Posted on 04/12/2008 9:56:56 AM PDT by Delacon
Illegal immigration continues to be one of the top issues among conservatives and all Americans across the country, and why wouldn't it be? Despite the rhetoric coming from some Washington leaders on the need to secure our borders and clamp down on the flow of illegal aliens, little to nothing has been done. Bills are passed calling for more border patrol agents -- then, only a fraction is actually hired. Bills are passed calling for a security fence on America's southern border -- then, political moves are made to defund it and slow its construction. Now, another bill has emerged in Congress which actually has bipartisan support and addresses some of the core concerns of the American people. As the debate heats up, we will soon see which politicians are on the side of security and the rule of law and which need to be voted out in November.
As noted in a Human Events article by James R. Edwards Jr., "House Democratic leaders face a bitter civil war over immigration issues. Blue Dog Democrats, who tend to be more conservative, stand behind H.R. 4088, the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE), but the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), and open-borders Democrats favor some form of amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens."
The SAVE Act is sponsored by Blue Dog Rep. Heath Shuler, (D-N.C). It takes an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration and shutting off the "jobs magnet."
The centerpiece of H.R. 4088 is phasing in the E-Verify program. Over four years, all employers would eventually use this web-based system. The Shuler bill adds 8,000 Border Patrol officers, border security technology, federal judge slots, and 1,200 interior enforcement agents.
Investor's Business Daily (IBD), in an editorial supporting the SAVE Act, describes the E-verify program as follows:
E-verify is a Web-based system to cross-reference Social Security numbers and other pertinent information. Some 56,000 employers already use the system.
The system screens all applicants, so racial profiling is not an issue. As we've noted, in states where local authorities have ramped up enforcement, illegal immigration has declined dramatically, and many of those already here have left under a process some have called self-deportation. The risks soon exceed the benefits.
The bill is cosponsored by 49 Democrats and 98 Republicans -- a true bipartisan effort. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is leading the fight to prevent the bill from coming to the House floor for a vote. So, even though the bill is authored by a Democrat, many House Republicans are now supporting a "discharge petition" which would force a vote on the measure. The IBD editorial notes:
An outraged Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said in support of the discharge petition:
"In just the past year, this (Democratic) majority voted to cut funding for the border fence, opened the door to illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded services without showing proof of citizenship and overturned a successful GOP proposal to prevent taxpayer-funded federal benefits from being awarded to illegal immigrants."
If 33 of the original Democratic co-sponsors of the SAVE Act who have not signed the discharge petition were to do so, the bill would proceed to the floor where serious debate on a major issue could begin. But that would require Democrats' going on record in an election year and doing more than blowing smoke on border security.
"Blowing smoke" is a key point. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures to bring about a floor vote. According to IBD, the current petition has 185 signatures. However, of the 49 Democrats who have cosponsored the SAVE Act, only 10 of them have signed the petition. What's going on with the other 39?
You can help get this bill moving by telling your representative to support the SAVE Act. Just click on the link below and encourage your friends and colleagues to do the same.
ping
And to hell with Joe citizen!!
All perfect ingredients for a ‘Minority Tyranny’ style solution and one which most of our weak willed Pols will be unable to resist.
::::::
Without any doubt. It is all about power now in Washington. They could care less about the will and the needs of the REAL CITIZENS of America who do not need or want pandering and handouts.
American Legion tackles immigration! A Strategy to Secure Our Borders
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2000209/posts
One of the most common sense pieces of legislation to come out of the Congress in years. Thus, it will likely fail.
I’d like to hear your views on this legislation.
It was never a "real" piece of legislation. It was merely campaign strategy.
OTOH, there is a real piece of immigration related legislation in the House. The GOP has a bill to raise the H2B quota, but the dems are holding it hostage as a way of retaliating against the GOP over the SAVE act.
save
I am in complete support of it. It has bi-partisan support. It addresses workplace enforcement which I feel is the best way to deal with illegal immigration. It enhances border security. I’d like to have seen a provision that allows the SSA to hand over all no match docs to ICE and more funding for the fence.
What about provisions that will make YOU get permission from the government to work? Is that part of this? Do you know?
“It was never a “real” piece of legislation. It was merely campaign strategy.”
Initially it was. But now, with the discharge petition, it has a chance(albiet a slim one) of going to the floor for a vote. If people put as much energy into passing the SAVE Act as they did into stopping last summer’s midnight backroom immigration reform bill, it would pass.
BTW, I was pinging someone that I knew had studied these provisions in-depth.
I am not clear on what you are concerned about. Is is about the E-verify provisions? Can you be more specific?
“What about provisions that will make YOU get permission from the government to work?”
Can you point out for me which provision can be construed this way? And how you’ve came to construe it this way? I am not trying to be disrespectful or put you on the defensive. Many’s the time I have read legislation where I missed the “unintended” consequences.
My understanding of “E-Verify” is that you’ll have to be in the data base compiled by the feds in order to work. That’s more than troublesome. What if you’re not on their approved list?
Oh, and, do you really want the feds compiling this list in the first place?
Disgusting.
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.