View Full Version : Ripping the lid off a secret immigration deal
BMT (RIP)
05-27-2007, 07:08
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2007/05/25/ripping_the_lid_off_a_secret_immigration_deal
:munchin
:lifter
BMT
Good on 'em. This bill is total insanity.
Sionnach
05-29-2007, 08:09
I just listened to Boortz take on Tony Snow over the bill. You could hear the frustration in Tony's voice. I think the POTUS is getting massive heat over this bill, as well he should.
I'm very pro-immigration, but an illegal criminal alien is NOT an immigrant. Immigrants love their new country, they learn the language, and become a part of the country.
My AFDB (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/) side thinks this bill is nothing less than an attempt to undermine our Constitution, and to move towards a single North American union.
The Reaper
06-26-2007, 17:46
Well, Senator Dole stood her ground, but it looks like the junior Senator from NC folded when it got to crunch time.
My letter to him.
Sir:
What a coincidence to receive your letter replying
to my email about S. 1639 on the same day that you
voted to support it.
Unfortunately, you stated in your letter of June 14
that you did not support cloture as the bill was
flawed, and then voted for cloture today.
Sir, if you have no moral courage to stand for your
convictions in the face of pressure, frankly, I do
not think that you have what it takes to be a
Senator from the state of North Carolina.
I am looking forward to the next Senatorial
campaign back here in NC where your voting record
and support of an amnesty bill can be debated
more thoroughly.
I think that you need to return to NC and live here
among the illegals with the rest of us regular
citizens for a while to regain an appreciation for
what they are costing this country every day.
Thank you for showing your true colors. They
appear to be Red, White, and Green.
Very Respectfully-
TR
(A constituent, voter, and former supporter)
Kyobanim
06-26-2007, 18:06
ROCK ON, TR!
On the one hand, the public strongly opposes the bill. But many Senators support it, without regard to the voters. Why?
To All:
Here's my spin on immigration. I wrote my Senator from South Carolina and the President. This crap must be stopped - we will mortgage our children's future if this thing is not handled correctly. My note to the President follows:
Memorandum
To: George Bush
From: Dan Watson
Date: 6/26/07
Re: Immigration Bill
President Bush:
Following is a letter that I wrote to Senator Graham from my home state of South Carolina. I believe vehemently that these basic tenets need to be observed in the pending Immigration Bill. This whole thing is being rushed without adequate explanation to the US public. As the bill is currently stated – I predict dire consequences for the US economy and the US culture will result from the approval of this bill. There is a reason why US confidence in Congress is at historic lows. The body has demonstrated only parochial leadership on both sides of the aisle. It’s time for you to step up and get this thing done correctly. I am a lifelong Republican, voted for you in both elections as well as your father. Get this thing done.
Senator Graham:
You need to assure that the final approved immigration bill covers the following subjects:
1.) Secure the border with physical, electronic or any other prudent means to stop the influx of illegal immigrants. Enforce this with the National Guard - bring them home from Iraq and put them to use protecting our borders.
2.) Assure that the unknown number (10-12 million??) illegal immigrants does not grow by allowing relatives currently outside the US a "free pass" through immigration due to their relationship to someone who is already here illegally.
3.) Deport all those who have committed felonies immediately.
4.) Require a demonstration of ability to converse in English. The bill is so weakly worded currently that showing up for an English class and making “0” progress meets the requirement.
5.) If they need legal assistance - have them get in line behind current Americans needing legal assistance.
6.) Have the Senate Staff personnel put together an accurate synopsis of this bill - who the hell can understand 800 pages of gibberish put together by a D.C lawyer? It is obvious that you don't want the US citizens to understand this Bill.
Lifelong Republican.
Dan Watson
The Reaper
06-26-2007, 19:04
On the one hand, the public strongly opposes the bill. But many Senators support it, without regard to the voters. Why?
In the case of the Dems, I believe it is hopes for 12,000,000 new constituents, or at least, new entitled citizens.
On the Republican side, special interests and the POTUS, who appears to be chucking his conservative values (again) for a potential legacy issue.
TR
The Reaper, I called senator Burrs office this morning to tell him to vote no, So did several of my family members. We have been betrayed. Also have you noticed his web site has an "en espanol" translation button on it? What a sell out.
8944, One item that I would like to see addressed is what is the punishment for non compliance. Everyone on both side have been talking about how the illegals will comply an become citizens, but no one has addressed what will happen if they just say "to hell"with it. The illegals already have a track record of not obeying the laws, so why would this new bill compel them to do so now?
Ret10Echo
06-26-2007, 20:51
The Reaper, I called senator Burrs office this morning to tell him to vote no, So did several of my family members. We have been betrayed. Also have you noticed his web site has an "en espanol" translation button on it? What a sell out.
8944, One item that I would like to see addressed is what is the punishment for non compliance. Everyone on both side have been talking about how the illegals will comply an become citizens, but no one has addressed what will happen if they just say "to hell"with it. The illegals already have a track record of not obeying the laws, so why would this new bill compel them to do so now?
Sec. 275A. (a) In General- In addition to any other penalty, an alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a felony and shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not less than 1 year, or both, and the assets of such an alien shall be subject to forfeiture under title 18, United States Code.
`(b) Defense- An alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act shall not be subject to the penalties described in subsection (a), if such period of unlawful presence began upon the expiration of a period of the alien's lawful presence in the United States and the alien failed to depart the United States at the expiration of the period of lawful presence due to an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or physical illness that prevented the alien from departing the United States.'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 275 the following:
`Sec. 275A. Criminal penalties and forfeiture for unlawful presence in the United States.'.
(b) Increase in Criminal Penalties for Illegal Entry- Section 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325(a)) is amended by striking `not more than 6 months,' and inserting `not less than 1 year,'.
Mind you the Secretary of Homeland Security has to come up with facilities to detain up to 20,000 illegals (including accomdodations for families) and is to consider the possibility of using Federal property that has been designated for BRAC....of course the housing area will have to be upgraded and modernized once the military dependants get out of there....
The Reaper
06-26-2007, 21:01
I have Burr's reply to my previous correspondence in my hand, received today where he states, and I quote, "On June 7, I voted against cloture, or ending debate, on S. 1348 because it needed sigmnificant improvements and fell short of legislation I could support." Well, WTF has changed? S. 1348 is the same legislation today that it was then.
Burr's poll numbers are not good, and this will probably put the nail in his coffin. He will be a one-term memory, like his predecessor.
Just so he didn't feel left out, I sent this to President Bush a few weeks before as well:
Mr. President:
Sir, I have supported you through thick and thin for many years now. First, when you were the Governor, then twice as President.
We are staunch Conservatives. We still have your campaign bumper stickers on our vehicles.
Over the years, I have wondered about your core values as you created new entitlement programs, pushed for bigger government, and seem to be lost when it comes to conservative values.
Now, after all of this, you come out in favor of this horrible amnesty bill.
Where is the fence we were promised?
Where are the new Border Patrol agents?
Where is the support for BP agents who shoot a drug smuggler in the course of their duties?
Why are businesses not punished for employing illegal aliens?
Why am I paying for social services for millions of criminals who do not want to be Americans?
Do we need 12 million new dual nationals?
Why do you want to load an already insolvent Social Security system with millions of new recipients who will never pay in what they will take out in benefits?
Why are illegal aliens allowed to use false IDs and avoid paying taxes?
Why do we need another 12 million Democratic voters, and a permanent shift in the landscape of our two party system?
Why do we allow illegals to obtain licenses and operate motor vehicles without insurance?
Why do we not issue the legal immigrants verifiable ID cards, and no one works without one?
Why do we allow millions of criminals to live on the largesse of the American public?
How many Americans need to die in the next terrorist attack when it comes across the unsecured Southern border of this nation?
If a neurosurgeon has to stand in line and wait his turn to come to the United States, how can a drunken gang member without a high school diploma who washes cars for a living move to the top of the list?
Why do I have to press 1 for English in the United States? If Urdu were my primary language, should I expect that to be an option as well?
In short, when do we start defending the sovereignty of the US against illegal aliens?
Why are we not deporting more people? You say that it cannot be done, but I am sure that on 7 December 1941, no one envisioned the end of the Second World War or that we would have nuclear weapons by the end of it either. If we can put a man on the moon, we can use local, state, and federal authorities to round up people and put them on trains back home. These people are not American citizens and should not enjoy our rights and benefits. I am sure that the Mexican government does not offer Americans there similar largesse. The illegals are, by definition, here in violation of our laws, need to go home, and to apply to come back here. We can then let in as many as we need or want.
Why are we pandering to criminals who want to remain Mexicans, but want American rights and privileges?
This new legislation will do little but encourage another 12 million to come here illegally for the amnesty program and live large at our expense.
Why?
I guess that you consider me just another ignorant bigot.
Let me mention here that I am a Special Forces soldier who is fluent in Spanish, immersed in the Latin culture, and have spent much more time in Latin America serving my country than you have in the White House.
Sir, maybe you do not care about your legacy. Maybe you do. I would say that the only really positive things you have done at this point is to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, try to pull us together after 9/11, let us SF guys do our jobs in Afghanistan, and appointed two centrist judges to the SCOTUS. The rest is mostly negative. Do you really want to be known as the President who signed legislation that ended the American Dream as we know it? Please do not make this mistake before we regain control of our borders, which will take longer than you have remaining in office.
Protect us. Protect this country. Encourage the Mexican government to clean up their society and take care of their people. Not ours. Don't pander to the liberals, who hate you anyway. Do the right thing, and let the consequences follow.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
With utmost respect-
TR
This "immigration" fiasco just makes me sick!:(
Stay safe.
Roycroft201
06-27-2007, 00:08
Mr. President:
Sir, I have supported you through thick and thin for many years now. First, when you were the Governor, then twice as President.
We are staunch Conservatives. We still have your campaign bumper stickers on our vehicles.
Over the years, I have wondered about your core values as you created new entitlement programs, pushed for bigger government, and seem to be lost when it comes to conservative values.
Now, after all of this, you come out in favor of this horrible amnesty bill.
Where is the fence we were promised?
Where are the new Border Patrol agents?
Where is the support for BP agents who shoot a drug smuggler in the course of their duties?
Why are businesses not punished for employing illegal aliens?
Why am I paying for social services for millions of criminals who do not want to be Americans?
Do we need 12 million new dual nationals?
Why do you want to load an already insolvent Social Security system with millions of new recipients who will never pay in what they will take out in benefits?
Why are illegal aliens allowed to use false IDs and avoid paying taxes?
Why do we need another 12 million Democratic voters, and a permanent shift in the landscape of our two party system?
Why do we allow illegals to obtain licenses and operate motor vehicles without insurance?
Why do we not issue the legal immigrants verifiable ID cards, and no one works without one?
Why do we allow millions of criminals to live on the largesse of the American public?
How many Americans need to die in the next terrorist attack when it comes across the unsecured Southern border of this nation?
If a neurosurgeon has to stand in line and wait his turn to come to the United States, how can a drunken gang member without a high school diploma who washes cars for a living move to the top of the list?
Why do I have to press 1 for English in the United States? If Urdu were my primary language, should I expect that to be an option as well?
In short, when do we start defending the sovereignty of the US against illegal aliens?
Why are we not deporting more people? You say that it cannot be done, but I am sure that on 7 December 1941, no one envisioned the end of the Second World War or that we would have nuclear weapons by the end of it either. If we can put a man on the moon, we can use local, state, and federal authorities to round up people and put them on trains back home. These people are not American citizens and should not enjoy our rights and benefits. I am sure that the Mexican government does not offer Americans there similar largesse. The illegals are, by definition, here in violation of our laws, need to go home, and to apply to come back here. We can then let in as many as we need or want.
Why are we pandering to criminals who want to remain Mexicans, but want American rights and privileges?
This new legislation will do little but encourage another 12 million to come here illegally for the amnesty program and live large at our expense.
Why?
I guess that you consider me just another ignorant bigot.
Let me mention here that I am a Special Forces soldier who is fluent in Spanish, immersed in the Latin culture, and have spent much more time in Latin America serving my country than you have in the White House.
Sir, maybe you do not care about your legacy. Maybe you do. I would say that the only really positive things you have done at this point is to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, try to pull us together after 9/11, let us SF guys do our jobs in Afghanistan, and appointed two centrist judges to the SCOTUS. The rest is mostly negative. Do you really want to be known as the President who signed legislation that ended the American Dream as we know it? Please do not make this mistake before we regain control of our borders, which will take longer than you have remaining in office.
Protect us. Protect this country. Encourage the Mexican government to clean up their society and take care of their people. Not ours. Don't pander to the liberals, who hate you anyway. Do the right thing, and let the consequences follow.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
With utmost respect-
TR
TR:
We need you in public office or in public life (A radio talk show host ?:cool: )
Great letter.
RC201
Protect us. Protect this country. Encourage the Mexican government to clean up their society and take care of their people. Not ours. Don't pander to the liberals, who hate you anyway. Do the right thing, and let the consequences follow.
TR
Sir,
Your passion sounds similar to the passionate words of William Wallace in Braveheart!
Remember the scene when Wallace encourages Robert the Bruce to be king and face the English? “Unite us. Unite the clans.”...
“Help me. In the name of Christ, help yourselves. If we join, we can win. If we win, well then we'll have what none of us has ever had before: a country of our own.”
Also remember that the Bruce sold his fellow Scots down the river!:mad:
Thank you for the info Ret10Echo.
I still dont see this as an enforcable punishment. We, the people, will get the same rhetoric that we have been getting. We will be told again "how do we put 20000 in prison". The politicians will come up with the same excuses that have been used for the last 10 years. How do we house 20000, how do we feed 20000, our prison system is alredy over crowded, it will hurt the economy to remove 20000 from the work force. If we do put them in prison the tax payer is still picking up the tab for their existance.
The illegals have shown a blatent disregard for our laws. They have banned together for demonstrations and political rallies. Our politicians have allowed this to happen. They have not shown any backbone with regards to these actions. I predict that if this bill is passed that nothing will change, the illegals will ban together and say " we wont do it and there is nothing you can do about it". The politicians have set a precedent in that they have not held up the current laws and have given many excuses for the rights of illegals to be here.
TR, you sir are an eloquent speaker and a great Patriot. Thank you.
A powerful letter, TR. Not unlike yourself, I voted for Mr. Bush for governor, and both times for President. My disappointment at subsequent events mirrors your own.
There are those who say that we cannot deport 12,000,000 illegals. Actually, we could get a start on the problem easily. The French are, as I understand it, offering the equivalent of $5,000 to illegal aliens who depart. Supposedly, they're also trying to prevent new illegals from entering.
We could do the same. I suspect that the money paid would not be much more costly than the existing process. Granted, this would not address the entire problem - but it is likely to deal with part of it. Such a program might be called many things, but it could hardly be labeled inhumane. But it will never happen - because there is no real desire among the political leadership to accomplish such an end.
Ret10Echo
06-27-2007, 06:35
Thank you for the info Ret10Echo.
I still dont see this as an enforcable punishment. We, the people, will get the same rhetoric that we have been getting. We will be told again "how do we put 20000 in prison". The politicians will come up with the same excuses that have been used for the last 10 years. How do we house 20000, how do we feed 20000, our prison system is alredy over crowded, it will hurt the economy to remove 20000 from the work force. If we do put them in prison the tax payer is still picking up the tab for their existance.
The illegals have shown a blatent disregard for our laws. They have banned together for demonstrations and political rallies. Our politicians have allowed this to happen. They have not shown any backbone with regards to these actions. I predict that if this bill is passed that nothing will change, the illegals will ban together and say " we wont do it and there is nothing you can do about it". The politicians have set a precedent in that they have not held up the current laws and have given many excuses for the rights of illegals to be here.
TR, you sir are an eloquent speaker and a great Patriot. Thank you.
Stand-by, I pulled that section out of an earlier, Republican sponsored paper.....I am digging further into the current Bill....
I would also like to see a dollar sign attached to each of the portions, requirements and changes that this bill proposes.
The Reaper
06-27-2007, 07:59
Thanks for the kind words.
FYI, this is the third major Immigration Bill that Teddy Kennedy has pushed, the first in the 60s, the next in the 80s, and now this one.
Each time, he has promised that this one will be the last and will solve all of the illegal immigration problems.
Few, if any, of the border enforcement and security clauses have ever been enforced, and each "last" time, millions of illegals have been allowed to become US citizens.
I say enough. You have fooled me twice already. Not again.
You have to love the commercial with the little old ladies asking, "Where's the fence?"
Maybe after we lock the border down, have a verifiable ID for immigrants, and start sending people home, we can talk about visas for unskilled workers.
Till then, I am not supporting any more amnesty bills for illegals.
Bastante!
TR
Cold Steel
06-27-2007, 09:55
It sounds to me like they need workers to finish their Alaskan highway to nowhere! Bring in a new pork truck fellas, this one is already full of votes and Brinks bags. :boohoo
Team Sergeant
06-27-2007, 11:03
Where's Roguish Lawyer?
You see this thread Mr republican this is why I'm now independent.
I've no doubt why the GOP will fail next year. I expect this crap from dems, I expected the GOP to hold the line on the illegals. Not grant amnesty to 12-20 million crimminals.
I am finished with the GOP.
Team Sergeant
The Reaper
06-27-2007, 11:09
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/white_house_spin_masks_the_rea.html
June 27, 2007
Spinning the Real Costs of Illegals
By Robert Rector
Monday's column from the Administration's Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear ("Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?" June 25, RCP) is a study in misdirection and misstatement. Since they devote much of their piece to attacking my research, I'd like to set the record straight.
Let's start with a brief review of what my research into the fiscal cost of low-skill households has actually found:
* Low-skill individuals (i.e., those without a high school degree) receive far more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
* The net fiscal cost of the families headed by low-skill immigrants is not markedly different from the cost of families headed by low-skill non-immigrants.
* Low-skill immigrants receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits for each dollar of taxes paid. This imbalance generates a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime the typical low-skill immigrant household costs taxpayers $1.2 million dollars.
* Immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled. One-third of all immigrants and more than half (50 to 60 percent) of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.
* In contrast to low- and moderate-skill immigrants, immigrants with college education will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
My conclusion: Immigration policy should seek to increase the number of high-skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low-skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.
Future taxpayer costs will only rise under policies that increase the number of low-skill immigrants entering the U.S., their length of stay in the country, or their access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does. The cost of amnesty alone will reach $2.6 trillion once the recipients reach retirement age.
To defend this exorbitantly expensive legislation, Zinsmeister and Lazear must resort to inaccurate or misleading assertions. For example, they claim that, under the Senate immigration bill, amnesty recipients will receive little or no welfare.
While the Senate bill would delay most amnesty recipients' access to welfare until some 10 to 13 years after enactment, any of their children born here would have immediate access to all welfare programs, guaranteed for a lifetime.
Moreover, the initial limitation on receipt of means-tested welfare will have only a small effect on governmental costs. The average adult amnesty recipient can be expected to live more than 50 years after receiving his Z visa. Most, then will be fully eligible for welfare during the last 35 to 40 years of their lives. And use of welfare during these years will be heavy.
Zinsmeister and Lazear argue that amnesty recipients must earn access to welfare "the old fashioned way," as if that creates some great protection for taxpayers. Unfortunately, low-skill immigrant families who access the welfare system "the old fashioned way" receive, on average, $10, 500 per year in means-tested welfare benefits, a half-million dollars over a lifetime.
Suggesting that amnesty recipients will be net tax contributors, Zinsmeister and Lazear go so far as to claim they will actually increase the revenue available to support Social Security and Medicare. But this is true for high-skill immigrants only. The majority of those who would receive amnesty are low-skill workers, and another 25 percent have only a high school degree. Experience shows that these immigrant groups will be a net burden to taxpayers over the entire course of their lives.
That reality destroys the authors' suggestion that amnesty will help keep Social Security afloat. In the not too distant future, the Social Security trust fund will be in deficit. Government will have to use general revenues to help pay promised benefits. Since amnesty recipients and their families will consume more government revenues that they contribute, they will undermine the financial support for U.S. retirees even before they reach retirement age themselves.
Zinsmeister and Lazear claim the Senate bill will "sharply improve" the fiscal balance sheet by switching to a merit-based system that will increase the proportion of high-skilled workers among future immigrants.
But the merit system is actually designed to confer citizenship on low-skill "temporary guest workers" rather than bring professionals from abroad. The point system for selecting green card holders is far from merit-based. For example, green card applicants get lots of points if they are working in "high demand" occupations, which include janitor, waitress, sales clerk, fast food worker, freight handler, laborer, grounds keeper, food preparation worker, maid, and house cleaner. With a recommendation from her employer, a high school dropout working in a McDonald's will outscore an applicant with a Ph.D. trying to enter the country from abroad.
Nor do the authors mention that the bill will triple the annual rate of family-chain migration to 440,000 annually, bringing in up to 5.9 million over the next decade. Family-chain immigrants are predominately low-skilled: 60 percent have only a high school degree or less; 38 percent lack a high school degree.
The column falsely asserts that "low-skill immigrants are actually comparatively self-sufficient compared to low skill native households." Actually, wages, tax payments, and reliance on welfare are quite similar for the two groups. Low-skill non-immigrants differ from immigrants primarily because they are more likely to be elderly and therefore less likely to be employed.
The authors accurately note that the children of low-skill immigrants do better than their parents. With higher education levels, they will receive fewer welfare benefits and pay more in taxes. But despite this progress, the children of immigrant dropouts will remain a net drain on taxpayers.
Why so? Because the educational attainments of low-skill immigrants' offspring aren't as elevated as Zinsmeister and Lazear imply. They correctly trumpet that the "children of immigrant parents are 12 percent more likely to obtain a college degree than other natives." They fail to note that the relevant group, children of low-skill immigrants, have below average educational attainments. For example, the children of Hispanic dropout parents are three times more likely to drop out of high school, and 75 percent less likely to have a college degree, than the general population.
The descendents of immigrant dropouts do not become net tax contributors until the third generation. This means that the net fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants will remain negative for 50 to 60 years after their arrival in the U.S.
The main fiscal impact of S.1348 occurs through (1) the grant of amnesty, which gives 12 million predominantly low-skilled, illegal immigrants access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, also dominated by the low-skilled. Zinsmeister's and Lazear's talk about tax-generating, college-educated immigrants is a red herring, designed to obscure the obvious fiscal consequences of the legislation. Touting "merit-based" provisions that assure only a steady flow of "high tech" waitresses, janitors and fast food workers reveals how indefensible the bill actually is.
High-school dropouts are extremely expensive. It doesn't matter whether they come from Ohio, Tennessee or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and give millions of poorly educated aliens already here access to government benefits. The bill for U.S. taxpayers will be gargantuan.
Robert Rector is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
incommin
06-27-2007, 11:29
We, the general public,+ are screwed......On the Hill the Dem's see 12 million new votes. The Repubs see cheap labor for their supporters, the Catholic church sees 12 million more dropping $$$ in the offering plates that have been dwindling..... This is a win, win for those in DC on either side. It is a shot in the shorts for overburdened states and the general public.
What does one do when they no longer trust the government??????
Jim
The Reaper
06-27-2007, 11:44
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Theoretically, of course, anyone here who has taken this oath see a foreign or domestic threat to the Constitution or this nation, and feel any remaining obligation to do anything about it?
TR
bkleonards
06-27-2007, 14:08
Theoretically, of course, "Standing by".
Sionnach
06-27-2007, 15:32
Roger that, Sir.
TR, as always you are direct and to the point...raising the questions that are at the heart of the matter.
I liked Michelle Malkin's column today.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2007/mm_06271.shtml
Clear The Backlogs First
By Michelle Malkin
June 27, 2007
Harry Reid boasts of his compassion for "undocumented Americans." President Bush wants understanding for "newcomers" without papers. The so-called Grand Bargainers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate are pushing forward this week with their massive plan to "regularize" the unregularized and bring in hundreds of thousands of extra foreign guest workers on top of the ones who are already here or have been waiting for approval for years.
Why can't anyone in Washington pinpoint what's wrong with this picture?
Over the last several years, I've noted the following immigration backlogs that continue to plague our homeland security system:
-- The backlog of 600,000-plus fugitive deportee cases.
-- The backlog of an estimated 100,000 FBI background checks for legal immigrant applicants.
-- The disappearance of 111,000 citizenship applications.
-- The backlog of 4 million immigration applications of all kinds.
The Washington Post reported that those mounds of unprocessed paperwork continue to grow. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came here legally are waiting for FBI background checks that must be obtained before they can become naturalized. Since 2005, the paper recently showed, the "backlog of legal U.S. immigrants whose applications for naturalization and other benefits are stuck on hold awaiting FBI name checks has doubled to 329,160."
That's right. The FBI name check backlog stands at nearly 330,000 cases.
After an embarrassing citizenship screw-up that I reported on in November 2002 involving a known Hezbollah terrorist who received naturalization approval, immigration officials resubmitted 2.7 million names of applicants to the FBI for additional scrutiny. The Post reports that "[m]ore than five years later, the FBI is only now emerging from that huge load, with about 5,800 names left to be rechecked."
But the pile-up persists: According to homeland security officials who spoke with the Post, about 90 percent of name checks emerge with no matches within three months, after an automated search of databases. But the rest can take months or years. There are only 30 analysts and assistants to coordinate with 56 field offices and retrieve files stored in 265 locations nationwide. The FBI is now falling further behind on the new caseload of some 1.5 million fresh names submitted by immigration officials every year.
"No one is happy with the status quo," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Deputy Director Jonathan "Jock" Scharfen told the paper. "We share the public's unhappiness with this, and we're committed to improving the process."
Hey, how about we fix that process before adding millions more "guest worker" applications to the bureaucratic mess?
How about we make legal immigrant applicants the priority over illegal aliens for once?
How about we clear the obstructions to the "path to citizenship" for those who followed the rules and came here the right way before we start paving the "path to citizenship" for those who did it the wrong way?
When the shamnesty proponents start blubbering about compassion and fairness, ask them where their compassion is for the hundreds of thousands of legal immigrant applicants who are getting screwed -- and who have paid far more in legal fees and processing fees than the measly, cosmetic "fine" the shamnesty plan proposes for illegal aliens.
As I wrote back in January, when I warned of the Coming Amnesty Disaster while too many people were still snoozing:
We are incapable of imposing order and handling the current crush of legal immigrant applicants in a fair and timely way. You want "comprehensive immigration reform"? Start with border control, reliable adjudications, consistent interior enforcement, and efficient and effective deportation policies. And don't pretend that piling on is going to fix a darned thing.
Memo to the Department of Homeland Security: Clear the damn backlogs first.
Memo to the Senate: Clear the damn backlogs first.
Memo to the White House: Clear the damn backlogs first.
The Reaper
06-27-2007, 20:44
Looks like some people may be having second thoughts, especially after the Dems squashed all attempts to put some controls on the illegal immigration.
I think I will call my Senators tomorrow, just to make sure that they understand my concerns. Anyone else who is worried should do likewise.
The sad part is that I want an immigration bill, too. Just not THIS POS amnesty bill.
TR
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=a3MLP26VTFMU
Immigration Measure in Doubt Over Senate Defections (Update1)
By James Rowley and Nicholas Johnston
June 27 (Bloomberg) -- The fate of U.S. immigration legislation was cast into doubt when at least six senators who helped revive the proposed overhaul said they either oppose or are leaning against a move to permit a vote on final passage.
The measure is in more jeopardy ``than I thought a few hours ago,'' said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.
The supporters' strategy of disposing of amendments that threatened the legislation's bipartisan support hit a procedural snag late in the day, adding to the uncertainty. The Senate refused to set aside an amendment by Montana Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester that would dilute requirements employers verify the identity of new workers.
Under Senate rules, Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, now can't move to consider other provisions without getting the consent of all 100 senators.
``I think this hurts'' the measure, said Texas Republican John Cornyn, an opponent.
Earlier today, Senate sponsors had succeeded in killing a series of proposed changes that would undermine the measure's support. Nonetheless, senators who voted yesterday to resume consideration of the bill were withdrawing support.
Leaning Against
Republicans Richard Burr of North Carolina and Christopher Bond of Missouri and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska said they oppose permitting a vote on final passage. Virginia Democrat Jim Webb and Republicans John Ensign of Nevada and Pete Domenici of New Mexico said they were leaning that way.
It takes 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate, to shut off debate. Yesterday, the Senate voted 64-35 to permit debate to resume.
Five other senators who voted to resume the debate said they are undecided on the next procedural test. They are Republicans Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Democrats Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
The legislation would create a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants, tighten the U.S. border with Mexico and create a guest-worker program to help employers fill low- paying jobs. The Senate had planned to complete action on the bill by the end of the week.
Angry Senators
Sponsors of the bill shut off efforts by critics to offer their own changes, angering some senators.
``We are in trench warfare and it's going to be rough,'' said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a chief sponsor of the legislation. ``But we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.''
The amendment that the Senate refused to table, by a 52-45 vote, would have deleted requirements that by 2013 employers insist upon an identification card that meets the specifications of the 2005 Real ID Act. That law gives states financial incentives to require a tamper-proof driver's license.
Baucus and Tester argued that, because more than a dozen states have opted out of the 2005 law, citizens of those states would be forced to obtain U.S. passports to get jobs.
To contact the reporters on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net ; Nicholas Johnston in Washington at 1264 or njohnston3@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: June 27, 2007 19:06 EDT
``We are in trench warfare and it's going to be rough,'' said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a chief sponsor of the legislation. ``But we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.''
Interesting. What about the will of The People...?
Here's a list of those who voted yes to amnesty, to include phone/fax numbers.
http://www.grassfire.org/19042/yes_targets.htm
Monsoon65
06-27-2007, 21:17
I just shot off an email to my senator.
Lucky me, I have Senator Casey and Senator Specter.
Our official state of residence is TX and happily both Hutchison and Cornyn have their wits about them on this vote. However, since we currently reside in the hot state of Arizona I think I'll shoot off faxes to McCain and Kyl tonight.
Good on 'em. This bill is total insanity.
Nice blanket statement:rolleyes: I'm actually looking forward to this bill. If you look into more of the stuff thats in it, you'll see they're replacing the employment sponsorship system with a merit points system. Which I especially like. IMO, the current employment sponsorship is too long, too much paperwork, and beareaucratic (sp?).
Oh, and it won't be easier for the illegals as everyone thinks it will. They won't get greencards. After they get their "Z" visas, they'll have to wait atleast 8 years to apply for Permanent Residency (i.e. GC), and be able to qualify under the merit points system. So in fact it'll be MORE difficult for an illegal than someone trying to come in legally. Its good that the government is doing something about it (might as well) because you see, those 12 million, they're not planning on going anywhere;)
NOW IS THE TIME for some serious immigration reform. The current system is just too impractical. It is too family based. Its harder for the regular people, like me, to come in, who just want to make some of themeselves in America. And its nice to see the government finally recognizing that.
After a bunch of e-mails to Burr's office he sent me a letter in reply dated June 14, 2007.
A portion of Senator Burr's letter to me - "I believe that we should only permit those into our country who respect our laws, our system of government, and way of life. Immigrants should demonstrate their intensions of becoming productive, law-abiding members of our sociaty as a condition for receiving citizenship."
This was before his "Yes" vote on cloture. I guess he missed the "Illegal" that comes before "Immigrant".
The Reaper
06-28-2007, 05:10
Choose, I think when you grow up and have to work, pay taxes, raise a family, etc., you might see that adopting 12,000,000 new children and their extended families, most of whom are not HS graduates and who need a lot of social services, may not be what is best for this country.
In fact, there is an immigration process, and people with PhDs have to wait to get into the US.
Why should a person who has illegally invaded this country already for economic reasons get an easier admission?
The amnesty program has been tried here three times in my lifetime, proposed by the same people, each supposed to be the last before we fix the problems. Each time, the numbers get larger. Here we are again.
Are you an American, BTW?
TR
frostfire
06-28-2007, 09:10
So in fact it'll be MORE difficult for an illegal than someone trying to come in legally.
wrong. You see, they already here. Until their presence and related problems are solved, other forms of legal entry (work visa, family based, nurse schedule A, etc) are not going anywhere. Having talked to plenty of illegals (not just Mexicans, but also those from Europe, Asia etc.), there is no way in the world they're going to come out and adopt these Z-visa, pay the fines etc. They are comfortable where they are, and they know that the government do not have the resolve to deport them. They already have access to SS benefit, making baby-citizen, why pay $$$ to get permanent residence status, let alone citizenship. As stated here multiple times, they simply don't give a blip about the United States of America. Most of them told me they feel justified in doing so by bringing up how the frontiers took the land from the natives, so it is karma. That was when I decided talking further is a waste of O2.
OTOH, I do support the merit system. I believe that's the system used by Canada?
Its good that the government is doing something about it (might as well) because you see, those 12 million, they're not planning on going anywhere;)
As you said, they're not going anywhere.
Sionnach
06-28-2007, 09:47
The Senate has dealt a blow to the shamnesty bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html
ETA: Choose, tell that to my educated, technically-skilled friends who have had to leave the country. You see, choose, because they came here legally, the shamnesty bill wouldn't help them. They, being a law-abiding residents, left the country when their H1B visas were no longer valid. Next time you post, you might want to attach a clue.
Team Sergeant
06-28-2007, 09:53
The Senate has dealt a blow to the shamnesty bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html
Good news.
I sent both Senator Kyl and Senator McCain emails stating my opinion concerning this "criminal amnesty" bill. Neither will be getting my vote come re-election day.
Team Sergeant
Senator DeMint gets it............Team sergeant
Opponents appeared to sense that victory was within grasp. DeMint said the whole debate demonstrated why Americans are feeling a "crisis of confidence" in their government.
"This immigration bill has become a war between the American people and their government. ... This vote today is really not about immigration, it's about whether we're going to listen to the American people," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html
incommin
06-28-2007, 10:41
The Bill is dead! The people in DC got the message. However, we still have some 12 million illegals running around, a border that is wide open, and business as usual.
Jim
Goggles Pizano
06-28-2007, 11:24
I have an urge to scream "DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!" :D
Snaquebite
06-28-2007, 11:38
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062800963.html
The failure marked the second time in a month the bill was pulled from the Senate floor, and this time, Democratic leaders of the Senate indicated it would not be back
DeMint's got it:
"This immigration debate has become a war between the American people and their government," proclaimed Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who led a small group of Republican senators who used every parliamentary maneuver they could find to stymie progress on the bill over the past month. "It transcends anything about immigration. It has become a crisis of confidence."
Kennedy is an idiot....
"We know what they're against. We just don't know what they're for," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), one of the bill's main architects, thundered about his opponents. "Are we going to respond to the voices of fear? That is the issue."
Nice blanket statement:rolleyes:
Yep, sure was. LEGAL immigration methods need an overhaul, but this bill ain't it. Thankfully The People were heard...
The Senate has dealt a blow to the shamnesty bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287143,00.html
ETA: Choose, tell that to my educated, technically-skilled friends who have had to leave the country. You see, choose, because they came here legally, the shamnesty bill wouldn't help them. They, being a law-abiding residents, left the country when their H1B visas were no longer valid. Next time you post, you might want to attach a clue.
I find it interesting that the orginal reason for immigration reform in the 60s was to open a pipeline for educated professionals around the world to find their way into the United States.
Today, it is this very group that faces the most restrictions and cumbersome bureaucracy to make their way here into the USA. My wife just got here and it took her 14 months. No paperwork issues, just a damn slow process. She has a master's degree, too, took all the required medical immunizations, paid fees, and I've had to declare my income as a part of sponsorship paperwork. There are guidlines under which USCIS does not allow people to immigrate here - you have to be above the poverty standards set.
ALL of this goes out the window with illegal immigration. I do not know what will happen to the millions illegally here. It poses some major practical issues, however, they cannot be handed citizenship. A slow and long approach of enforcing current laws on the books and making entry documentation efficient is the way to go. I don't see any lawmakers talking about that seriously.
You can also immigrate to the US by becoming a doctor or nurse, as they are a special "category".
You can also immigrate to the US by becoming a doctor or nurse, as they are a special "category".
Those fields are domestically understaffed and in need for more bodies. But overall, we should be increasing American human capital by having educated/professional people here, especially in a globally competitive world. and making sure the path for such people (whose first choice is always the United States) is a controlled yet clean process. Plus, good nurses and doctors are hard to come by almost anywhere.
The Reaper
06-28-2007, 14:54
One thing that would be nice if it could be implemented and if it would work mostly as planned would be that Fairtax system I think.
The Fairtax system, from my understanding, if it could be implemented (which is debatable but I am hopeful) would force all American residents (illegal or not) to pay taxes because whenever you buy any product, you pay the tax. It would also abolish the IRS. People also would never have to "do their taxes" again.
But thus the tax burden of all those illegals would be eased up, as they'd be paying taxes.
The other idea I have (if the Fairtax can't be done) would be to design a system where unless you pay taxes, you don't vote. I don't know how it would be enforced, but a system where you absolutely have to be a taxpayer to vote that is enforced would immediately prevent all illegals and welfare recipients from voting.
You need to apply a little analysis here, BS, before posting.
What happens to most of the money illegals earn here?
HINT: They do not spend it in the US.
Not sure how you can effectively tax money being sent back to Mexico.
TR
blue02hd
06-28-2007, 15:14
I'm actually looking forward to this bill. If you look into more of the stuff thats in it, you'll see they're replacing the employment sponsorship system with a merit points system. Which I especially like. IMO, the current employment sponsorship is too long, too much paperwork, and beareaucratic (sp?).
NOW IS THE TIME for some serious immigration reform. The current system is just too impractical. It is too family based. Its harder for the regular people, like me, to come in, who just want to make some of themeselves in America. And its nice to see the government finally recognizing that.
Choose, I find your comments totally out of line and inappropriate for the audience you are addressing. MoveOn.org may listen however. When Canadian Immigration Reform becomes an issue, then maybe your voice would have weight. Respect is a two way street. If you are not willing to respect our current laws, then exactly how are you going to follow them?
Forgive me for pointing this out, but half the problem we are currently facing remains the fact that the American voice is not heard. A voice which you do not have. Today finally, it has rang clear.
This bill was not in the interest of the United States. Thankfully we had some politicians listen and act.
blue02hd
06-28-2007, 15:22
Choose posts:
"Nice blanket statement" in response to Gypsy's comment.
Choose buddy, you might want to show some respect to an Area Commander. He has earned his voice in here.
I doubt you would be so casual in person.
BMT (RIP)
06-28-2007, 15:42
How they voted!!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00235
BMT
Kyobanim
06-28-2007, 16:09
I see 2 senators from my state who are going to have a hard time being re-elected.
frostfire
06-28-2007, 17:48
You can also immigrate to the US by becoming a doctor or nurse, as they are a special "category".ie. schedule A for nurses and physical therapy. However...as of now, except those who are way ahead in the pipeline, that's a negative due to retrogression. There is no telling its future until this illegal immigration reform is settled
The ones obeying law undergo more hassle ('n got screwed more) than those who don't.
ps. Ms. Gypsy is a lady, blue02hd
Sionnach
06-28-2007, 17:52
You need to apply a little analysis here, BS, before posting.
What happens to most of the money illegals earn here?
HINT: They do not spend it in the US.
Not sure how you can effectively tax money being sent back to Mexico.
TR
TR is correct. I am a big supporter of the Fair Tax, but only the portion of the criminal alien's spending spent in the US would be taxed.
I grew up in a predominately Mexican area. The "stereotype" of them packing as many people into a living space as possible is much more than a stereotype. Their percentage of income spent on living expenses is minimal compared to your typical American. Assuming they spend 50% of their income in the US, then they would be only paying the sales tax on that amount. The other 50% would be taken out of our economy. The money sent to Mexico? Well, they'd have to pay taxes on the Western Union fee, but not the total amount sent.
The Fair Tax is a good idea, but doesn't help a whole lot in this situation, as you'd still be taxing a minimal amount the the criminal aliens income.
On another note... Here in Georgia, one of the poultry plants had decided to only hire illegals. After ICE finally decided to raid the place, the plant lost over half of its workforce.
Amazingly enough, Americans are taking these jobs that they weren't supposed to be willing to take. The plant has homeless folks from Atlanta and even felons working in it, and according to a State Representative on the radio yesterday, over 200 formerly unemployed Georgians have jobs now. To be fair, I will admit that the plant had to raise its wages to a whopping $6/hr to get the Americans to work.
They're still short staffed, but by hiring illegal aliens, the company brought it upon itself.
The AJC removed the original article, but it's archived here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1744016/posts).
Immigration Reform.
1. Build the fences.
A. Man the Fences, build large detention centers.
2. Expedite deportations
3. Contract with China, India, Mongolia, etc., to provide contract prison services to incarcerate illegal immigrants convicted of crimes in US courts.
4. Amend the anchor baby section in the Constitution, (there is no reform without this amendment).
5. Sieze and liquidate the assets of corporations and individuals hiring more than two illegals. Write legislation to, charge, convict , incarcerate corporate officers and shareholders, and seize their assets and liquidate them upon conviction. Sentence will be shortened by the number of days spent participating in contract prisoner farm labor programs ~ doing the jobs Americans didnt want to do ~ we'll see how many want to do them now.
6. Make it a crime to provide financial services to illegals immigrants (check cashing, wire transfers, western union, loans, credit, investments, real estate, banking, savings, etc.) Convict business owners, officers, and shareholders for providing these services.
7. Re-visit the current VISA allotments to countries.
Those countries whose governments have actively supported the US of A during the current hostilities in the middle east, should have a greater share of the VISA's. Priority is given to those individuals with degrees, to those with a cultural proclivity to Western Culture .. or words to that effect.... (you know what I am getting at), to those families who have lost immediate family members actively fighting alongside us in the War on Terror.
My take is this: The enemy isnt the illegal alien. The enemy is us. The alien, is doing what man has always done, working to earn a living, making the most money he can, or taking advantage of whatever circumstances afforded to him by the various government entities (local, state, and federal). It's like screwing around without protection then blaming the social disease for your discomfort.... Had the proper precautions been taken we wouldnt be in this situation.
We Americans have provided the incentive, made it easy, sent mixed messages, and allowed congress to vote for fences while at the same time giving amnesty. Mexicans did not legislate amnesty programs in the 60's and 80's. Mexicans arent those getting GW Bush to push this current amnesty garbage down our throats. It is our own people pushing for this, selling out our kids, subsidizing labor, making citizenship meaningless.
Our own people should be held accountable.
The Reaper
06-29-2007, 10:28
Thanks much to those who did the right thing and contacted their Senators to speak out on this issue.
This is how the Founding Fathers meant for this system to work.
I would suspect that there may even be some fear, as well as loathing, among our elected representatives who seem to have forgotten that they are supposed to be a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.
Appreciate the support. Good to know that we citizens CAN make a difference, at least on occasion.
TR
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0629/p01s05-uspo.html?page=1
June 29, 2007 edition
Immigration bill stalls amid calls for 'enforcement first'
The reform measure failed a key Senate vote Thursday. Its foes say the pressing need is to enforce existing laws – even if it makes life harder for illegal immigrants.
By Gail Russell Chaddock and Faye Bowers | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
Washington and Phoenix - The demise of the Senate immigration-reform bill on Thursday was, on the face of it, a matter of simple math: too few senators willing to move the controversial legislation to a final vote.
But the bill's bitter end has a deeper meaning. What nixed it was in large part a vocal, frustrated contingent of Americans with a vision for how US immigration reform should look – and this compromise legislation was not it.
"I don't think the message can be any clearer. The American people want us to start with enforcement at the border and at the workplace," said Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana.
The bill's failure, 46 to 53, came despite the fact that two cabinet secretaries lobbied senators at the door as they prepared to vote on President Bush's top domestic priority. Fifteen Democrats and an Independent joined 37 Republicans to derail the bill.
"Enforcement first," or even "enforcement only," is how opponents of the Senate bill describe their alternative to immigration reform. That is, enforce the laws already on the books, and life in the US will become uncomfortable enough that many of the 12 million illegal immigrants now here will leave of their own volition. Beef up the border, and fewer will make it into the US in the first place.
"What we'd like to see is [government officials] enforce the laws that currently exist, which they have never done," says Ira Mehlman of The Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in Washington. "Most Americans fundamentally find objectionable that to even consider enforcing our laws we have to first make a deal with the people who break the laws."
Russell Pearce, a state lawmaker in Arizona and sponsor of a bill there to sanction employers who hire undocumented workers, calls this approach "attrition by enforcement." "One stop at a time [of a suspected illegal immigrant]. One employer at a time. Shut down the rides, turn down the lights, the crowd goes home," says Mr. Pearce.
Whether this approach could be effective, and at what cost in terms of both dollars and human misery, is hotly debated. Some insist it would not, in fact, empty America of illegal immigrants, but would only drive those here deeper underground, increasing the likelihood that they would be exploited and abused.
Critics of "enforcement only," in fact, say some laws on the books today are unenforceable. "To be able to enforce the law, we must have an enforceable law," Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, an architect of the downed bill, had argued before Thursday's vote. He cited the law governing workplace enforcement as not providing a viable system. "If you don't have a good law to enforce, you can't work that strategy" of attrition.
Supporters of the "grand bargain" on immigration had said that if the Senate rejected this key procedural vote, immigration reform would be dead until new elections. But after the vote, Senate majority leader Harry Reid predicted: "It will come back. It's only a question of when. We're only six months into this Congress."
For the moment, though, faith in "enforcement first" – coupled with a Senate amendment process that angered some fence-sitting lawmakers – proved too potent for the forces of compromise to overcome. By the time the bill got through a bruising floor debate, it had made foes in both parties. While a core of GOP conservatives led the fight that toppled the bill, opposition was severe among Democrats, too.
What most riled conservative Republicans – and their fired-up constituents – was the proposed law's path to citizenship for people now in the US illegally. It would be 1986 all over again, they said, referring to the most recent US immigration-reform legislation. Those who had broken immigration laws would get to stay, and politicians in Washington would still not enforce their own immigration laws, they argued.
What most concerned populist Democrats was a new guest-worker program, which they said would undermine prospects for American workers. Some freshmen conservatives, who campaigned on the immigration issue, also needed convincing that Washington was serious about enforcement of immigration laws.
Over weeks of debate, the bill's opponents hammered on enforcement. Mr. Bush added $4.4 billion to the package for that purpose, but critics said it wasn't enough. "We do need an investment in border security. If I had my way, I'd have a bill that just did that," said Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana, who voted against ending debate on the bill.
Public opinion, too, had been running against the legislation. When asked specifically about the Senate bill, only 33 percent of Americans said they favored it, according to a poll released June 7 by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Forty-one percent said they opposed it, and 26 percent didn't know.
But the Pew poll also showed majority support for a key element of the bill: providing a way for illegal immigrants in the US to attain citizenship, if they pass background checks, pay fines, and hold jobs.
After the vote, Republican supporters of the bill and two cabinet secretaries, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, expressed disappointment with the outcome but said the nation's laws would be enforced.
"I have a job to do to enforce the laws, and I will enforce the laws that we have," said Mr. Chertoff. That means ensuring that there are 18,300 border patrol agents, 370 miles of border fence, and pursuit of probes against employers – but the extra $4.4 billion Bush agreed to add for border security went down with the bill.
In Arizona, where more illegal immigrants cross the border each year than in any other state, voter sentiment has become stridently pro-enforcement, and there is widespread support for officials who share that view.
Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa County, is one of the most aggressive enforcers of laws on the books. More than 100 of his deputies have been trained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants under federal law, and when the current class graduates, he will have 162. [Editor's note: The original version misspelled the sherriff's last name.]
But he'd like go further. "If we start arresting [illegal immigrants] as they come across, put them in jail, the incentive for coming across will not be there," he says. "You cannot work from behind bars and send money to loved ones in Mexico.... Put them in jail, and I know it will reduce the number coming across immediately."
As for all the illegal immigrants already living in the US, Sheriff Arpaio advocates giving them six months to leave the country. "If they don't want to leave, then they can go to jail. It can be done. If you broke it down state by state, it could be done."
Arizonans in November approved four ballot measures that will make life more difficult for illegal immigrants in the state. Then, this week the legislature sent to the governor a bill that would levy the stiffest sanctions in the nation on employers who hire illegal immigrants. She is expected to say Monday whether she'll sign it.
FAIR, a national membership organization, is "absolutely for attrition" through enforcement, says its spokesman, Mr. Mehlman.
"We have to be realistic," he says. "The 12 million ... or however many [illegal immigrants] are here didn't come yesterday, and they're not going home tomorrow. If we make it clear to employers we're going to be out there looking for them, if we start to cut off nonessential benefits [to undocumented migrants], they'll realize it's not worth sticking around."
States and local governments have been passing immigration-control laws of their own "because the federal government's neglect has become their problem," Melman says. States dealing with an influx of immigrants are the ones who pick up the costs of integration and any public services illegal immigrants use, such as education and healthcare, he says.
82ndtrooper
06-29-2007, 11:15
One thing that would be nice if it could be implemented and if it would work mostly as planned would be that Fairtax system I think.
The Fairtax system, from my understanding, if it could be implemented (which is debatable but I am hopeful) would force all American residents (illegal or not) to pay taxes because whenever you buy any product, you pay the tax. It would also abolish the IRS. People also would never have to "do their taxes" again.
But thus the tax burden of all those illegals would be eased up, as they'd be paying taxes.
The other idea I have (if the Fairtax can't be done) would be to design a system where unless you pay taxes, you don't vote. I don't know how it would be enforced, but a system where you absolutely have to be a taxpayer to vote that is enforced would immediately prevent all illegals and welfare recipients from voting.
What your suggesting could be tricky. Are you ONLY referring to earned income tax or tax on captial gains, dividends and income from dept instuments like bonds ?
Here's my situation. After almost 18 years in the financial services industry I have decided to follow a calling and pursue a career in the medical field. I am currently enrolled for the summer semester starting the second week of July. I am now taking gradual withdrawals from an brokerage account that I have paid long term capital gains and income tax from dividends and bond income. As of now I hold about 30% of the account in cash.
Assuming that none of the stock and or bonds in the account are not sold, there would be no capital gains tax for this following year. There fore I will owe little if an tax for the upcoming tax year. I will off set any gains with losses to avoid tax. Perfectly legal and encouraged by the current system. I WILL NOT BE A TAX PAYER THIS YEAR. At the very least I will owe 1099 income on stocks and or bonds that are sold, but it's not likely this coming year.
Should I not be allowed to vote ? I am an honorably discharged disabled vet, should I not be allowed to vote ? Or are advocating merely the illegals be put into your proposed system ? How many illegals have paid tax on investments that encourage the market place ?
The side effect of your proposal would likely take those that have been laid off and retired out of the voting population. What about those that do not pay taxes on federal income programs ? The disabled ? Should they not be allowed to vote ?
I was just throwing out the whole illegal thing because those 12 million aren't exactly planning to go back to wherever it is they came from. The government might as well try to do something about it. At the same time, I agree thats its also too complex and passionate an issue to be solved. But since I'm not an illegal, I don't really care what happens anyway. But if you actually look beyond the "amnesty" part, the (now dead) bill actually had some other meaningful reforms, like the merit points system, and trying eliminate some of the backlog. Because like some people said already, there are some serious bureaucratic headaches that people trying to come here legally are facing. Thats why the current immigration system does need to become more flexible, and I'm not talking for illegals either.
I was just throwing out the whole illegal thing because those 12 million aren't exactly planning to go back to wherever it is they came from. The government might as well try to do something about it. At the same time, I agree thats its also too complex and passionate an issue to be solved. But since I'm not an illegal, I don't really care what happens anyway. But if you actually look beyond the "amnesty" part, the (now dead) bill actually had some other meaningful reforms, like the merit points system, and trying eliminate some of the backlog. Because like some people said already, there are some serious bureaucratic headaches that people trying to come here legally are facing. Thats why the current immigration system does need to become more flexible, and I'm not talking for illegals either.
That's the problem... the government has "tried" to do things about it - passed bills and everything but there's no enforcement or follow-through. They've got to clean up the mess. Throwing more paper at it isn't going to do much good. I live on a US Army post that sits on the US/Mexico border. We are instructed that we can't hike in the mountains past dark because of the amount of illegal drug and immigration traffic through the mountains - THROUGH POST. I've been hiking right outside my house and seen cast-off clothes, blankets and food wrappers. I've got friends who live on the edge of the post (in housing mind you) and regularly have illegals show up at their door asking for water. All this while my ID card is still getting checked at the gate. But the amnesty politicians still like to think this doesn't have anything to do with our national security? Sure it doesn't. I'm waiting for that fence we were promised. The whole thing is kinda ridiculous.
Just because there might have been a few "meaningful reforms" in the bill doesn't mean it wasn't stupid over all. A chocolate truffle inside a pile of cow dung is still a pile of cow dung.
The Reaper
06-29-2007, 20:18
All obstacles emplaced need to be under observation and if necessary, fire.
I do not think that they will be electrified under any circumstances. How would it look if a kid leaned on it and got fried?
TR
Mosby Raider
06-29-2007, 21:31
If market forces were used, it wouldn't be necessary to deport an estimated twelve million illegals, which I think is a low estimate. Secure the border, then enactment of the following laws would cause many illegals here to return to their native countries. Make it illegal for landlords to rent or lease housing to illegal immigrants. Cities or other governmental jurisdictions that label themselves "sanctuaries" are denied any type federal funding. Increase the penalties for employers that hire illegals. Enforce those laws after they're passed and many illegals will find it very unpleasant to remain in the US! At that point, the number of illegals remaining may be a more managable number for ICE to detain and process for deportation.
The Reaper
07-03-2007, 10:44
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/upsetting_the_elite.html
July 03, 2007
Upsetting the Elite
By Thomas Sowell
With the White House, the leaders of both political parties, and the media all solidly behind the "comprehensive" immigration "reform" bill, how could it be stopped in the Senate, as it was last week?
The people stopped it. That is what democracy is all about.
When members of Congress began to be deluged with angry letters, phone calls, and e-mails from their constituents, they knew the game was over -- and that their careers could be over if they didn't pay attention to what the voters were saying.
This bill was an insult to people's intelligence from start to finish, and the elites are continuing to insult people's intelligence after being defeated.
Fraudulent arguments were followed by fraudulent procedures to rush this bill through the Senate without committee hearings, with restrictions on debate, and with the specifics of this huge bill being sprung on the Senate at the 11th hour, so that senators would be voting on something they barely had time to read.
Among the fraudulent arguments was that illegal immigrants were taking "jobs that Americans won't do." What that really meant was that they were taking low wages that Americans wouldn't take.
Another fraudulent argument was that "We can't find and deport 12 million people."
A much bigger problem than these 12 million people are the tens of millions of additional immigrants who are virtually certain to come in, legally or illegally, if amnesty is extended.
After all, there were only 3 million illegal immigrants the last time an amnesty bill was passed, back in 1986. That's how we got to 12 million.
Research at the Heritage Foundation indicates that tens of millions more people can be expected to come over the border from Mexico in the years ahead unless something is done to stop them.
These tens of millions would include not only Mexicans but also people from other countries entering the United States from Mexico because that border is so poorly guarded. Terrorists would find that very convenient.
The "comprehensive" immigration "reform" bill offered nothing that was likely to stop them.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III exposed how little this bill added to border security laws already on the books, in a June 7th column in the Wall Street Journal.
Now that the elitists who wanted to rush the immigration bill through Congress before anyone could examine what was in it have been defeated, they tell us, with great condescension, how foolish we were to leave the problem unsolved.
There is now a continuation of "silent amnesty" they say.
Clever, but no cigar.
There is no inadequacy in our existing laws on border security that the new bill would have remedied. But no law is adequate if it is not enforced.
Non-enforcement of existing laws by the federal government and active sabotage of these laws by state and local officials who forbid the police from reporting illegal aliens to the authorities suggest that existing laws could be effective -- if enforced.
When the new immigration bill gave the government just 24 hours to "investigate" each illegal immigrant before rubber-stamping him into legality, it is clear that there was no serious intention of investigating or enforcing the new law.
You can't get a credit card application approved in 24 hours. But Congress was prepared to fling open the borders to millions of people on the basis of 24-hour investigations.
Talk about investigating illegal immigrants was just window-dressing to fool the gullible public. When the public turned out not to be as gullible as the politicians and other elites thought, the answer has been to insult their intelligence some more.
Now the elites tell us that the protests were generated by conservative talk radio programs, and there are implications that this was due to xenophobia, if not racism.
Anyone who actually listens to conservative talk radio or reads those who opposed this immigration bill will know what a crock that is. Elitists should at least come up with some new smears, instead of repeating the same old tired insults.
Ret10Echo
07-03-2007, 11:01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6264428.stm
Arizona clamps down on illegals
Arizona's governor acted where federal Congress did not
The governor of the US state of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, has signed into law legislation designed to deter illegal immigrant workers.
The law requires businesses to verify that all their employees are legally entitled to work in the US, or face the prospect of being closed down.
The tougher penalties were introduced days after President Bush's immigration reform bill failed in the Senate.
Arizona is one of the main gateways for illegal migration into the US.
Federal failure
Under the new legislation, an employer's first offence would be punished by a temporary licence suspension.
A second offence would be punished by what the governor's office called the "business death penalty" - the permanent revocation of a licence to do business in Arizona.
Ms Napolitano said she had acted because she believed Congress in Washington was incapable of tackling immigration reform on a nationwide level.
"Immigration is a federal responsibility, but it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs", the governor said in a statement.
Arizona has one of the highest illegal immigrant populations in the country.
President Bush's attempt to overhaul US immigration policy collapsed last week when senators voted against a bill.
The proposed legislation set out ways for some of the around 12 million illegal immigrants to seek citizenship.
If we can't enforce the laws pertaining too illegal immigrations that we have at the present moment...WTF make people think that; these new laws are any better?:confused:
Stay safe.
Heard a report today that the illegal immigration bill is not really dead. The plan is to break it into multiple amendments and piggy-back these with upcoming bills. There are supposedly three amendments targeted as part of the upcoming Defense appropriations bill (HR 3222).
This is the only link I could find to match the news story I heard about.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002583012.html
I do hope this one's dead, but it's still a shame that we have to boot people back out into the gutter of Mexico to preserve freedom for them in the long run. It's only a matter of time before the border security problems become a real threat. We sent troops to the border, but they were unable to use force or make arrests. What good does that do? It wastes a lot of money, and that's about it. I can sympathize with you choose; I'd rather there be no immigration laws at all, but I just don't think that can happen right now.
The only hope I can see is for us straightening out our own mess, and maybe trying to help with Mexico's problems as they are found in Mexico's borders, instead of inviting them all over for tea. I can't imagine how much worse off Mexico must be for this migration. Maybe loosing these people helps Mexico and that's why they don't do anything to stop them. I don't know. I just know that we can't help them if they don't abide by the laws, and that this kind of migration to our borders has happened in the past and it has always been met with bloody racial strife. I'd rather that be controlled or eliminated through active immigration laws. Just my two cents.
The Reaper
09-15-2007, 05:38
Maybe loosing these people helps Mexico and that's why they don't do anything to stop them. I don't know.
Would you rather have 10,000,000 unemployed young males at home, drawing social support, or in the country next door, working and sending money home to their families?
The largest source of income for Mexico is oil. The second largest is income from workers who are in the U.S.
TR
The largest source of income for Mexico is oil. The second largest is income from workers who are in the U.S.
TR
And the income from oil is at risk; the Cantarell field is in rapid decline, and income from PEMEX is likely to decrease. Developing other fields would require capital investment, which would reduce current income - or bringing in outside companies. Neither solution is politically viable.
Which, perhaps, suggests something about future population movements.
I wonder what happens - politically and socially - if the U.S. economy hits a bump, resulting in heightened unemployment? The jobs Americans purportedly don't want might become jobs Americans want badly. Those jobs would already be occupied by imported workers. But that could never happen, could it? Because growth is always steady, and sure, and will continue forever unto infinity. :D
So if I've gotten this right, TR, and don't let me put words in your mouth, but this immigration constitutes an economic, if not military, invasion of our nation? It's an interesting enough idea that I'd give it my complete support if I knew the figures. And the problem does take the form of conflict. The border regions are beginning to sound like war zones due to drug runners and gangs who try to capitalize the industry that illegal immigration has become. This also sounds like it falls under the heading of asymmetrical warfare, if it is indeed warfare of any sort. But for me this is all hearsay. The only sources I could cite is what I've read here and a few news bulletins, combined with a few people I talked to on the bus in D.C. who get paid to spin things. In recap, if Mexico has a vested interest in getting immigrants into the country, and are willing to turn a blind eye to violent incursions into our border in the form of smuggling drugs, immigrants and other contraband, then since we are obviously facing economic trouble due to these incursions it is in our interests to forcibly oppose them. This state of conflicting interests means that at least at an economic level there is conflict, which becomes armed in connection with the war on drugs. This is the sort of thing that I don't think a liberal could stomach. And for this reason I don't think that we will get authorization to do anything about the problem until a real conservative gains power.
You might find the material on Wikipedia of interest. Please note the section on remittances. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico#_note-29)
Perhaps the situation is a bit more complex than Mexican nationals invading the U.S., while liberals fiddle. Keep in mind that an influx of illegal labor tends to provide unscrupulous employers a source of cheap labor; moreover, the cost of all labor at the lower end is suppressed. The employers need not provide any sort of health benefits; rather, if the employee is injured, they are taken to a hospital emergency room and dumped on the taxpayers.
Notice that the employer gets significantly lower labor costs; the larger society pays the bill for health care, increased crime, and so forth. But at least some U.S. citizens enjoy direct benefits.
It is also worth noting that U.S. consumers like low prices, and the labor cost savings provided by illegal immigration may well promote this agenda.
Finally, if one looks at the various statements from the Fed chairman (Bernanke and Greenspan), you will notice they have concern about inflation, particularly wage inflation. The influx of foreign labor - illegal or legal - suppresses wage rates (as discussed above), and tends to mitigate inflationary pressures generated by various elements of monetary and fiscal policy. Simply put, we can have our cake and eat it too - though at a cost in other areas.
Cuo bono? Who benefits? Mexico, certainly. Certain private individuals in the U.S. too. And maybe - just maybe - public policy is different than what we're being told. We demand low prices, we say we deplore inflation - but we may not like what is required to accomplish those ends. It helps explain why political leaders persist in doing nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
5POINT56
09-17-2007, 08:52
What amazes me is the fact that the real issue here is literally NEVER addressed.
Brace yourselves for this revolutioinary concept.....
How about Mexico fix Mexico's problems? How about people pointing the finger at the SOURCE of this issue? How about people having the necessary cajones to call a spade a spade and put Mexico in the hot seat...and leave them there. How about demanding that Mexico address the very reasons why its own population wants to FLEE FROM THEIR OWN COUNTRY?
There are a few very good reasons why MASSIVE migration of people occurs. One might be natural disaster, another, civil war...or war in general. In our case, neither is a factor.
The truth of the matter is that Mexico has tremendous natural resources. They are by no means a nation without the means to better themselves...they are simply a nation without the will to better themselves.
Mexico is a nation who deals with THEIR southern border with an iron fist and frequent brutality...yet points to U.S. immigration policy as "racist". Mexico is a nation that veiws the U.S. as their welfare state to the north....and why shouldn't they when the carrot is dangling right across the border with all sorts of perks waiting for those successful in violating U.S. immigration law.
Once here, illagal Mexicans feel all too comfortable protesting their status in the U.S., on American streets. Waving upside down U.S. flags and demanding "their rights". Tell me, when was the last time you saw images of Mexicans protesting in Mexican streets? One would think if they were "outraged" over U.S. immigration policy, they would be VASTLY more outraged with their own country for creating conditions that encourage its own citizens to flee north.
This country was founded largely on the sweat of immigrants....but those people then and this current illegal Mexican exodus represnt two very different kinds of immigrants. The ones swarming our Southern border are largely not interested in being American. They are largely interested in being Mexicans in America while digging as deeply as possible in to their promised special interest coffers at U.S. tax payer expense.
They clearly see a political system to the north that is far too willing to swindle its own tax payers out of their hard earned money to fund everything from medical expenses to education for people who are not citizens of this country...who are criminals the moment they set foot on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Do Mexicans have any more right to be here than any other foreign nationals? No, they don't. Have they bothered to point that same accusatory finger at their own, highly dysfunctional country? No, they haven't. Has Mexico itself made even a cursory attempt at bettering themselves? No, because its far more lucrative to continue the swindle of America...and the fact that Jorge Bush has done everything he can to roll out the red carpet for their arrival certainly hasn't helped...at all.
Illegal Mexican immigration MUST be stopped. There is NO UP SIDE to it. I would gladly pay 3x the price for a head of lettuce, 2x the cost of having lawn work done, hotel rooms cleaned and literally ANY OTHER good or service that is directly affected by their pressence. The cost to U.S. tax payers is VASTLY too high and the damage irrepairable. Roughly 6000 homicides are committed against Americans every year by Mexican illegals alone. That's two 09/11's in lives lost....but when its spread out, across the calendar as opposed to happening on a single day, it just doesn't register with people as it should.
Some people would have you believe that these same people will only enrich our nation, and enrich our culture. Really? Will that be most evident when every major urban center in the U.S. is encircled by barrios? Or will it be felt mostly in the importation of lifestyles and standards these people are accustomed to in their home country? Oh, that's right....those barrios are the standard where they come from.
U.S. politicians have already counted your vote. It's the new voters that are vastly more important to them...and that's why you'll here these traitors in D.C. refer to them as "undocumented Americans". They are NOT Americans. These politicians need to be reminded of that, vigorously. Until our reps in Washington, from the POTUS on down, respect and protect AMERICANS interets first, and NOT illegal Mexicans and until the numbers of illegal protesters are matched man for man by Americans counter protesting, were in serious jeopardy as a nation.
Team Sergeant
09-17-2007, 09:17
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6264428.stm
Arizona clamps down on illegals
Arizona's governor acted where federal Congress did not
The governor of the US state of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, has signed into law legislation designed to deter illegal immigrant workers.
The law requires businesses to verify that all their employees are legally entitled to work in the US, or face the prospect of being closed down.
The tougher penalties were introduced days after President Bush's immigration reform bill failed in the Senate.
Arizona is one of the main gateways for illegal migration into the US.
Federal failure
Under the new legislation, an employer's first offence would be punished by a temporary licence suspension.
A second offence would be punished by what the governor's office called the "business death penalty" - the permanent revocation of a licence to do business in Arizona.
Ms Napolitano said she had acted because she believed Congress in Washington was incapable of tackling immigration reform on a nationwide level.
"Immigration is a federal responsibility, but it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs", the governor said in a statement.
Arizona has one of the highest illegal immigrant populations in the country.
President Bush's attempt to overhaul US immigration policy collapsed last week when senators voted against a bill.
The proposed legislation set out ways for some of the around 12 million illegal immigrants to seek citizenship.
Make no mistake Arizona's left wing lib governor Janet Napolitano was forced, yes "forced" by the people of this state to sign that legislation, otherwise she would have sent each and every one of the illegals to free school and free health care. She is a POS that needs to be replaced.
To date NOT ONE business has been shut down, not one. What does that tell you? Every farm, every construction project and every landscaping business in this state would have been shut down. It ain't going to happen. Don't let the news fool you.
They still teach "ENGLISH" in almost every public school in this friggin state.
Phoenix police still have a "catch and release" policy for illegals.
The only thing that is changing in Arizona is that I've become a minority, fact.:mad:
TS
Illegal Mexican immigration MUST be stopped. There is NO UP SIDE to it. I would gladly pay 3x the price for a head of lettuce, 2x the cost of having lawn work done, hotel rooms cleaned and literally ANY OTHER good or service that is directly affected by their pressence. The cost to U.S. tax payers is VASTLY too high and the damage irrepairable.
Well said! I agree completely.
Unfortunately, convincing certain politicians seems problematic.
5POINT56
09-17-2007, 20:40
[QUOTE=5POINT56;182483]Once here, illagal Mexicans feel all too comfortable protesting their status in the U.S., on American streets. Waving upside down U.S. flags and demanding "their rights". Tell me, when was the last time you saw images of Mexicans protesting in Mexican streets? One would think if they were "outraged" over U.S. immigration policy, they would be VASTLY more outraged with their own country for creating conditions that encourage its own citizens to flee north.QUOTE]
On O'Reilly Factor last week, he was talking about this with some Mexican guy, and according to the Mexican guy, all of Mexico's problems are because of the U.S., and it's because of the U.S.'s doing whatever to Mexico that the Mexicans are forced to come here illegally.
So according to them, Mexico's problems are because of America:rolleyes:
The liberal welfare mindset has long since crossed our National border....and this sense of entitlement with it.
We owe Mexico nothing.
It's time they were reminded of that as well as our politicians that are all too quick to throw Americans under the bus in favor of these people.
The whole thing makes me sick and I'll do whatever I can to ensure that any U.S. politicians who end up on the wrong side of this issue become ex-politicians as fast as possible.
Team Sergeant
09-19-2007, 09:11
Yesterday we lost another police officer killed by a "deported" illegal alien.
The scumbag was given a dirt nap by another Phoenix Police officer shortly after he killed Officer Nick Erfle .....
The officer left behind a wife and two little boys.
Officer slain; gunman takes hostage, is killed
Jaywalker shoots 8-year police veteran
Judi Villa, Lindsey Collom and John Faherty
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 19, 2007 12:00 AM
Phoenix police Officer Nick Erfle survived two bouts of cancer to put back on his uniform and patrol the city's streets.
On Tuesday, a jaywalker shot him in the face and killed him.
"He's a hard charger. Even though he had a serious illness, he came back to work the streets as soon as he could," Sgt. Joel Tranter said. advertisement
"This will affect the officer's family and the Phoenix Police Department forever. . . . It will always be a loss."
The gunman, an illegal immigrant who had been deported last year, fled after shooting Erfle, commandeering a stopped car at gunpoint and ordering the motorist to drive. About an hour later, a Phoenix police tactical team surrounded Erik Jovani Martinez, 22, on a west Phoenix street and shot him dead as he pointed a gun at the hostage. The hostage was not hurt.
"The city of Phoenix, the citizens of Phoenix have lost another hero in our community," Assistant Phoenix Police Chief Michael Frazier said, announcing Erfle's death. "He died a hero doing the job he loved doing most."
Erfle was the second Phoenix police officer killed since July and the third Valley officer killed this year. He was married with two children and had a large extended family.
"This is another tragic day for the citizens of Phoenix. We have lost one of our family," said Dave Siebert, the city's vice mayor. "This has happened way too many times in the city of Phoenix. . . . He was one of our finest."
Martinez, who had three children, was a gang member with a history of drug abuse, police say. He was convicted of theft in 2004 and served a short stint in prison in 2006. Immigration officials confirmed he had been deported in March 2006.
A deadly morning
Police say Erfle, 33, and Officer Rob Rodarme were patrolling in a two-man car around 8:30 a.m. Tuesday when they saw three people jaywalking across 24th Street near Pinchot Avenue, interfering with traffic.
The two officers stopped the three, a man and two women, on Pinchot to talk to them and asked for identification. Police rarely issue citations for jaywalking, telling people instead to just cross at a safer spot in the future, Tranter said.
The man didn't have identification but gave officers a name and birth date that Erfle ran through a police computer. That search turned up a misdemeanor warrant for shoplifting out of Tucson.
Police would later find out the man hadn't given his real name. Martinez likely used an alias because he was trying to hide the fact he had felony warrants for aggravated assault and false imprisonment, stemming from a 2006 domestic-violence incident.
But the officers didn't know any of that and tried to arrest him on the misdemeanor warrant.
That's when Martinez shoved Erfle to the ground, pulled a gun and fired multiple times. Police said it all happened in a matter of seconds.
"There was three shots, and there was a pause, and then one more shot," said Bob Newnum, who lives nearby.
Cont:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0919officershot0919.html
Rest In Peace Officer Erfle. Truly an American hero.
What a tragic loss for his family, and the community of Phoenix...Bravo to the Officer who killed the dirtbag illegal POS!
Indeed, when will America wake up and realize what is happening?:rolleyes::mad:
Holly
Rest in Peace Officer Nick Erfle, prayers out to your family and Brothers/Sisters.
Glad they killed the illegal SOB, hope he enjoys his dirt nap.
This is a link to the response by our Chief and the Mayor of Phoenix. (I'm at work so if the link doesn't work I'll re-post it.)
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=4405803
Derek
Team Sergeant
09-27-2007, 09:30
This can only happen in America, where the rights of the individual out weigh the needs of a nation.
A thank you to the lawyer that took these crimminals case, you are a true bottom feeder.
Team Sergeant
Hispanic immigrants sue U.S. city after crackdown
By Av Harris
Wed Sep 26, 8:47 PM ET
DANBURY, Connecticut (Reuters) - Ten Hispanic immigrants filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against a Connecticut city, its mayor and police chief, and federal agents who led a crackdown on illegal immigration last year.
The suit filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, claims the arrests violated the civil rights of nine workers and a 10th man who was stopped at a traffic light, including their right to due legal process, free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, according to court documents.
It is the latest legal challenge to crackdowns on illegal immigrants, as localities nationwide grapple with how to handle their status.
The lawsuit claims undercover police in Danbury, Connecticut, lured the workers into a van by posing as contractors looking for day laborers.
"He offered us work and we took it," plaintiff Juan Barrera told a news conference, referring to an undercover police officer. "We didn't know why, but they immediately arrested us and put us in handcuffs. We didn't know what was going on.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070927/us_nm/usa_immigration_lawsuit_dc_2
x SF med
09-27-2007, 09:37
I'm going to sound Medieval here - they are not citizens, they are not protected by the Constitution, they are criminals by virtue of their actions (illegal aliens - doesn't this mean criminal?) How the hell can they claim 'protection under the laws of the US', when they flaunt and break them on a regular basis?
Am I missing something here?
This topic really get under my skin. All I can say if ask anyone that has good to SMA in the last 5-7 years. El Paso, were I'm from and my folks current live, isn't El Paso Texas. It's El Paso MEXICO. Our American school are flooded with Mexicans that get rental houses and then go to school for free. This isn't just in EP but across the SW states. Look tons of Mexicans come across daily for work to clean houses, cut grass ETC. Hard works that learn the lanagauge and do what is needed.
But when you have High School that get illegal immigration does impact not just local gov't but everyone. These Mexican kids get American Kids to go across the broader get a Kilo of Drugs and bring it back in the gurls bags. Its so back that my High got named Cocaine High. Its that becuase of the Illegals no, not driectly. But it does have a Cause and effect.
This bill that is posted on here isn't what we need for America. Bills are already made, we just need to ensure people follow them. Go to an National Park and see how many immigrates are working for the Companies there.