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.

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.

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

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

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_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.

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

"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

Theoretically, of course, "Standing by".

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/mma...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.

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...d=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

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

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.