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.

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.

Ripping the lid off a secret immigration deal
 

How they voted!!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00235


BMT

I see 2 senators from my state who are going to have a hard time being re-elected.

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

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.

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.

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/p...po.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.

Earned income only ?
 

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.

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.

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

Use Market Forces
 

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.

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