Posted on 06/03/2007 10:58:10 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
May 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) today once again introduced his immigration legislation aimed at addressing the ever-increasing influx of illegal immigrants to the United States and its strain on society. Inhofe’s ENFORCE - Engaging the Nation to Fight for Our Right to Control Entry -Act (S.1269) increases U.S. border security, emphasizes greater enforcement of existing immigration laws and prevents amnesty and other shortcuts for illegal immigrants.
“Illegal immigrants continue to cross our country’s borders, strain our economy and exploit our resources,” Inhofe said. “The gravity of this situation warrants that Americans of all political stripes come together to address this problem immediately. I will not stand idly by and watch our great nation collapse under the pressures of uncontrolled illegal immigration; this is a crisis and one that must be addressed aggressively.
“Simply granting citizenship to immigrants, who are currently in our country illegally, is not the answer. We must enhance our border security, hold those accountable who encourage illegal immigration and ensure that those who violate our laws by entering our country illegally do not have this illegal activity easily forgiven and even rewarded with permanent residence or citizenship. Our nation’s future rests on Congress’ actions of today, and the ENFORCE Act is a strong step in the right direction to help solve our growing problem of illegal immigration.”
Major Provisions in Inhofe’s ENFORCE Act:
· Establishes the National Border Neighborhood Watch (NBNW) Program allowing retired law enforcement officers to assist Border Patrol agents by reporting illegal border crossings.
· Makes unlawful-presence in the United States a felony.
· Establishes an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
· Authorizes funding for online immigration training for state and local law enforcement officers.
· Eliminates the practice of granting automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in an effort to reduce ‘anchor babies.’
· Establishes an independent verification system for Social Security numbers; also mandates that immigrant’s Social Security numbers expire when visa runs out.
· Establishes electronic birth & death registries to fight fraudulent Social Security cards
· Helps reduce Individual Taxpayer Identification Number abuse.
· Empowers state & local law enforcement to carryout immigration laws (but does not make it mandatory).
· Establishes penalties for most flagrant employer tax violations—i.e. if an employer willfully files incorrect tax returns, they will be assessed the maximum penalties available.
· Makes it illegal to operate day laborer centers for illegal aliens and to give them unemployment assistance.
· Eliminates in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens.
I am not commenting about Republican Presidential candidates due to what might be a perceived as conflict of interest. Jim knows where I stand and that is all that matters to me.
This thread is about Sen Jim Inhofe who is running for reelection and whose campaign I am helping in addition to a Presidential one.
I will make one more comment on this matter and then leave you alone. What you do with my comments is up to you.
It's not about a conflict of interest. It is about YOUR conflict of principles. Rudy was a leading supporter of sanctuary cites. If you find such appalling, I would hope you re-think your support of him. Oklahoma has two of the best Senators in the land. Supporting Rudy is a disservice to both.
Thanks for that link!
Not really. Most of the FR cult of personality types went over there. The Kool-Aide is on tap.
Thanks for leaving me alone. I will not participate in ANY Republican Presidential primary threads because of what I do outside this site. It is a conflict of interest.
I am supporting Sen Inhofe which is the reason for this thread and I will be on threads going after the Democrats. We have to get Sen Inhofe and others reelected and that is part of what I will be doing in the months ahead outside this site and others.
Especially those hidden amendments that contradict the prior amendments Ted and his crew on crack are trying do bedazzle us with. I love INHOF’S version, there is no room for misinterpretation! SORRY TED. Take a long ride off a short pier, only this time stay in the car!
Must admit when I first heard the bill was 1,000 pages when I was in my car, I thought I misheard so came home and logged on to check it out and that is exactly what I had heard. I do not believe that a bill submitted in Congress except for appropriations needs 1,000 pages and if you think about it not sure that does as well. I don't believe that anyone I know can read this bill, comprehend what it says 100%, and be comfortable enough to vote on it. Maybe we should give every Senator supporting this 1,000 page travesty a test on what it says, and I would bet every last one of them would flunk it.
The following was posted to joe 6-pack by carry okie in another thread on this subject:
Nevertheless, the anchor baby issue will need to be dealt with as a Constitutional Amendment. To read the 14th Amendment like we “want” it to be read, and not as it is actually written puts those of us on the political right on the same intellectual and legal plane as those on the left who like to loosely read the 2nd Amendment.Most people regard the citizenship clause as self-explanitory, believing that to be "subject to the jurisdiction" all one has to do is to be within the territory of the United States. Thus they conclude that children of illegal aliens are obviously US citizens.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If I'm driving in Britain, I have to obey their traffic laws because I am WITHIN British jurisdiction. That doesn't make me a British SUBJECT. Now, lest you think there is a difference between that usage of the word "subject" and the one in the Citizenship Clause, let's consult the Bouvier Law Dictionary 1856 edition, as it is the one most commonly used at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified. In this instance, the contextual usage of "subject" in the definition is exactly the same as that employed in the Citizenship Clause:
SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistiction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. Thus the seemingly "obvious" reading of the Citizenship Clause isn't at all correct, simply because illegal aliens are not "subject" to the jurisdiction as defined by the common understanding of the term at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted, passed, and ratified. That is the law.2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic; Greenl. Ev. §286; Phil. & Am. on Ev. 732, n. 1.
Hard to say it better than that!
Thanks for showing everyone how much you support Sen Inhofe which is the focus of this thread and his Immigration Bill. Can I count you in for calling your two Senator offices on Monday morning to support Sen Inhofe and his bill?
What the heck are you doing back here?
Supporting Sen Inhofe — I was never banned or suspended and asked for my former last thread to be nuked last night. Ask Jim or read the entire thread.
Are you going to call your Senators to have them support the Inhofe bill which is all I care about right now?
I believe that the last item is already against the law (in-state tuition for illegal aliens), and the penalty is supposed to be that the state loses federal education funds to the colleges.
That’s certainly been working well...
Mark
bump
And I never thought you were banned but did see your opus. I guess you got over it?
A perfect bill for a difficult situation caused by 40 years of non-enforcement of our border laws.
They also have serious power in Washington DC that we don’t have as the average guy .
Toilet paper made from documents really cleans out the , uh, shiite of what’s written on them.
You both are onto something. Keeping it simple should be the standard because it is simple.
Any legislation that has triggers, arbitrary fines, 24 hour background checks, forgiveness of back taxes, etc. is doomed to failure.
For a model of ‘keeping it simple’ in history, look at President Eisenhower’s ‘Operation Wetback’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
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.