May 31, 2006

22 Problems With The Senate’s Illegal Immigration Bill

Posted by D.A. King at 2:35 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

Click here to read 22 problems with the amnesty – again, open borders bill.

We regard this as a “comprehensive” explanation.

Click here to see what La Raza says about the senate’s bill.

Here to see what MALDEF says.

What You Don’t Know About the Immigration Bill…and not likely to read in Cynthia’s space

Posted by D.A. King at 1:48 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

The battle to pass the senate’s amnesty-again bill will be a long one. Please do not depend on the MSM for all of your information. That goes double for the slanted AJC editors.

Amazingly, this in the Washington Post:

What You Don’t Know About the Immigration Bill

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; Page A19

The Senate passed legislation last week that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) hailed as “the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history.” You might think that the first question anyone would ask is how much it would actually increase or decrease legal immigration. But no. After the Senate approved the bill by 62 to 36, you could not find the answer in the news columns of The Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Yet the estimates do exist and are fairly startling. By rough projections, the Senate bill would double the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million.

Samuelson goes on, I hope that you will take the time to read the entire article.

May 28, 2006

If you only read one article on our borders, illegal immigration and President Bush…please read this one

Posted by D.A. King at 9:52 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

Americans need to accept the fact that President Bush has no intention of securing our borders.

His goal is to erase them.

Below is as good an article on the crisis as I have seen and I reccommend reading the entire piece and using the knowledge it contains to do what you can to stop the Bush capitulation and the Senate amnesty.

From the San Bernadino County Sun
May 28, 2006

Double vision
Bush’s hopes for border defining policy
Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

Paying closest attention to what happens next are the United States’ illegal immigrants, estimated to number about 12 million, and the growing number of U.S. citizens and lawmakers demanding dramatic changes to border security and immigration policy.

For the latter group, two questions loom: Why, in a time of heightened concern about national security, have so many illegal immigrants been able to make their way across the border? And why has border security to this point been such a bit player in the government’s national-security plans?

The apparent answer: because the government, especially the president himself, wants it that way.

“It seems as though (President Bush) truly rejects the moral legitimacy of immigration enforcement,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. “He is psychologically committed to open borders, and he can’t understand why people don’t think the way he does.”

“The president has all along had a vision of the U.S. and Mexico that stands in contrast to the way the vast majority of the American people think about the issue,” added Glynn Custred, a professor of anthropology at Cal State East Bay who specializes in Latin and South American border studies.

“That vision is that there should be a consistent flow of free labor to the north,” Custred continued. “If you look at Bush’s speeches (and) his proposed legislation, it seems he wants it that way because he thinks it’s best for the world.”

Read the entire article here You may want to see what the Border Patrol union in Tucson Arizona has to say as well. Access that site here.

May 26, 2006

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

Posted by D.A. King at 9:46 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

Speeding toward a borderless North America?

It is not being hidden any longer, so lets stop pretending.

President George Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North America when they announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23 in Waco, TX. They agreed on ambitious security and prosperity agendas to keep our borders closed to terrorism and open to trade. The SPP is based on the premise that security and our economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing, and recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. The Partnership is a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation and information-sharing

The rest here.


White House compares illegal immigration to speeding

Posted by D.A. King at 9:39 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

White House compares illegal immigration to speeding

Bill Sammon, The Examiner
May 26, 2006 5:13 PM (4 hrs ago)

WASHINGTON – The White House on Friday said a Senate bill that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants is analogous to a traffic law that allows a speeder to pay a fine and continue driving.

“If you had a traffic ticket and you paid it, you’re not forever a speeder, are you?” White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said in response to questions from The Examiner.

“So the fact is, you have paid your debt to society,” he added. “And we have come up with a way to make sure that the debt to society gets paid. Then you move forward.”

The “traffic ticket” analogy raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, where many House Republicans regard illegal immigration as a grave crime.

“I don’t know if Tony meant to trivialize it or not,” said Will Adams, spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. “But it’s certainly misleading.”

the rest here.


Posted by D.A. King at 4:53 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

3,785 words
26 May 2006
Political Transcripts by CQ Transcriptions
(C) 2006 CQ Transcriptions, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


MAY 26, 2006


[*] SENSENBRENNER: Good morning, everybody. Thank you all for coming. I think that being here today shows that some of us do work when the House is not voting over across the way. Let me say that, last night, the Senate passed its immigration reform proposal. This will set up a very difficult House-Senate conference committee, because the approaches taken by the House and the Senate on this issue have been 180 degrees apart.

I am going to pledge myself to work as hard as I can to reach a compromise which is effective — and by effective, I mean: It does not repeat the mistakes of the Simpson-Mazzoli act of 20 years ago, which was supposed to be the solution to this problem, but instead has made the problem worse and increased the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

What we need to do is to secure the border and to cut off the attraction of cheap jobs in the United States, which is what brings many illegal immigrants into our country first, and then we need to decide what to do with the labor requirements of the American economy that may not be able to be filled only by U.S. citizens or by people who are here with green cards, having legally immigrated to the United States.

I would hope that the Senate would take a look back to why the Simpson-Mazzoli bill failed. And the Simpson-Mazzoli bill failed because the employer sanctions were never enforced. And unless we have good internal enforcement as well as border security, there will be people who will have a strong economic attraction to try to get around the fence or over the fence because there is no internal enforcement of the immigration laws.

The market does work. And it’s always cheaper to hire an illegal immigrant than it is to hire a United States citizen or someone who is legally here with a green card.

So this conference is going to be difficult. I would hope that the Senate would view the issue of coming up with an effective bill, not one necessarily that looks good on a bumper sticker — because if we don’t come up with an effective bill, we will have let the American people down.

And with that, I’ll be happy to take some questions.

QUESTION: Congressman, how do you think we should deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants that are already living in this country?

QUESTION: And how do you think that will play out in the conference?

SENSENBRENNER: Well, I can’t predict how anything is going to play out in the conference.

Let me say that amnesty is wrong, because amnesty rewards someone for illegal behavior. And the system that has been set up in the Senate will also result in gross document fraud, because if someone can prove they’ve been here illegally for five years, then they can get the reward of citizenship by doing a few things and paying $2,750 in fines.

I reject the spin that the senators have been putting on their proposal. It is amnesty. And on May 24th, two days ago, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who served in the Reagan administration, wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times which I would commend to your attention that said at least Ronald Reagan was honest when he called the legalization procedure “amnesty.” What’s going on now, in calling it a “pathway to citizenship” or “earned legalization,” is not honest, because it is amnesty.

And all I would do is quote from Mr. Meese’s article and refer you call to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” which is the bible for defining terms for the legal profession.

In “Black’s Law Dictionary,” look it up and you’ll find it says, quote, “the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.” That’s what the Senate bill does.

So it seems to me that what we need to do is to figure out a way, short of amnesty, to deal with the labor needs of the American economy. And if the Senate gets off of the dime of pushing for amnesty, even though they call it something different, then I think there’s room for negotiation.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Senator Kyl that perhaps the way to a compromise would be with enhanced border security, interior enforcement and then phase the temporary worker program in then you’d see some success. Is that something (OFF-MIKE)?

SENSENBRENNER: The bottom line should be something that works. And if we make the mistake of Simpson-Mazzoli all over again, 20 years from now we’re going to have a problem that’s even worse.

And what that means is that you’ve got to do things in the proper order. The first things that need to be done are border security and enforcement of employer sanctions so that we not only prevent people from crossing the border, but we turn off the magnet of cheap jobs for those who illegally come here.

And again, it’s always cheaper to hire an illegal immigrant.

I think Senator Kyl is going down the right path, because we’ve got to do things in the proper order.

The mistake of Simpson-Mazzoli is that amnesty was offered and employer sanctions were never enforced. And because employer sanctions were never enforced, only a third of those eligible for amnesty bothered to sign up, because they feared they’d lose their jobs by pricing themselves out of the market by legalizing themselves.

We cannot afford to do that kind of a mistake again.


SENSENBRENNER: What I’m saying is that to avoid the mistake of Simpson-Mazzoli, we’ve got to do things in the proper order. You know, there’s an old phrase that I think many of us have said upon occasion: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The amnesty provisions in the Senate bill are almost a carbon copy of Simpson-Mazzoli. And if we do have amnesty and we say we’re going to enforce the border and we say we’re going to enforce employer sanctions and don’t do that, then we have repeated the mistake but with a lot more people coming across the border to come into the United States.

SENSENBRENNER: That’s why things have got to be done in the proper order, because shame on me time is going to be shame on the Congress and a fraud that will be perpetrated on the people of the United States of America.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) place a lot of hope on President Bush’s ability to persuade House Republicans to (inaudible) to the Senate approach. As things stand now, do you think the president is going to (inaudible) conference process?

SENSENBRENNER: We have a great respect for the Senate. The president dispatched Karl Rove, guru in chief up there, to the Republican conference, both this week and last week. And I didn’t attend either of those conferences, because I didn’t want to be accused of putting my colleagues up to asking very pointed questions in a loud voice to the president’s chief political adviser. That’s what they did.

And they jumped all over Rove. And they said the president is not where the American people are at.

The Senate is also not where the American people are at. And there has not been an issue in a long time that has engaged the American people in the manner that they have been engaged in.

I go back to the Zogby poll that CIS did and released on May 3rd, where they asked people to compare the Senate and the House approaches, and the House approach was favored by those who responded by a 64 percent to 30 percent margin.

So the polling is overwhelming in support of the House border security and employer sanctions bill, rather than what the Senate has done.

And I would also point out that what the Senate has done isn’t entirely reactive. We’ve got 12 million people here, so let’s legalize them. We’ve got a lot of employers that have been breaking the law in hiring illegal immigrants. They get amnesty under this bill, too.

There are 66 million new legal immigration visas. I think that’s too many. We’ve taken a million legal immigrants a year, which is the second highest percentage in the history of our country, as expressed as a total percentage of population in the last decade.

SENSENBRENNER: There’s 66 million new visas, together with the existing visas, in the next 20 years, and that’s in addition to the illegals that would end up being amnestied.

So wherever there’s a problem, what the Senate does is legalize them, increase numbers and give them a pass. The Senate bill has two separate guest worker programs. I don’t know why we need to have two guest worker programs. If we need guest workers, we ought to do it the right way, but one should be enough.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) House bill. Some of those colleagues are saying (OFF-MIKE) Why do you think the conference (OFF-MIKE)

SENSENBRENNER: Well, I think the conference should go forward, because the existing system is probably the worst of all possible worlds, and we have an obligation, in my opinion, to try to work something out.

And I would like to see as many public conferences as possible so that the American people can see what the Senate and House negotiators are doing on this issue.

Not to appoint conferees, in my opinion, is simply punting, and saying, “Well, we’ll let the system go on, and then maybe after the election we ought to work it out.”

I think the American public is entitled to having a vote on a compromise before the elections so that the voters can go to the polls assessing how their representatives and senators have done on this issue before they decide who to send back.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) some type of scenario in which a guest worker program and possibly some type of pathway to legal status would be tied to some type of trigger in which (inaudible) border enforcement would prove to be effective (inaudible)

SENSENBRENNER: Well, I think that with the American people and with most of my House Republican colleagues, a pathway to citizenship — also known as amnesty, according to Black’s Law Dictionary — is a nonstarter.

SENSENBRENNER: A guest worker program I think can be on the table if it does not contain an amnesty, but only if the employer sanctions and the increased border patrols are effective. And the effectiveness, I think, is going to have to be measured by some pretty tough standards, lest we make the mistake of having a bigger problem caused by this bill than the current problem was caused by Simpson- Mazzoli.


SENSENBRENNER: Illegal immigrants flock to certain labor- intensive industries, like agriculture, landscaping, hotels and restaurants, roofing and siding, certain types of construction industries.

The problem that has existed is that more and more illegal immigrants are displacing American workers, because in many cases the illegal immigrants are paid in cash, they work for less. In some cases, the Social Security and state and local taxes have not been taken out.

So an industry or a company that is dependent upon illegal workers is lowering their labor costs by 30 to 40 percent.

SENSENBRENNER: That means that the competition in that area of the economy that does it the right way and the legal way and hiring only legal workers prices themselves out of the market. That is a disruption of the economy.

Now, I don’t buy the argument that there are certain jobs that Americans will not do. Americans will do and have done any job as long as they’re paid enough money.

And the disruption in the market means that personnel like cleaning personnel and janitorial personnel that have been Americans in the past or legal immigrants with green cards have ended up, in many communities, being completely displaced by illegal immigrants.

You know, that’s wrong. And you know, that’s why we end up having poverty, because most of these jobs end up being entry-level jobs that don’t require very many skills.

So illegal immigration has caused an economic disruption, but also a social disruption, particularly for those people who do not have skills and are starting out at the bottom rung of the socio- economic ladder.

QUESTION: On the employer sanctions, what assurance will employers have (OFF-MIKE)?

SENSENBRENNER: The entire issue of employer sanctions has been completely ignored in talking about the fences and the criminal penalties, particularly for trafficking. And I’m glad you asked the question, because I do want to dwell on it.

First of all, the House-passed bill expands the basic pilot program to make the verification of Social Security numbers mandatory for new hires in two years and for existing employees in six.

There is a provision in the president’s budget to provide enough money to expand this verification program, which would use a secure database and an Internet Web site so that an employer could get into the Internet with a name and Social Security and get an instant response on whether the number matched the name of the applicant for the job.

And that would provide a defense for an employer if the verification was done and the verification came back positive, meaning that the Social Security and name match. This is very important because a lot of illegal immigrants use hot Social Security cards that are obtained by identity theft or fraud in order simply to fill out the I-9 for that is required for all hires.

SENSENBRENNER: So what we do by making the basic pilot program nationwide and mandatory and funding it so that it works and it works properly is to provide employers the tools to find out which applicants for jobs are legal immigrants or U.S. citizens, and which are illegal immigrants.

The second — and I’ll make another point on this. The Chamber of Commerce has adamantly opposed checking out existing employees. They say they’ve got no problem of checking out the new employees when the system comes up and running, but they object to the existing employees.

If we don’t check out the existing employees, then an illegal immigrant currently in the country cannot change jobs, because if they move jobs, they’d get checked out, and they would get caught. And that establishes a de facto program of indentured servitude for people who are illegally in the country in their existing jobs.

That’s wrong, and that’s immoral in my opinion.

The second thing that the House bill does is have significant increases in fines that would be assessed to employers who are caught hiring illegal immigrants.

Currently, the fine for a first offense is $100 a piece. And that’s part of the cost of doing business. And it is not high enough to act as a deterrent.

The House bill increases that to $5,000, which would be quite a deterrent, because if there is a raid and somebody who has hired 500 illegal immigrants get caught, that’s $25 million. And believe me, all of your scribes would put that as a headline in every newspaper in the country.

And once people see that there are significant penalties for hiring illegal immigrants which have been in violation of the law since Simpson-Mazzoli, maybe they’ll stop doing it.

QUESTION: Mr. Chairman, absent what you consider to be amnesty, how is the removal of the illegals to be done? Massive military activity? Police activity? There’s all these millions of people.

SENSENBRENNER: The answer is no. And the people who have supported amnesty saying, well, there isn’t really anything we can do about the fact that we’ve got 12 million here in this country — and I’m the first to admit that it’s impractical to round up and deport 12 million people, all of whom will have lawyers filing all kinds of motions in either immigration courts of federal district courts.

SENSENBRENNER: With the border controls and the enforcement of employer sanctions, the jobs for illegal immigrants will dry up. And if you can’t get a job because employer sanctions are enforced, my belief is is that a lot of the illegal immigrants will simply go back home voluntarily.

So this will end up being a process of attrition. But the only way to do that is through a workable employer sanctions program, fines that are high enough to act as a deterrent, and making sure that we have enough border controls to prevent the illegal immigrant who goes back home from being replaced by another illegal immigrant that comes into the country.

So, again, we get back to why Simpson-Mazzoli failed. Simpson- Mazzoli failed in large part because there was no enforcement of employer sanctions.

Now, the second amnesty that is contained in the Senate-passed bill is an amnesty for every employer who has hired an illegal immigrant. So basically what this bill does is it says that if you’ve broken the law by entering the United States illegally and staying here, and if you’ve broken the law by employing an illegal immigrant, which attracts more people to come across the border, we’re just going to give you a pass on that.

And that, coupled with the fact that interior enforcement of the immigration law has been really bad, in my opinion, and it’s gotten worse the last six years, and the statistics prove it, is that it will just kind of give a green light by saying, “Well, you know, we’ve been bad. We haven’t gotten caught. We’re not going to get prosecuted if we do get caught. So why should we change?”

And two last ones, and then…


SENSENBRENNER: Well, let’s talk about immigration on this one.


SENSENBRENNER: Well, I think the American people are willing to spend whatever it takes to secure the border. And securing the border is not just an immigration issue. It’s a drug enforcement and national security issue, as well.

There have been people on terrorist watch lists that have been caught by the Border Patrol inside the United States. And the criminal alien smugglers, also known as coyotes, have become a kind of a full-service criminal enterprise in that many of the people that pay to have themselves being ferried across the border end up being required to bring backpacks or satchels full of drugs into the United States.

SENSENBRENNER: I have seen figures that indicate that 85 percent of the illegal drugs on the streets of Chicago that are sold by gangs come across the southwestern border. So we’re not only dealing with the people problem, but we’re dealing with criminal enterprises, we’re dealing with a huge drug problem, and we’re dealing with a potential terrorism problem as well, because the border is not secured.

And this will be the last one. Yes, sir?


SENSENBRENNER: Well, if you’ve been reading what the senators have been saying about me and my negotiating tactics, including one David Brooks article in the New York Times, that I’ve been known to eat them for breakfast and to pick my teeth with their bones…


… what it shows is that over here my staff and I think outside the box and we are really result oriented.

If you look at what the Judiciary Committee has done under my chairmanship, I think we’ve probably been more effective than any other authorizing committee on either side of the Capitol, in terms of the Patriot Act, Visa and Border Security Act, all of the children’s safety bills that have come out of the committee, as well as some changes in intellectual property law.

I would like to see a bill passed and signed into law. However, I’m a realist, you know, and given the fact that the Senate and the House started miles apart, and as a result of some amendments that were offered in the Senate miles have become moons apart or oceans apart, this has made a difficult task even more so.

At the beginning of this process I have said that this is the most difficult thing that I have been asked to do in 37 and a half years of serving in elective public office, both here and in the Wisconsin legislature.

On the other hand, the American people are demanding that something is done, and I want to do my best to make sure that something is done, but the right thing is done. And the right thing is not repeating the mistakes of Simpson-Mazzoli.

And I would hope that the 26 Senate conferees that will be appointed when this bill is sent to conference look at why Simpson- Mazzoli failed and dedicate themselves to writing a bill that will work and will solve the problem.

SENSENBRENNER: If Simpson-Mazzoli were properly done, we would not be talking about this issue today because it would have worked. It was not properly done. And as a result, the problem has gone from 2.5 million illegal immigrants to 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants, and more of them coming.

So I don’t plan on signing a conference report that might look good on a bumper sticker, where I can put a picture of the president signing this bill into law in my campaign literature this fall, knowing full well that when I’m old and crabby — and I’m not old and crabby now, everybody knows that…


… when I am old and crabby and sitting on my front porch, I don’t have people come up to say, “You made the biggest mistake of your career in signing off on a bill that ended up making the problem worse.”

Thank you very much.


Document CHTS000020060526e25q0005l

Return to Headlines

© 2006 Factiva, Dow Jones & Reuters

Terry A. Shawn

Press Secretary

House Committee on the Judiciary

Atlanta an illegal alien santuary city?

Posted by D.A. King at 4:40 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

Mayor Franklin above the law?

This from Atlanta Business Chronicle
Franklin signs immigration legislation
Atlanta Business Chronicle – 1:40 PM EDT Friday May 26, 2006
Ryan Mahoney

Mayor Shirley Franklin has signed a resolution that says Atlanta police should not be required to enforce immigration laws — or even detain illegal immigrants charged with criminal acts — unless the city receives “sufficient reimbursement” for doing so.

The Atlanta City Council unanimously approved the legislation on May 1, with author Felicia Moore saying she was concerned about the constitutionality of Atlanta police turning illegals over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Read the rest here

See explanation of [illegal] santuary laws here.
See my AJC [!] column on Mayor Franklin’s attitude on the crime of illegal immigration here.

See that after having been removed from the U.S. RE-ENTRY into the U.S. is already a felony…as is using a fraudulant Social security number.

If Franklin does not obey SB 529…is she going to get amnesty too?

What you can do to stop amnesty

Posted by D.A. King at 12:44 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

Call as many U.S. Reps as possible and use the below info.


And know this:

The Senate put in last minute language that requires that the U.S. government “consult” with the government of Mexico before constructing any border fence or barrier. Foxes and henhouses come to mind here.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley today said the immigration reform bill
being debated in the U.S. Senate is riddled with loopholes and flaws.
During a speech on the Senate floor, he outlined for the American people
nearly 30 flaws within only two sections of the bill. “I was burned once in
1986 when I voted for amnesty believing that it would solve our problems.
Now, we have a 12 million illegal immigrant problem. I’m not getting burned
again,” Grassley said. “Not only do we have a glide path to citizenship,
but it’s a glide path with plenty of loopholes that don’t meet the common
sense test.”

Grassley has a number of amendments that would help fix the shortcomings in
the bill. It’s expected that debate on the bill will conclude this week.
Here is a list of Grassley’s “Top 10.”

1. $2,000 Fine —
Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a
small fine of $2,000. Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times
this amount to a smuggler to get across the border. Also, the $2000 fine
may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to
live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation.
This imposes a financial burden on the American taxpayer for health,
education, and infrastructure costs that aren’t reimbursed for five or ten

2. Taxes — Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their
last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have
the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers
better than the American people. The bill also makes
the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be
impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every
single person in this country.

3. Security Clearances in 90 days – Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security must
perform background checks on illegal aliens in the United States. It also encourages the federal government to complete the background checks on 10 million illegal aliens in 90 days. This is a national security concern
because Homeland Security will be pressured to complete these checks without
doing a thorough job.

4. Work Requirements – Under the bill, illegal aliens must prove
they’ve worked in the
United States for three of the last five years. It also says they have to
work for six years after the date of enactment of the bill. However, there
is no continuous work requirement for amnesty. They could work for 30 days,
take off 30 days, work for 30 days. The bill also says that illegal aliens
have to prove that they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last
five years by showing IRS or Social Security records, or records maintained
by federal, state, or local governments, employers, unions or day labor
centers. However, the bill also allows illegal aliens to ask anybody to
attest that they have been employed. This invites fraud, and the government
cannot realistically investigate all these cases.

5. Confidentiality – Under the bill, if an illegal alien applies for
amnesty, the federal government cannot use information provided in the
application for anything but adjudicating the petition. For example, if
illegal aliens write in their applications that they are related to Osama
Bin Laden, then our government cannot use that information. In fact, it
says that the Secretary of Homeland Security can only share that information
if someone requests it in writing. This provision severely handicaps
national security and criminal investigators. Also, if a federal agent does
use information provided by an illegal alien in an application for amnesty
the agent would be fined $10,000. This is five times more than the alien
has to pay to get amnesty.

6. Social Security to illegal aliens — Under the bill, illegal
aliens are not prohibited from getting credit for the money they’ve put into
the Social Security system if they’ve worked in the U.S. illegally. Illegal
immigrants who paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security
Number did
not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social
Security benefits. (The Ensign amendment would have taken care of this, but
it did not pass.)

7. Employers get a tax pardon for hiring illegal aliens — Under the
bill, employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status “shall not be
subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the
employment of such alien.” Businesses that hired illegal workers would now
get off scott-free from paying the taxes that they owe the government. This
encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the
federal government. In addition to not having to pay their
taxes, employers are also off the hook for providing illegal aliens with
records or evidence that they have worked in the U.S. The employer is not
subject to civil and criminal liability for having employed
illegal aliens in the past, or before enactment.

8. Family Members of H-2C Visa Holder need not be healthy — Under
the bill, spouses and children of H-2C visa holders are exempt from a
requirement proving that they meet certain health standards. The visa
holder is required to undergo a medical exam, but their family members are
which potentially puts Americans at risk.

9. Mandatory Departure isn’t really Mandatory — Under the bill, the
Secretary of Homeland
Security “may grant” Deferred Mandatory Departure to illegal aliens in the
2-5 year category. The Secretary “may” also waive the departure requirement
if it would create substantial hardship for the alien to leave.

10. No Interview Required. – Under the bill, illegal aliens in the 2nd
tier who are required to leave the country can re-enter the United States on
a visa. However, the bill does not require these individuals do not have to
be interviewed. The bill doesn’t give discretion to our consular
offices to require an interview. The 9/11 hijackers weren’t subject to
appear in person. Today, the State Department requires most applicants to
submit to interviews, and waives them only for children and the elderly.

Points on Senate amnesty bill

Posted by D.A. King at 11:57 am - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

From Team America PAC

The Fine Print of the Senate Betrayal
What’s In the Comprehensive Approach” To Illegal Immigration
An analysis of the Specter-Hagel S-2611 Immigration Bill
Marcus Epstein
Director of Research

All these facts, except those with an *asterisk* are in the text of the legislation. Because it is long and cumbersome to read, we included links to articles and studies that summarize the legislation. If you have the time and patience to read the bill, click here. The Federation for American Immigration Reform has summarized the Amendments and the Bill in slightly less technical jargon. Click here for Amendments, and here for the main text (this text is a PDF chart comparing several competing bills, the Senate just passed the one labeled Specter-Hagel)


Amnesty for 85% of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens (10.2 million) 60% of illegals will be able to receive Amnesty immediately, while 15 percent must go to a foreign port of entry to apply for citizenship (Source: Heritage Foundation)
The remaining 15 percent ( 1.8 million) illegal aliens are expected to return home, but there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would facilitate that action! (Source: Heritage Foundation)
Employers who hire illegal aliens will also receive Amnesty (Source: The Arizona Republic)

Click here for rest of report

Voting tally on Senate amnesty bill yesterday

Posted by D.A. King at 11:11 am - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

From the United States Senate

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 2611 As Amended )
Vote Number: 157 Vote Date: May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 )
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 62
NAYs 36
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Salazar (D-CO), Not Voting
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs —62
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —36
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting – 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Not Voting
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay Talent (R-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Nay Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Find out about congressional voting with this How to guide.

Use this guide to help you find the full text of recent bills and resolutions on the Web, or order them from the Senate or House Document Rooms, or you can find them in a library.

You can access legislative information, by bill number or key words, from the THOMAS Web site. Information from the present back to the 93rd Congress (1973) is available on THOMAS.

The Votes page of the Virtual Reference Desk provides voting procedure information, research guides, and essays about historic votes.

The Votes category on the Statistics page features facts and figures about votes made by Senators.

Senators Committees Legislation & Records Art & History Visitors Reference

Next Page »