a minor punishment compared to what they should get if they actually get caught. I agree with the House bill and it should be a felony to be here illegally. If found guilty of a felony, they can lose a lot more than some of the remittances of money they ILLEGALLY made in this country. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to legislation that allowed confiscation of all illegally "earned" money in this country when an illegal alien gets caught. It is against the law for them to be here, it is against the law for them to work here, it is against the law for anyone to hire them. Fines, penalties, etc. are entirely appropriate.
I think Congress should govern and do what's right and to heck with the BorderBots and the mobs with pitchforks whining about a 30 year old issue. Sounds like they are making progress on a bill but we'll see. And thanks for clarifying your statements.
Time to play hardball with government officials and public employees. We are getting the word get out that WE, THE PEOPLE, know the ins and outs of our laws, and we are prepared to act, if, and when, it becomes necessary. These suckers are going to know we will not tolerate lettuce pickers screwing over our rights. The government of the US is our government, and we intend to preserve it.
Here's one way they will get the message. Keep in mind that the power of this initiative does not depend entirely on enforcement, but on letting it get out we know where the bodies are buried.
NOTE WELL: it's best we not to go direct to the slimeballs in office---since they will only coverup the evidence. There are enough oversight and L/E agencies that will do the work for us.
ESTABLISHED FACT
Elected officials, and government employees who handle the public purse, are subject to a higher standard of law than ordinary citizens. They serve under stricter rules, and must abide by specific laws. Every elected and appointed government official, and government employee---in their capacity as fiduciaries of public monies---are required, by law, to be bonded by state bonding insurance carriers. The express purpose of bonding government officials and employees is to protect the public's money. Each state sets their own regulations, and selects a bonding insurance carrier.
Public entities that mandate bonding include: Municipalities, counties, townships (government employees of school districts, licensing agencies, and the like), ambulance districts, volunteer fire departments, community college districts, public universities, transit authorities, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, public works maintenance facilities, airports.
IMPACT
Taxpayers' concerns center on instances when elected and appointed public officials use government agencies fraudulently, misuse tax dollars to allow illegals to get government benefits and school subsidies, voting rights, auto licenses, building permits, welfare, food stamps, health care, and other government benefits, and the like using false documenation. These are examples of fiduciary negligence by a bonded government employee, and would violate the state's bonding regulations, and the carrier's bonding requirements.
SUMMATION
MISUSING THE PUBLIC ASSETS OF GOVERNMENT---ALLOWING ILLEGAL ALIENS TO USE FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTATION TO OBTAIN SCHOOL SUBSIDIES, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, DRIVERS' LICENSES, VOTING RIGHTS IS FIDUCIARY NEGLIGENCE BY A BONDED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO MISUSE PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PUBLIC FUNDS WOULD INCUR FINES OR IMPRISONMENT UNDER BONDING RULES.
FOLLOW-UP (what to look for)
Now, if a bonded government employee OR ELECTED OFFICIAL had previous financial problems---perhaps a bankruptcy or a job loss for financial improprieties, etc, that would preclude bonding---and if they failed to reveal the info to bonding agents, that would subject them to legal penalties for filing false applications.
Public officials with past financial problems who do not qualify for bonding would have to be tossed out of office.
If it is determined a public official failed to apply for bond coverage, he/she has broken the law, and is subject to an actionable offense.
Now, say government funds were stolen and the public official had failed to get bond coverage; the state would have no way to recover that money other than restitution through a criminal prosecution.
Public officials who lied on bonding applications might be subjected to fines or imprisonment.
It SHOULD be a crime to force American citizens to pay for these invaders. No one in Washington talks about this. 10 billion dollars in California every year is asking too much, but the elites in Washington care not.
I think any Senator, no matter which party, who votes for this amnesty might have to look for a new job in November.
Martha Stewart committed a crime and went to prison.
Therefore, we should confiscate all of her houses, stock and bank account?
It can't work like that.
Drug dealers made their money on a criminal activity: selling drugs.
It's not criminal activity to rake yards and build houses.
Illegals do not have the legal right to work here, but their status of being criminals does not justify confiscating money earned from normal work as well as deporting them. Drug money? Sure. But not housepainting money.
Confiscating money property in the case of a felony conviction.
Hmmmm, Scooter Libby is convicted: take his house, cars, IRA and clean out his bank accounts. He's a felon, so we can take all his money AND send him to prison.
It's going too far.
You can't take people's money away like that.
It's wrong.
"I think Congress should govern and do what's right and to heck with the BorderBots and the mobs with pitchforks whining about a 30 year old issue."
Isn't building a border barrier the right thing to do?
In a democracy, you can never say "to heck with the electorate". Or rather, you can, for about two years...
Why do they need 25% of their body to negotiate. Seems like a smaller group could represent the Senate in negotiations. Is this typical of these kinds of conference committes?
That's right. If the GOP cannot bring themselves to secure the border - they will lose in November.
I hope that is correct. It is beyond the pale for the government to so brazenly defy and laugh at the will of the people on this.
No but she should loose her ill gotten gains-she was fined $30,000
It can't work like that.
Why not? There should be a disincentive for illegal activity.
Drug dealers made their money on a criminal activity: selling drugs.
It's not criminal activity to rake yards and build houses. Illegals do not have the legal right to work here, but their status of being criminals does not justify confiscating money earned from normal work as well as deporting them. Drug money? Sure. But not housepainting money.
Why not? What is the difference, both are illegal. The theory is the same, sounds like disparate treatment to me. Ask the unemployed housepainter or construction worker who lost his job to an illegal who would work for less money under the table and not pay withholding what they think the punishment should be. We not only don't seize their assets, we give them free medical care, public education, food stamps etc. (not free taxpayers are paying for it)what we get in return is ungrateful people demanding rights for having broken the law. BS. You don't want to seize their assets, then seize the assets and fine those who employ them, that was the idea behind the 1986 law. We either enforce all our laws or give everyone amnesty for everything. They should not be given special consideration. How many are prosecuted for using false documents or not filing tax returns? What would happen to you or I if we did the same?
No I don't believe in mob rule. I don't believe in pure democracy. Neither did our founding fathers.
I don't think they should build a massive 1000+ mile fence in one massive program. It will get demagogued to death. I think they should extend the fences that are there towards eventually obtaining a full fence. In other words, do it over time. I think they should add more border control or troops in a massive way, crack down on businesses hiring illegals and provide the tools so police and businesses can instantly tell who is legal (if this means enhancing the social security card into a national ID card so be it).
Then they should start sifting through the illegals that are here and give them a choice of becoming legal through some strenous hoops or be deported. I don't think we will round up 11 million people nor should we. I think they should do all of this in a thoughtful and smart manner and not act based on mob rule.
No (although it is arguable, just like illegal drugs...they are arguably illegal wages), but we can restrict how they use it.
It's their property. If they want to send it to their families in Mexico, well, what people do with their money is their own business.
Doctrinnaire libertarian manure. If they were in WW-II and wanted to send the money to Hitler, Okay? Or to Mao during the Korean War, Okay? Or Stalin during the Berlin Airlift, Okay?
Today, the Mexican government is a rather dubious friend. But that's the point. We, as a sovereign PEOPLE...have the right via our nation and Constitution to regulate trade. So...don't you think restricting how they can use "their" money might influence whether or not they want to be here and break our laws...?
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.