U.S. Immigration Bill

[DougF]

And then that bill accumulated amendments, amendments that ultimately stopped it from going anywhere. I'm tired of legislation with amendments, hooks and strings attached. I want to see a border bill with nothing on it but securing the nation. They can hash out the immigration issues later.

yes I agree with you.

[CraigD]

IMO the issue of immigration, legal or illegal, should be a seperate issue dealt with in a seperate bill from any bill that addresses securing the border. Cut out the fat and get down to the meat of the problem.

Nearly everyone, I think, can agree that laws are better when effectively enforced than when not. Non-citizens entering the US without a visa is illegal. Enforcing this law more effectively would, inarguably IMHO, be an improvement. If US businesses are troubled by a reduction in illegal laborers, they should petition Congress to allow these workers into the country legally.

 

I’m concerned, however, with the cost of such an enterprise, which, by my very imprecise guestimation, promises to cost in excess of $100,000,000,000/year (10%+ of total federal tax receipts), on the order of current federal spending on the armed services. In short, that, in monetary terms, preventing illegal entry into the US would cost American taxpayers 20 or more times as much as it saves – if one assumes that its current cost actually exceeds the savings experienced by consumers due to lower labor costs due to the use of illegal workers, an assumption I’ve not yet seen supported by evidence.

 

:QuestionM Is anyone aware of, or able to make, a preliminary logistical analysis of the cost of a military blockade of all consequential possible entry points into the US, much-improved vehicle inspections, which, given NAFTA treaty obligations, might even require government compensation to businesses incurring costs from increased border crossing delays, and the many other possible expenses such an absolute policy would entail?

 

My intuitive feeling is that a policy that imposed severe financial penalties on those who profit from illegal entry into the US, such as employers of these people in the US illegally, would be more effective than a military/police land (and potentially costal, and even air) blockade, and hundreds to thousands of time less expensive.

 

The argument that more secure borders reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks on people and property in the US is a separate one from the above, economic one. To my knowledge, no person known to have attempted of committed a terrorist act in the US has entered the country without a visa. Therefore, it stands to reason that preventing people without visas from entering the country would not reduce the likelihood or terrorist attacks. :eek2:

[Zythryn]

I think the cheapest way to secure the border is Buffy's suggestion. Punish the heck out of companies that hire illegals.

To do this, you need to have an easy way for businesses to ascertain the legal status of a person. This brings in the national id card so an employer can identify legal status much more easily.

And yes, illegal immigrants should also be punished. But if you make it unprofitable for employers to hire illegal immigrants, you remove much of the draw of illegal immigration.

In my opinion this would be more effective than border guards.

[InfiniteNow]

What if we gave illegal immigrants separate water fountains? :phones:

[C1ay]

I contacted my Senators and asked them to stop this bill. Here's the response I got from one of them.

 

Dear Mr. Lawrence :

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Senate debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I appreciate hearing from you and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

 

Many have asked why I became involved in a process to work towards a comprehensive reform bill in the Senate. I did it for two reasons. First, in my travels throughout the State of Georgia in the past three years, I had heard loudly and clearly from Georgians that they wanted us to end illegal immigration in America right now, plain and simple. We cannot leave it for future generations to solve. And second, quite frankly, the 2006 elections changed the landscape in Washington and put Democrats in charge of the legislative process. Had I not sat at the table and fought for conservative principles, Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi would have had the votes to pass last year's horrendous Senate bill and send it on to the President. I could not let that happen. Therefore, I stood strong with other conservative colleagues in the Senate and worked towards a process by which we could to start the immigration debate in the Congress.

 

I started this process seeking to accomplish three main goals in this debate - to truly secure our borders, to prohibit a new pathway to citizenship and to stop the current climate of amnesty whereby millions of illegal immigrants are breaking our laws and facing no punishment for doing so. As a result of a severely flawed immigration law passed in 1986, some 12 million to 20 million immigrants have been allowed to enter this country illegally and remain indefinitely. They work tax-free, get free health care in our emergency rooms and educate their children for free in our schools. Our nation's policy today is amnesty, and it must end.

 

The immigration bill we debated for the past two weeks differed dramatically from the one signed into law in 1986 and it is also very different from last year's Senate bill. The 1986 law granted amnesty but failed to secure the border, and our country has been paying the price ever since. Last year, the Republican-led Senate repeated the same mistake of 1986 by passing a bill to grant legal status to illegal immigrants without securing our nation's borders and without imposing any punishment for those here illegally. I voted against that bill last year because it was amnesty and because it failed to secure the border.

 

This year, I led an effort to ensure that any proposal contain the essential foundation for successfully reforming our immigration system - a requirement to truly secure our borders first before any reform of our temporary worker system takes place. This became known as the "Isakson trigger," and it mandated that Congress must fund, put in place and make operational true border security before any temporary work program could begin. As it currently stands, the bill states that border security must include at least 20,000 border agents, 31,000 detention beds, four unmanned aerial vehicles, 105 radar towers, and 300 miles of vehicles barriers. In addition, a minimum of 370 miles of the fencing mandated in last year's Secure Fence Act must be constructed. I firmly believe that these security measures would finally provide comprehensive border security and would ensure that we have operational control of our southern border.

 

The final, key piece of my trigger was a biometrically secure identification card that will allow employers for the first time to instantly verify whether an immigrant is legal. Employers today must guess whether documentation provided by immigrants is fraudulent or not. A biometrically secure ID would replace this guessing game with certainty and would hold employers accountable with much stricter fines for hiring illegal workers.

 

Although opponents of the bill have suggested that there was nothing worthwhile in this bill, I would suggest that it contained several critical and necessary changes to fix our broken immigration system. It would have secured our borders first. It would have ended our current system of amnesty. It contained no new pathway to citizenship and would have forced illegal immigrants to go home before they could be eligible for a green card or for citizenship. It would have ended chain migration. It would have given employers a fraud-proof system to verify whether workers are legal. It would have forced immigrants to learn English. These are the kind of conservative Georgia principles that I brought to the table and fought for and was able to include. Even though these principles were included, I recognized it was still an imperfect product and that is why I worked through the amendment process to make it even stronger.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Bingaman to limit the temporary worker visa quota for the proposed Y-1 visa to a "hard cap" of 200,000 per year. The bill as originally drafted provided for 400,000 Y-1 visas for the first year, and that number could have risen to 600,000 in following years. This amendment passed and that number was instead capped at 200,000.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Graham to impose mandatory jail sentences for those who crossed the border illegally after being deported - at least 60 days in jail for the first offense and no less than two years for the second offense. Everyone needs to know that America is changing its immigration laws, and that if you break our laws, you will lose your freedom. This amendment passed.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. McCain to require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes on their earnings for the time they had been in the United States . This amendment passed.

 

I cosponsored and voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Coleman to close a loophole in existing immigration law to allow local law enforcement to acquire information about the immigration status of a person they have probable cause to believe is not lawfully in the U.S. There are several "sanctuary cities" around the United States that have prohibited their law enforcement to inquire about a person's immigration status. In certain cities, a person can be charged and even tried without the local authorities ever inquiring about whether the person is in the United States legally. The amendment would make it clear that state and local governments may not prohibit their law enforcement from checking a person's immigration status when they have probable cause to believe that the person is in the United States illegally. Unfortunately, this amendment failed.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Hutchison to prohibit anyone who worked here illegally from obtaining social security benefits based on earnings obtained while here illegally. This amendment passed.

 

I cosponsored and voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Inhofe to require that English be declared the national language of the United States . It also provided that the English language is the default language for government communication, and that no person has a right to have the government communicate in any language other than English, unless "specifically stated in applicable law." If an exception is made, then only the English language version of any government form can have legal weight.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Demint to require that temporary workers maintain a minimum level of private health insurance to keep them off public assistance such as Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, this amendment failed.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Sessions to prohibit anyone who is not a green card holder in the United States from being able to take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit. This amendment passed.

 

I voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Cornyn to permanently bar about 635,000 "alien absconders," or immigrants who have received deportation notices, from obtaining visas. Unfortunately, this amendment failed.

 

I also voted to defeat all cloture motions designed to cut off debate on the immigration bill. The Democratic leadership in the Senate refused to allow up or down votes on additional Republican amendments that would further strengthen this bill. Among these critical initiatives that I supported but was not allowed an up or down vote on was an amendment mandating spending for border security as well as an amendment to require illegal immigrants to return home in order to participate in the Z visa program. The Democratic leader's refusal to allow votes on these additional amendments was unacceptable.

 

As I have said throughout the debate, I would reserve judgment on the final bill until deliberations were complete on the bill. At the time the Democratic leadership moved to end debate on the bill, it was my view that this bill was not good enough yet for the people of Georgia .

 

I recognize the lack of trust that a majority of Georgians have in the federal government's ability to follow through on its promise to secure the border. For that reason, I recently sent a letter to the President calling on him to use his emergency funding powers to fully fund the border security measures in this legislation as well as all outstanding border security measures that have previously been passed but not yet funded .

 

I have been working hard to address the number one domestic issue in the United States . I will continue my efforts because I believe it is absolutely critical to our state and to this nation that we secure the borders and restore credibility to our immigration system.

 

Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at Johnny Isakson, United States Senator from Georgia for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

 

 

Sincerely,

Johnny Isakson

United States Senator

 

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at

Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senator from Georgia - Contact Us

 

I enjoyed reading that one of my State's representatives is listening to the people. From the roll call on the vote I know that my other Senator voted against it as well :shrug:

[Cedars]

CraigD, I appreciate your posts. I think you are trying to take an honest look at the situation :shrug:

Both sides of the illegal immigration debate tend, I think, to place too much attention on the physical presence

of illegal immigrants in the US – proposing paramilitary solutions such as fences and walls on one side, and

liberalized immigration on the other. The problem is fundamentally, I think, one of lack of laws and law

enforcement requiring employers to pay wages than allow low-skill laborers to enjoy a standard of living agreeable

to the general public – working 40 hour weeks, housing two or fewer people per bedroom of a dwelling, and other

arrangements atypical of those of illegal aliens. The lack of such a standard of living is troubling regardless of

whether it is suffered in the US by a large (5+ million) population of illegal aliens, or US citizens, or in other

countries, and can be corrected by increasing the incomes of these population and lowering their living costs,

through diverse means such as education, employer regulation, and subsidies, although how to accomplish such

reforms is not an obvious or easy question.

 

Were such reforms enacted, not only in the US but worldwide, the causes of illegal immigration would, I believe,

be reduces, and the symptom with it.

So far no one has showed me a need to increase immigration on any level. Lots of rhetoric, but no real reasons.

Agriculture? Do some searching, the legal visa for farm labor is grossly under-utilized now and has been for years

and years.

 

Its been 20+ years since the first amnesty, 13 years since NAFTA and the only thing that truely hasnt been tried in

all these years since is enforcement of the laws regarding immigration.

 

The proposed immigration reform bill that failed offered no solution to the issues that surround Latin America

and Mexico. Any immigration reform must be advantageous for America. I am not arguing the reasons why they

come here and circumvent the laws (jobs), I am arguing that amnesty is disadvantageous for Americans.

 

Another nightmare condition that I had no idea was going on regarding social security and illegal aliens:

 

The Cost of Illegal Earnings Under Totalization With Mexico

 

I wonder if the above was hidden in the (thankfully) failed legislation.

 

We really dont have a choice but to send the illegals home. I do not believe the promises about 'oh they wont be

eligible for benefits' (see above link). I believe the courts would rule these ammendments that were attached

to this failed measure are unconstitutional laws, equal protection and all.

 

America cannot afford to support these illegals via amnesty. And due to past results, the average American should expect

the worst in such a case, rather than counting on the political spin, smiles, and handshakes; the typical political

smokescreen to promote ideas that benefit a few at a great cost to many.

[Cedars]

While I don't doubt the claim, where did this number come from?

-Will

 

I posted a quote and a link in a previous post in this thread.

 

I also unrepresented the actual numbers posted in that link, which was $2700 per household. But that was before I knew about the social security thing.

 

Now that I have become aware of that, I can easily imagine the loss will be much greater than $2700, knowing what I do about farm work and injury, and ssi benefits to the children of disabled persons.

[Racoon]

I see the members here, in this thread, in either 1 of 2 categories:

 

Those who see the effects of unbridled,unfair illegal immigration as being counter-productive to the average American in its current path...

 

And those who are totally humanitarian in their ideals and think unchecked borders is something that benefits everybody or at least those desperate souls who brave the border crossing.

 

I have yet to hear the concrete benefits of the completely humanitarian view.

Just snipe comments about zenophobia and isolationism.

 

:shrug:

 

Yeah, I have some strong feelings on the matter, but its not out of hate.

Its about protecting whats ours, and following the Law!

Its about realizing the corrupt politics and global machination behind it. :xx:

 

I have yet to see all the wonderful statistics that 12 million illegals have produced.

Becuase wages and unions are going down. health care, welfare, and social costs go up.

 

And if you were to be an illegal in Mexico? you'd go to jail indefinitely unless you could bribe your way out with your life savings.

 

Its called jamming up the American taxpayer, while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank with the loot.

 

Its going to be called the Security and Prosperity Treaty of North America.

[Turtle]

I see the members here, in this thread, in either 1 of 2 categories:

 

Those who see the effects of unbridled,unfair illegal immigration as being counter-productive to the average American in its current path...

 

And those who are totally humanitarian in their ideals and think unchecked borders is something that benefits everybody or at least those desperate souls who brave the border crossing.

 

...

Its going to be called the Security and Prosperity Treaty of North America.

 

i'm in the bold group. one small correction for the underlined phrase; 'it' is called the Security and Prosperity Treaty of North America

 

A North American United Nations?

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.

 

 

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America :: Home

 

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for Security and Prosperity Treaty of North America

 

good grief.:shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

At least good ol' Ron Paul stirs things up a bit. He's somewhat nutty, but at least not an automaton. I do, however, question the final comment in Turtle's quoted article in Post #94 regarding the likelihood of this approach making us "far less secure and certainly less prosperous."

 

Then again, someone will just call me ultra-liberal and be done with it.

 

 

What? With all the prosperity we have now, why SHOULD we change anything? :shrug:

[Buffy]

And those who are totally humanitarian in their ideals and think unchecked borders is something that benefits everybody or at least those desperate souls who brave the border crossing.

 

I have yet to hear the concrete benefits of the completely humanitarian view.

Just snipe comments about zenophobia and isolationism.

I'd disagree with this characterization: President Bush strongly supports open borders, but not because of "humanitarianism". Its because its good for business in that it allows for cheap labor, decimation of trade unions, and as a result, increased profits for business owners and investors.

 

There is an argument promulgated by like thinkers that "everyone who is an investor will benefit" but obviously most of the benefit will accrue to those who gain all or most of their income through ownership or participation in management, while those who are the labor see their incomes that are used to make relatively small investments in those profits dwindle away to the point where they can no longer invest because the cost of living is so high.

 

Further, there are even more cynical supporters of the Bush strategy who see that by promoting unpopular "open borders" laws that will never have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, that they continue to have the current situation where illegals who have no protections, don't require benefits, don't require payment of payroll taxes, and can be paid below minumum wage without any enforcement (remember *no* law will be passed due to gridlock), they have the best of all worlds.

 

Blaming bleeding-heart liberals for being "humanitarian" on this topic is *exactly* what these people want you to do! Are you a rich fat cat? Then do everything you can to stifle immigration reform! Let the liberals take the blame!

 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, :shrug:

Buffy

[Turtle]

At least good ol' Ron Paul stirs things up a bit. He's somewhat nutty, but at least not an automaton. I do, however, question the final comment in Turtle's quoted article in Post #94 regarding the likelihood of this approach making us "far less secure and certainly less prosperous."

Then again, someone will just call me ultra-liberal and be done with it.

 

 

What? With all the prosperity we have now, why SHOULD we change anything? :xx:

 

i never thought to characterize you in that manner as you have opinions in other areas that range the entire spectrum. better that i stick to challenging specific ideas and propositions you posit that i find worthy.

 

i agree about the phrase having no supportable content. at the very least, predictions are always hard to make and especially when they deal with the future. :epizza: i simply picked a link near the top to illustrate that views opposing your own aren't limited to a few here at Hypog. i have no doubt we can pick & choose links from the other million or so the search popped up from both sides of the debate.

 

in the best spirit of irony, your final comment/statement/question is of the same ilk as the statement you challenge.

 

...Further, there are even more cynical supporters of the Bush strategy who see that by promoting unpopular "open borders" laws that will never have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, that they continue to have the current situation where illegals who have no protections, don't require benefits, don't require payment of payroll taxes, and can be paid below minumum wage without any enforcement (remember *no* law will be passed due to gridlock), they have the best of all worlds....

 

sounds spot on par to me. i have seen some news reports on towns hard-strapped with illegal immigrants taking their own action rather than waiting for the feds, by simply enforcing existing laws. common sense isn't very common. :shrug:

[Racoon]

I'd disagree with this characterization: President Bush strongly supports open borders, but not because of "humanitarianism". Its because its good for business in that it allows for cheap labor, decimation of trade unions, and as a result, increased profits for business owners and investors.

 

I know Bush is no Humanitarian. I was reffering to the humanitarians here and of the uber-liberal left.

 

If Bush was such a Humanitarian, he wouldn't feel good about people dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or try to prevent stem stell research for improving the human condition.

 

There is an argument promulgated by like thinkers that "everyone who is an investor will benefit" but obviously most of the benefit will accrue to those who gain all or most of their income through ownership or participation in management, while those who are the labor see their incomes that are used to make relatively small investments in those profits dwindle away to the point where they can no longer invest because the cost of living is so high.

 

 

Blaming bleeding-heart liberals for being "humanitarian" on this topic is *exactly* what these people want you to do! Are you a rich fat cat? Then do everything you can to stifle immigration reform! Let the liberals take the blame!

 

Why not make Mexico take much of the blame ?? .

after all they have the highest per capita rate of Millionares in the world (or somewhere close)

They encourage this illegal immigration of uneducated poor and criminals...

Why?

Becuz' then they don't have to pay the social toll and responsibility.. the American Taxpayers do! :shrug:

With 1 out of 10 people gone, almost exclusively poor, they reap that much more profit and less in taxes when the workers send home much of their Gringo Dolares to spend there..

 

Its a numbers game, and the American middle class is losing!

[Turtle]

...

Why not make Mexico take much of the blame ?? .

after all they have the highest per capita rate of Millionares in the world (or somewhere close)...

 

i recently heard Mexico is 5th in the world on this standard. nonetheless, they rank high and the question of how they are helping their own people (or not) could use a little more press. on the evidence of this thread, the answer appears to be, 'not so much." :shrug:

[sanctus]

Rac don't put all in one, while I'm for open borders I'm also for stem cell research, people against it very often are it for religious reasons...

 

One benefit I see starting from the philosophy "you are guilty also for what you don't do", therefore you (and me as well as in Switzerland a law passed-the people voted for it!-which makes Switzerland the most restrictive country of Europe in asylum matters) are guilty of not helping people in need. You know, you can look at it this way: if you close your borders then you are guilty of people starving and dying of easily curable sicknesses, if you open your borders the only risk is that the well-being of the average-american is a little less (what still has to be proven objectively and since Bush is in favor it seems that it would even make profit). Fair price to pay, no? I don't think you would do something of what you know it kills many people, then why do you object to something, knowing that this objection causes deaths?

[Erasmus00]

Personally, I don't think a wall/fence manned is a very good idea. The cost of building/maintaining such a wall would far outweigh the benefit. Not to mention the cost of rounding up all the current illegal immigrants already here.

 

And, as Craig has pointed out, "securing" the border really has nothing to do with terrorism.

 

I think the economic course of action Buffy outlined is likely the most effective way to try and deal with the problem.

-Will

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think Racoon is a swing voter. Probably gets a LOT of candidate calls.

 

I never get any. :umno:

 

TFS

[reliably über-liberal]