Posted on 05/06/2008 12:20:54 PM PDT by Delacon
Senate Republicans are set to announce Wednesday the hardest-hitting package of immigration enforcement measures seen yet -- one that would require jail time for illegal immigrants caught crossing the border, make it harder for them to open bank accounts and compel them to communicate in English when dealing with federal agencies.
Most of the bills stand little chance of being debated in the Democrat-controlled Congress, but the move by some of the Senate's leading Republicans underscores how potent the issue of immigration remains, particularly during a presidential election year.
The bills give Republicans a way to put pressure on the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to take a tougher stance on immigration. They also reflect a shift toward harsher immigration rhetoric and legislative proposals from both parties since Congress failed to pass a comprehensive overhaul in 2007.
The package, an enforcement smorgasbord assembled by at least eight lawmakers, consists of 11 bills, but could expand to include as many as 14. Some elements echo House bills, but others go beyond House proposals.
One would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants by docking 10 percent of highway funding from states that continue to do so. Another would extend the presence of National Guard on the border and a third would end language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for people with limited English ability.
A bill by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is leading the effort, would impose a maximum two-year jail sentence on someone caught crossing the border for a second time.
"The point is to reinforce the idea that most of us here feel that we need to make enforcement and border security a first step to solving the overall problem," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the sponsors.
Although Congress usually avoids tough legislation during an election year, Vitter insisted that he and his colleagues could still get something done. "There are concrete steps we can take. None of us see any reason to waste this time," he said.
Other bills in the package would:
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican proposal "falls far short of what is needed." Democrats want to combine enforcement with a guest-worker program and a way to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Reid "continues to support legislation that is tough on people who break the law, fair to taxpayers and practical to implement," Manley said.
But Democrats also have begun embracing a tougher stance on immigration as well. A confidential study assembled for the Democratic leadership earlier this year urged them to start using tougher language. Democrats have focused on offering opportunity to immigrants, but the study by two think tanks urged them to begin speaking in terms of "requiring" illegal immigrants to become legal and about what's best for the United States.
Many House Democrats have gone a step further, endorsing an enforcement-only bill by freshman Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina that would bolster border security and require employers to verify their workers' legal status with an electronic verification system.
The SAVE Act has drawn 140 co-sponsors, 48 of whom are Democrats, many of them vulnerable freshman who won seats from Republicans.
The Democratic leadership dislikes Shuler's bill and has refused to schedule a debate. Republican leaders are considering collecting signatures for a special petition that requires House leaders to bring a bill up for debate if 218 members sign. There are 198 Republicans.
Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center, said Senate Republicans might be trying to match their House colleagues. "They might feel they're being upstaged by House Republicans," she said. But she also suggested the Senate bills could provide political protection to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the likely GOP presidential nominee.
Conservatives consider Republican front-runner McCain soft on immigration. McCain, along with the Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has backed giving illegal immigrants some form of legal status, which conservatives consider "amnesty."
If McCain endorsed the Senate package, that could "create a platform for McCain to look tough on immigration, create distance from Ted Kennedy and erect a shield around the amnesty charge," Kelley said.
Besides Sessions and Vitter, the bills are being introduced by GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
“Even though this two month old article was posted by mistake, it still cheers me up one day after McCain opened a Spanish website and scheduled a speech to La Raza.”
Again my apologies to all for posting this rather dated article but you are right. The issue is just as topical today as back then if not more so. In fact there should be some outrage that these initiatives have stalled in both the house and senate.
I would rather have a moat with alligators, but then that’s just me.
“McCain promised to secure the border first “
He has just backtracked on that saying that “it has to be part of a comprehensive immigration bill and that addressing the issue piecemeal will not work.”
Frankly, I don’t believe a word that he says to Americans about anything.
I do believe his record on any matter.
“What a bunch of bull. Now that they’re out of power, the corrupt and inept GOP has suddenly discovered immigration as an issue”
The BS is the reaction here. First the corrupt and inept Democrats are and always have been far more wrong on immigration than the GOP, always have been and always will be. It was Ted Kennedy who slurred in Spanish in front of illegal aliens telling them he watned to give em citizenship etc. It was Senator Sessions and conservatives like him who stopped it - good for him.
Tancredo and Hunter discovered the immigration issue something like 10-20 years ago, its not new.
And now Sessions has a bill. Good for him again. This proposed bill is not too different from the bill the GOP House passed in 2006. This is not new ideas. The problem is that the senate went for amnesty and nothing happened because of folks like *US* who shut down the senate bill.
This is what those who want to fix immigration without amnesty want to do. Either it is good public policy or it is not. This happens to be good. But blasting it now because of the timing is a pathetic and wrong-headed reaction.
This is a good bill... I guess everyone here blasting it is really in the tank for amnesty, that’s the only explanation for such irrational responses.
The reaction that ‘we should just enforce the law’ is incomplete. We apparently are doing that now, much better, and now the question of support of local law enforcement and how to verify employment comes up. Legislation is needed to make the system work better.
“I anxiously await the next useless bill from the GOP that has absolutely zero chance of passage”
- So any bill that wont pass because there is a Democrat majority is ‘useless’. So I guess we just propose nothing.
No tax cuts to counter Democrat tax increases. etc.? NUTS to that!
How about showing the alternative to what the Democrats want? And showing how it can be better. This does exactly that. There is nothing wrong at all, in fact it is great.
Too Funny!
Your assessment is right on the money!
I read the reports on it myself and it supports what I said. McCain promised to secure the border first. When you find the direct quote it will back what I say.
“As long as we have Jorge in the White House, nothing will come of this.” Not long. 10 months.
“The millions of Mexicans flooding across our borders are our FRIENDS, and we should WELCOME them with open arms and give them as much monetary assistance as they want. It’s racist to think otherwise!”
You sound bitter. Are you a small-towner clinging to Guns & God?
How are these ‘meaningless’:
“# Block federal funding from cities that bar their police from asking about immigration status.
# Give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to use information from the Social Security Administration to target illegal immigrants. “
- Do you think our current Federal funding of sanctuary cities is ‘meaningless’? How many millions of dollars are involved?
- Do you think DHS authorizations that are lacking in some areas should be left unfized?
In fact its like all three amnesty candidates have cut a deal with the MSM not to cover illegal immigration even though over 80% of Americans view immigration as being either one of the most important or an important issue facing this country.
“Man, what do think about the dust up that happened 2 weeks ago when one of Chertof’s assistants said that it isn’t federally illegal for an “undocumented” worker to be here?”
He is correct. So was Rudy Guliani correct when he made the same point (yet he got attacked for saying it, as it sounds ‘soft on illegal immigration’ when its just a fact). Illegal presense is a civil not criminal offense. That is why when people say “oh, just enforce the law we dont need any new law” you know they are spouting ignorance. they say simplistic things and make it sound simple but dont realize the laws themselves are imperfect and needs to be fixed.
We need folks like Sessions to craft the law so it is fixed without amnesty.
“its illegal to cross our borders without going through the process but that actually being here without proper documentation isn’t. Thats a big hole in the existing laws that this push may help rectify.”
Yes, and if you recall, The GOP House bill *did* fix this in 2006, and this caused the backlash of the immigrant rallies.
Bravo to Sen Sessions for bringing this up.
“Chertoff is blowing smoke by feigning an excuse not to arrest and deport illegals.”
He and DHS have been deporting illegals.
“This bill(s) is a complete waste of time”
Do you say that about ALL of Tancredo’s ideas?
I guess is need the :-) or sarc tag.
A joke. But I’m glad to cling to the Right Stuff.
ooops ... meant to say: But I’m glad you cling to the Right Stuff.
I do too.
That’s OK. I got it.
:-)
It's Scary Harry pushing amnesty again. I never seen anyone do such a 180 on immigration as Harry has. In the 1990s he was actually tougher than most conservatives on the issue but after some lectures from his wife and a few tears of remorse that's all changed now.
“Nope. Live in overcrowded Los Angeles. Only own one gun. But yes, I do try to cling to God.”
If I lived in LA, I’d have more than one gun and go to church more than the minister did. ;)
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.