Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez testifies on Capitol Hill yesterday before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform. Posted on 07/13/2006 4:57:19 AM PDT by radar101
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez testifies on Capitol Hill yesterday before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform.
The Senate immigration bill would require that foreign construction laborers here under the guest-worker program be paid well above the minimum wage, even as American workers at the same work site could earn less. The bill "would guarantee wages to some foreign workers that could be higher than those paid to American workers at the same work site," says a policy paper released this week by the Senate's Republican Policy Committee. "This is unfair to U.S. workers, inappropriate, and unnecessary." The 11-page, harshly critical analysis of the Senate immigration bill on this one point reveals how torn Senate Republicans are over the larger issue of immigration. Though the bill was supported by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, it was opposed by the rest of the Senate Republican leadership and a majority of Republicans in the chamber. And despite the support of Mr. Frist and Mr. McConnell, this week's policy paper critical of the wage guarantees for foreign workers marks the official stance of the Republican Policy Committee, which formulates and implements the policies of the caucus.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Just saw this on NRO:
"Senate bill seeks more pay for aliens" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Senate bill seeks more pay for aliens
By Charles Hurt Washington Times July 13, 2006
The Senate immigration bill would require that foreign construction laborers here under the guest-worker program be paid well above the minimum wage, even as American workers at the same work site could earn less.
The bill "would guarantee wages to some foreign workers that could be higher than those paid to American workers at the same work site," says a policy paper released this week by the Senate's Republican Policy Committee. "This is unfair to U.S. workers, inappropriate, and unnecessary."
ME: Senators, you guys are going to regret the i word come November.
Thay have lost their Frickin minds up there on the Hill.
"Thay have lost their Frickin minds up there on the Hill."
That happens when there are too many beholden to pay-masters and not enough beholden to the Citizens they are supposed to represent.
We have the best Congress and Senate that money can buy.
We need to work hard and vote these IDIOTS out of office, it's obvious who they represent!!!!!
What would you expect?
The Republicans are really the stupid party.
Yesterday, after three Republican fund-raising calls in a row, I told the fourth one that I am not a Republican, but have changed my affiliation to Monarchist.
by the Senate's Republican Policy Committee. "This is unfair to U.S. workers, inappropriate, and unnecessary." The 11-page, harshly critical analysis of the Senate immigration bill on this one point reveals how torn Senate Republicans are over the larger issue of immigration. Though the bill was supported by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, it was opposed by the rest of the Senate Republican leadership and a majority of Republicans in the chamber. And despite the support of Mr. Frist and Mr. McConnell, this week's policy paper critical of the wage guarantees for foreign workers marks the official stance of the Republican Policy Committee, which formulates and implements the policies of the caucus.
Who are these people; are they brain dead? This is why I left the puggish pubs for a real conservative party.
Now this is neither free market capitalism, nor conservative nor libertarian.
It is idiocy.
McConnell wants to succeed Frist, and should that occur the Republicans will have exchanged one boob for another.
Our Senate, the worst since Reconstruction!
Of course that's ridiculous ~ no one is going to report who on a work crew is actually American and who is an illegal alien.
What's "unfair" to Americans is that the aliens should be brought in at all. What they might be paid is irrelevant to that argument.
Yes and is it any wonder why "they" wanted to push this thru quickly, without any scrutiny of the "small print?" All of this garbage is only now, leaking out in dribs and drabs and there is much worse, which is slowly seeing the light of day.
What angers me the most, is that NO ONE is laying the blame for these "provisions" to any one individual and I would assume that I am not the only one who wants to know who is responsible
Is it a particular Senator? Is it a staffer? Is it a special interest group? Where are the whistle blowers and why are they covering up for these despicable individuals?
In case anyone missed it, this bears repeating and again, I want to know who is INTENTIONALLY, jeopardizing our safety and security by having inserted the following into the Senate Bill.
Senate Immigration Law Would Disarm Local Law Enforcement
by Kris W. Kobach
Testimony
July 7, 2006
| http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst070706a.cfm
It has long been widely recognized that state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest aliens who have violated criminal provisions of the INA. Once the arrest is made, the police officer must contact federal immigration authorities and transfer the alien into their custody within a reasonable period of time.”
As the OLC concluded and the Attorney General announced in 2002, arresting aliens who have violated either criminal provisions of immigration law or civil provisions that render an alien deportable “is within the inherent authority of the states.”[1] And such inherent arrest authority has never been preempted by Congress.
But Senate Bill 2611, if passed, would stop local police from protecting the American public in this way.
Buried deeply in the Senate Bill is a provision would disarm America’s state and local police in the war against terrorism. Section 240D contains a statement that would have the effect of barring state and local police officers from making arrests for civil violations of immigration law—precisely the sort of violations that terrorist have demonstrated a propensity to commit.
Section 240D would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous, and would significantly undermine the United States in the war on terrorism.
Equally problematic is Section 154 of Senate Bill 2611. This provision follows a section authorizing grants of federal funds to law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the United States border.
This provision not only contradicts the recognition of inherent arrest authority for criminal violations in Section 240D, it also misunderstands the nature of the states’ inherent authority
V. Holes in the Wall—Sections 106, 114, and 117
Section 106 is problematic because it calls for such a restricted amount of additional fencing. Subsection 106(c) calls for only 370 miles of fencing. However, it states that the 370 miles may include the fencing already constructed in the San Diego, Tucson, and Yuma sectors. As a result, if in any construction actually occurred, it would likely be far less than 370 miles of additional fencing. This stands in stark contrast to the approximately 700 miles of additional fencing required by House Bill 4437.
Section 114 further reduces the amount of fencing that would be constructed by diverting available resources to Mexico’s southern border. Subsection 114(b)(2) requires the U.S. government “to provide needed equipment, technical assistance, and vehicles to manage, regulate, and patrol” the border between Mexico and Guatemala and Belize. In an environment of scarce fiscal resources, these expenditures would likely cut into the funds available to build infrastructure on the United States border.
However, the greatest impediment to the construction of fencing is found in Section 117, primarily in subsection (d). This section creates a massive and unusual consultation requirement that must be satisfied “before the commencement of any construction.” It stipulates that U.S. officials at the federal, state, and local level must consult with their counterparts in Mexico. I know of no other provision in U.S. law where the federal government attempts to compel state and local governments to engage in consultation as a prerequisite to action at the federal level. This aspect of Section 117(d) is an open invitation to delay construction indefinitely by bringing a Tenth Amendment lawsuit challenging the compelled consultation requirement under the “commandeering” theory laid out by the Supreme Court in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
I am mad as hell. Not only at the obvious intentions by someone in the Senate (and I WANT TO KNOW WHO INSERTED THIS LANGUAGE) to handcuff (pun intended) our state and local LEA, but with the provisions as outlined by Professor Kobach, this is not only a sham, it’s a travesty, bordering (again pun intended) on the criminal.
Not only am I angry with the Dims/dummies who inserted this language, I am as angry with those who are supposed to be “looking out for us,” such as Tancredo, Sessions, etc.
Why has NONE of this been shouted from the rooftops? Why have NOT any member of the Senate who claim to be against this bill, not taken the time (or at least has their staffs) “read the F’n Bill” in its entirety and then, report to the nation these onerous provisions.
Go ahead and flame if so desired, but as for myself, if the House passes a bill with ANY of these provisions, I’m sitting out this next election and will encourage others to do the same.
And, I don’t care if we end up with 535 Dims/Dems/Dummies in Congress. I’ve had it with all of them.
More fricking insanity from the crowd in DC.
We need to stop the invasion FIRST (criminals don't deserve "rights"), and then the market will settle the labor/cost issues.
Kris Kobach was head of the immigration division in the Justice Department under Ashcroft. He has degrees from Princeton, Harvard, and Oxford. Keep an eye on this man, because one day he just might be president.
BTW, Professor Kobach is a Constitutional scholar, and there certainly is a shortage of such men in the US today.
"vote these IDIOTS out of office?"
These IDIOTS need to be IMPEACHED OUT OF OFFICE!
Even better idea!!!!!!
ping
"Republicans will have exchanged one boob for another"
Not even real, imolanted ones.
The silicone has attacked their brains which are now headed for a position to be flushed!
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.