Posted on 05/20/2007 9:50:32 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
Editor’s Note: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.) offered a devastating analysis on the Senate immigration bill in a speech delivered on the Senate floor on May 23. Sessions pointed to shocking elements of the bill that were hidden deep in its text. These include, for example, that the employers of illegal aliens would be given an amnesty for cheating on their taxes, and that under the terms of the law the government would for all practical purposes have to take an illegal alien’s word for it that he has been in the country illegally long enough to qualify for an amnesty.
Sessions also pointed to some of the tremendous hidden costs of the bill, including the $500 billion in additional welfare payments it will cost American taxpayers in the period 10 to 20 years after its passage.
Senators who vote for the bill today cannot credibly claim later they were unaware of the elements and consequences...
The legislation has an incredible number of problems with it. Some, as I will point out tonight, can only be considered deliberate. Whereas on the one hand it has nice words with good sounding phrases in it to do good things, on the second hand it completely eviscerates that, oftentimes in a way that only the most careful reading by a good lawyer would discover...
I would also just point out I will be offering tomorrow, or soon, an amendment to deal with the earned-income tax credit situation that is raised by this legislation, focusing on the amnesty in the bill and what will happen after amnesty is granted, before they become a full citizen. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the earned-income tax credit will pay out to those who came into our country illegally $29 billion over 10 years...
I do not believe we should award people who have entered our country illegally, submitted a false Social Security number, worked illegally—I do not believe we should reward them with $29 billion of the taxpayers’ money...I will also be offering a budget point of order...
At the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Robert Rector, who is the expert who dealt with welfare...says this bill represents the greatest increase in welfare in 35 years. With the provisions and benefits that will be in it, he estimates that year 10 through year 20, the cost could be $50 to $60 billion a year to the taxpayers because it takes some time for the people who are adjusting and becoming citizens and/or legal permanent residents to really begin to make the claims.
CBO admits the numbers are going to surge in the outyears. He says it is $50 billion a year. If that is so—and he is not exaggerating the numbers, because that is based solely on the amnesty provisions, not the provisions that will allow 3 times to 4 times as many people to come into the country legally in the next 20 years as come in today, and many of them will go on welfare because that whole system is not based on identifying people with skills and educational levels that would indicate they would be more than low-wage workers—so it could really be more than that. But $50 billion a year over 10 years is $500 billion. That is a half a trillion dollars, and that is why Mr. Rector said this legislation is a fiscal catastrophe...
The American people are suspicious of us. They were promised in 1986, after years of urging the Government, the President and the Congress, promised to fix our borders and end illegal immigration. In exchange for that they acquiesced and went along with amnesty in 1986. They said there were a million, 2 million here who would claim it. It turned out 3 million claimed amnesty after 1986. That ought to give us some pause about the projections that we would have. We have 11 million people here now and only 8 or so will seek amnesty under it. That ought to give us some pause there. It may well be above the number.
... Let me tell you some of the things that are in the legislation that indicate a lack of respect for the American people, really...My staff, working up these comments, came up with a title—maybe at my suggestion—“Sneaky Lawyer Tricks” that are in the bill. I will let you decide if that is a fair description of what is in it...
The legislation talks about title IV of the bill. That title IV of the [*S5031] bill defines the new H2-C program as a temporary guest worker program. Those are in big print in the bill: Temporary guest workers. That sounds like a temporary worker, doesn’t it?...
...section 408 sets out the temporary guest worker visa program task force. So a little further down it has what is called a temporary guest worker visa program task force. So you would think they are writing in this section, would you not, something about the task force. But this, down in that section, this task force establishes the number of H2C visas that may be issued annually and subsection (h) is where the writers of the bill hid the provision that actually transforms these so-called temporary workers into legal, permanent residents. OK? So all the big print, “temporary guest workers,” “temporary guest worker task force,” and then you read in that section down there that it effectively converts them from temporary workers to legal permanent residents, granting them a green card.
It is tucked away in a title that has nothing to do with substance of that matter...Family members of H-2C visa holder need not be healthy. Under current law, aliens must prove that they are admissible and meet certain health standards. Many times, visa applicants must have a medical exam to show that they do not have a communicable disease. They have to be up-to-date on immunizations, and cannot have mental disorders. Spouses and children of H-2C visa holders, however, are not required to have a medical exam before receiving a visa..
The work requirement for a blue card can be satisfied in a matter of hours. Under the AgJOBS component of the substitute, illegal alien agricultural workers who have worked 150 “workdays” in agriculture over the last 2 years will receive a “blue card,” allowing them to live and work permanently in the U.S. However, because current law defines an agricultural “workday” as 1 hour of work per day—the bill language restates that definition on page 397—an alien who has worked for as little as 150 hours—there are 168 hours in a week—in agriculture over the last 2 years will qualify for a blue card.
Blue card aliens can only be fired for just cause, unlike an American citizen worker who is likely under an employment at will agreement with the agricultural employer. No alien granted blue card status may be terminated from employment by any employer during the period of blue card status except for just cause.
Because blue card aliens are not limited to working in agriculture, this employment requirement will follow the alien at their second and third jobs as well. The bill goes as far as setting up an arbitration process for blue card aliens who allege they have been terminated without just cause. Furthermore, the bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. American citizens do not have a right to this arbitration process..
Regarding free legal counsel, the AgJOBS amendment goes further than paying for arbitrators, it also provides free legal counsel to illegal aliens who want to receive this amnesty. The AgJOBS amendment specifically states that recipients of “funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act” shall not be prevented “from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section.” Interestingly, page 414 of the bill requires the alien to have an attorney file the application for him. Not only will AgJOBS give amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens, it would have the American taxpayer pay the legal bills of those illegal aliens...
Under this bill a temporary worker is eligible for a green card if they, in part, maintained their H-2C status. In order to maintain this status the “temporary” worker may not be unemployed for a period of 60 continuous days. This means that a temporary worker only has to work 1 day in every 59 days to maintain status. This employment requirement only requires that they work about 1 day every 2 months.
In this bill, an alien who has been here between 2 and 5 years is not eligible for asylum if they have persecuted others on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. However, an alien here more than 5 years who has persecuted others on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion gets amnesty under this bill. There is no specific ineligibility for such conduct. Since it is included under the “mandatory deferred departure” section, a court will interpret this to mean we purposefully left it out of the “earned amnesty.” I cannot imagine why the drafters of this bill would allow persecutors to benefit from amnesty.
The bill’s future flow “guest worker” program in title IV leaves no illegal alien behind—it is not limited to people outside the United States who want to come here to work in the future, but includes illegal aliens currently present in the United States that do not qualify for the amnesty programs in title VI, including aliens here for less than 2 years. Under the bill language, you can qualify for the new H-2C program to work as a low-skilled permanent immigrant, even if you are unlawfully present inside the United States today. The bill specifically says:
In determining the alien’s admissibility as an H-2C nonimmigrant . . . paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (7), (9)(B), and (9) (C) of section 212(a) may be waived for conduct that occurred before the effective date. . . .
By waving these grounds of inadmissibility, the new H-2C program is specifically intended to apply to illegal aliens who were already removed from the United States and illegally reentered.
The bill tells DHS to accept “just and reasonable inferences” from day labor centers and the alien’s “sworn declaration” as evidence that the alien has met the amnesty’s work requirement. Under the bill, the alien meets the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien has satisfied the [work] requirements” if the alien can demonstrate employment “as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” An alien can present “conclusive evidence” of employment in the United States by presenting documents from social security, IRS, employer, or a “union or day labor center.” The bill then states that:
It is the intent of Congress that the [work] requirement . . . be interpreted and implemented in a manner that recognizes and takes into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment due to the undocumented status of the alien.
If these lax standards can’t be met, the bill makes sure that the alien can get what they need by allowing them to submit “sworn declarations for each period of employment.” Putting these together the alien must prove it is more likely than not that there is a just and reasonable inference that the alien was employed. I don’t know what this means other than DHS will have to accept just about anything as proof of employment....
The DREAM Act would ...allow illegal alien college and university students to be eligible for in-state tuition without affording out-of-state citizen students the same opportunity...
There is another matter, another sleight of hand I suggest. Amnesty both for legal aliens who have been here for more than 5 years, and those in the next category who are here from 2 to 5 years, don’t really require that those aliens have to be continuously present in the United States. That is what it says in plain language. It starts off that you have to be continuously present in the United States. But, once again, is that what it really means?
The bill allows these aliens to depart and to return after a brief departure. This allows illegal aliens who broke our laws by entering the United States and who have left and returned illegally perhaps multiple times—and each time violating our laws by entering the United States—to qualify for this amnesty.
I am not sure how these departures and illegal entries can be considered innocent since the illegal aliens broke U.S. laws by reentering. But it will absolve them from any of these multiple violations. That is a huge loophole.
...An alien may not have had deep roots in our country. They may have spent a lot of their time away from our country. But they heard about this amnesty, and if they can get in the country, then they will say they have been here continuously, perhaps.
Somebody says: No. We found out you were back home.
He says: That was brief. I want my amnesty.
We object. I am going to take you to court, or you prove it, or I say I have been here. That is what I say. It is going to be very difficult to prove that.
There are provisions in the bill that deal with U.S. worker protections. The bill purports to protect U.S. workers from the flood of cheap labor that might occur by requiring employers to prove to the Department of Labor that good-faith efforts have been taken, first, to recruit U.S. workers for a job before they go out and hire someone from outside of our country. They ought to at least find out if there are American workers who want the job.
Then they are supposed to notify the Secretary of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security when one of these H-2C workers is “separated from employment.”
I am quoting that—“separated from employment” requires notice.
We heard defenders of the bill say: Well, if you are not continuously working, they will notify the Department of Labor and you have to leave the country.
Have you heard that? You have to be continuously working, you can’t be not working, or else you are not entitled to the benefits of this H-2C provision. The separation from employment notification is supposed to help the Department of Labor and Homeland Security know which people have been out of work, and if they are out of work under the bill for more than 60 days, their visas are supposed to be revoked.
That is supposed to be a provision that makes sure people who come here are really working. Sounds good. But under the provisions of the bill, the term “separation from employment”—you can find that on page 236. As defined, the term means virtually zero.
As defined, “separation from employment is anything other than discharged for inadequate performance, violation of workplace rules, cause, voluntary departure, voluntary retirement, or expiration of a grant or contract.” Furthermore, it does not include those situations where the worker is offered—even if they do not take it—another position by the same employer.
... It is hard to believe—that you are supposed to notify them, except you don’t need to notify them if they have left work, if they left work because they were discharged for inadequate performance, fired, or violation of workplace rules, or for just cause, or involuntary departure, involuntary retirement, or expiration of the contract. You don’t have to notify them...
What would you notify them for, pray tell?...
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them.
What is this "come out of the shadows" crapola? I don't want rootless foreign criminals "out of the shadows," I want them out of the country.
The ones that don't want to come out of the shadows won't. I've never understood this logic - or that of the "guest worker plan." Yes, many would utilize the plan, but those that don't want to will just continue crossing the border illegally. It makes absolutely no sense at all to even suggest those plans would work until the border is as secure as is possible.
The Flashback 2006 in the title was a good clue.
This is what Senator Larry Craig of Idaho co-sponsored last year. Now it’s buried somewhere in the thousand pages of this years amnesty bill. It pissed me off then and it pisses me off more now.
Comments still applicable. Agree with you two on “shadows’ malarkey.
(BLEEP-BLEEP) the lyin, fickled (BLEEPERS!) I'm way more than a little disappointed in a whole bunch of these Republican/CONservative steers!!! They oughta all be rounded up, put in a fattenin pen, then hauled off to market to be made into the same kind of sausage they been makin outa our (BLEEPIN) laws in Warshington, D.C.!!! (BLEEP!) on 'em again!!!
Craig has been pushing this ag bills crappola for years. And he’s nasty about it too. I got sick of watching him cuddle up to Diane Fienstien pushing it.
Did you read about Saxby Chambliss?
Inspections of Vidalia onion fields of Georgia in May 1998 brought a rebuke from then Rep. and now Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who accused immigration officials of using “bullying tactics” to root out illegal workers. Today, Chambliss is a leader of the get-tough-on-illegal-immigration faction of the Republican party, and argues that the US needs to step up both border and interior enforcement.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=1111_0_4_0
Why & When workplace enforcement of illegal aliens stopped
Politicians count on constituent ignorance and poor memory. Anything over a 30 second soundbite gets by most of us. And just because a politician says today that immigration enforcement is important, doesn’t mean he always felt that way.
Workplace raids by INS were frequent until the late 1990’s. A spring 1998 sweep that targeted the Vidalia onion harvest in Georgia, and Operation Vanguard, a 1999 INS operation on meatpacking plants in Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota, provide case studies of how the immigration laws fared when confronted by a coalition that included low-wage immigrant workers and the industries that hire them.
The Georgia raids netted 4,034 illegal immigrants, prompting other unauthorized workers to stay home.
Instead of being applauded for enforcing the law, the INS came under attack from Georgia’s congressional delegation. Georgia’s two senators and three of its House members, led by then-Sen. Paul Coverdell (R) and Rep. Jack Kingston (R), complained in a letter to Washington that the INS did not understand the needs of America’s farmers. The raids stopped.
Sen. Paul Coverdell condemned the INS for its “military-style” raid “against honest farmers,” calling it “an indiscriminate and inappropriate use of extreme enforcement tactics.”
He then insisted the INS not raid Georgia agricultural fields and crafted a ‘temporary work’ program for the state of Georgia with the INS that allowed undocumented workers to stay ‘legally’ in the U.S. The same has happened in other states like Oregon, and Washington at the insistence of their elected representatives.
Top agency officials issued a memo to field offices nationwide, telling them that they had to give employers 24 hours’ warning before they launched future raids on their workplaces, and demanding that top officials in Washington be notified before any further raids were launched.
Before that incident, the INS had been arresting and deporting almost 1,500 illegal immigrants a month. By 2003 workplace arrests of illegal immigrants for the entire year totaled 445. In 2004, just three businesses nationwide were fined for employing illegal immigrants. In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies.
The Macon Telegraph described the episode, “ Farmers and immigration officials came to terms on migrant labor issues Friday morning, ending the siege on Georgia’s sweet onion fields. But a storm of criticism from the state’s congressional delegation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s action is brewing on the horizon. Eight members of Congress signed an angry letter Friday afternoon to three of the Clinton administration’s top cabinet officers, blasting the INS for its timing”
“The opposition to enforcement was so great that it changed the direction the INS took,” said Gordon Hanson, immigrant expert and economics professor at the University of California-San Diego.
Said Doris Meissner, INS commissioner from 1993 to 2000: “Those things affect an agency’s morale. You go out of your way to make it work, then it comes to nothing. Very demoralizing.”
Operation Vanguard met a similar fate. Nebraska’s members of Congress at first called for tougher enforcement, recalled Mark Reed, then INS director of operations. But when the result shut down some plants, “all hell broke loose,” he said.
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns (R), who was governor at the time, appointed a task force to oppose the operation. Former governor Ben Nelson (D), now a U.S. senator, was hired as a lobbyist by meatpackers and ranchers. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) pressured the Justice Department to stop.
Republican Rep. Jack Kingston has since stated “Employers in roofing and poultry and other areas will say, `Immigrants will work longer and harder,’ “ he said. Still, he has moved from being one of the 1998 defenders of the onion growers — “For us, it was just constituent work,” he said — to becoming an outspoken proponent of get-tough immigrant proposals.
Now, he said he believes businesses should be required to verify an employee’s legal status. He also is in favor of harsher penalties for employers who violate immigration laws.
He doesn’t, however, think such sanctions will be part of any new bill.
“The business lobby,” he said, “is too strong.”
Lobbyist and White house guru, Grover Norquist, a force behind the verification weakening, said: “The idea was that our job is to enforce the present rules that don’t work — rather than change the rules.”
Or in Norquist’s case, just do away with any border/immigration enforcement.
By 2000, according to INS figures, the estimated number of illegal immigrants had risen to 7 million, from 3.5 million in 1990.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836717/posts
Here’s another poll!
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/
The White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday to reshape the nation’s immigration laws and give millions of illegal immigrants legal status. At the same time, borders would be tightened. Do you support the new plan?
Yes
No
Each and every Senator voting YES on S. 1348 is in breach of his/her oath of office and is committing treason. Each of these traitors should resign or be removed from office.
Even the text of the current "Deal, Or No Deal" legislative dubious deal is being rapidly shifted and covered up so's us peasants with pitchforks can't focus on it and alert a sleeping giant... Our old America of the 1940's, 1950's and even a fair part of the 1960's. (The 1980's were good, too!)
The damage done to America by our own hijacked goverment instutions of indoctrination of our children is really hard to overcome. Especially in this age where the TV raise 'em the other half of the time with the MSM!!!
Now they squandered our money and all their remaining opportunity to do any good and so what do they do? They run around in circles screeching and cackling that they gotta do something with these dubious Democrats... EVEN IF IT'S WRONG!!!
Even the danged Republican President, who's just about ruined his legacy by trying to out-do LBJ in fighting a politically correct war, is trying to salvage ANY kind of a "legacy" out of his squandered "political capital" by joining in with these dubious bastards to damage the people that "brung 'em" rather than dance with 'em!!!
BLEEP indeed. I remember how angry I was last year. I watched Senator Sessions on CSPAN live on the Senate floor, and then heard some of the responses. Sessions made me angry. The responses to Sessions made me want to put a sledge hammer through my TV’s tube.
These people are TRAITORS, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
Amen!!! We are watching the federal government commit treason. If this bill is not stop there either has to be a revolution or we have to start learning the Pledge of Allegiance to Mexico.
Article is a year old.
This will breeze through the Senate and will go to the House. At which point, any reference to any language that might be considered objectionable will be removed....things like "wall", amnesty", etc....you get the picture.
This is legislation written by lawyers for lawyers and our President will sign it with a smile on his face.
We The People will then have a date to which we can point as the very day that The Republic died.
You are correct. We are hosed without hope. Almost.
There is another.
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.