No Amnesty part 2

[Jamo]

CDC...relying on Sessions' opinions, or have you read it?

Fred?

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

VRM...yes

Ron...sort of

Any others?

Jamo,
If your yes was in reference to the fines - what business is going to admit that they hired illegals?

CdC, thanks for the list, I had found some of those myself, but reading the lawyerspeak in the bill is really annoying and makes it hard to find anything.

Some of the things you listed also have to do with getting a 'blue card' - a whole new classification.

Steve

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Fred?

Jamo,
Not sure if the ? was me not being clear on my position or about the picture.

In a nutshell,I'm against the Bill and think those that vote for it aren't listening and could/should pay a price for it...voted out of office.

[Jamo]

No...the pic is a fair representation of the politicos we are infested with.

My question is...have you read McCain-Kennedy?

[Ron61]

Now I wish I had read the complete bill, though I doubt if I would understand much more than I do now. If I am way off base here don't hesitate to point it out, but it seems to me that we have become more interested in passing more and more laws that basically cover the same things we already have laws for which aren't enforced. And I just do not like this so called amnesty bill and feel it has now become secondary to the politicians showing us they can do anything they want to.

Ron

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Taking a head count here...which of you has actually read the legislation rather than rely on talking heads and the print media? Anyone?

I haven't read the legislation.

From the question,I take it that you have.
Even if you haven't read the whole thing,what is your take on this bill ?

[427 S/O]

I read parts of McCain-Kennedy, the heritage foundation points out the low points.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Gov...form/em975.cfm

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

I haven't read the legislation.

From the question,I take it that you have.
Even if you haven't read the whole thing,what is your take on this bill ?

Fred, I represent Western agricultural interests, so I've read every pre-bill draft and phuked up amendment for the past several years. My interest is obviously the AgJobs guest worker program, but I've had to deal with REAL immigration issues since before IRCA in the 80s in my work. Actually even before that...when I used to watch my Dad's tomato and grape crews run like he!! when the green cars would show up at the side of the fields/vineyards.

My take? I couldn't even begin. Personally, I don't like McCain-Kennedy and I don't want to see it passed, but for different reasons than the flash points mosts folks jump up and down about.

[Excaliber]

Read THAT? Not a chance, I get my news and political views from the best possible source, Club Cobra Lounge!

Confirmed, Jamo doesn't like it, I have no clue why, but if the Jam Man don't like it, I don't either. Wheres Turk when you need him...

[392cobra]

Jamo,
My Granddad had 3.5 sections (3.5 sq. miles) of farm land in west Texas,beginning in the 1940's .I now have it.
As you know well,labor is a big concern. I remember as a small kid going to the bus station in town to pick up the "Nationals".They would come up from Mexico,legally,every spring to work the season. After the harvest was done,they went back home to their families .I would see a lot of the same men returning year after year.
A fair percentage of them would show up with little more than the shirt on their backs.My Granddad expected this.He would supply them with work clothes and food until they received their first paycheck.He didn't want nor expect to be repaid.He supplied housing,water,electricity free as well.

I'm sure the Unions had something to do with this program ending.It seemed to work out well for both the farm workers and the farm owners.

I see that the Unions and Dem's are fighting against the guest worker program in the current bill.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Jamo

CDC...relying on Sessions' opinions, or have you read it?

Fred?

I've not read the bill - I'm relying on Session's and others that I trust on this issue. I just hope that there is something within the Session points that will get people up off their butt to make a call, send a fax or email.

The simplest problem with the bill is that the provisions that enable will be enforced and the those that restrict will not. None of the present illegal immigration regulations are enforced with any kind of will or vigor, so what makes us think that regulations in the new legislation will be?

[Jamo]

Fred...yup, illegal immigration increased in multiples after the bracero program ended, and yes it was pushed out by labor unions.

Interestingly enough, unions that represent ag workers are in favor of Ag Jobs...western farming interests are holding hands with the United Farm Workers, the Teamsters and the UFCW on this one. Note that those are three of the unions which pulled away from the AFL-CIO because they were tired of their shared dues going to the Demos rather than for organizing efforts. I have been caught testifying in Senate Committee hearings sitting at the same table as the General Counsel of the UFW, an a$$hole I have battled with since the late 70s.

CDC...Sessions is a good man. My only concern is that he has Chicken Little writing some of his rants on McCain-Kennedy and it undermines his credibility.

The problem with enforcement up until now has been that employers are not provided with the necessary tools to insure someone's legal entitlement to work here, and therefore imposing liability is all but impossible. We need a federal picture ID (slap a pic on a Social Security card). Unfortunately, whenever that idea is brought up, folks start screaming that we want to tatoo numbers on everyone's wrists. There are many other roadblocks to enforcement, mostly due to liberal interests, as you might very well imagine.

Give us a computerized database where we can check Social Security numbers immediately BEFORE hiring someone, allow us to investigate individual employees without getting hit with discrimination suits, etc. Obviously, little of those tools are present in McCain-Kennedy.

Yup, though I represent employers, most employers would agree with additional strict enforcement...if they get the tools to verify legal entitlement to work.

[cobra de capell]

I agree that going after employers is BS at this point, although I'll bet certain industries know that a high percentage of their employees are illegal - for example, the meat industries.

The picture ID solution is oh so simple, but it would work, big time. That, along with a border fence should solve a huge part of the problem. Why the DC types want to overly complicate this thing is beyond belief.

[imagine2frolic]

When I lived, and worked in Oakland Ca. On the corner across the street guys would be selling CDL's.The enforcement would come down every now, and then. Only to have them, or someone else back on the corner in days. How will the ID's be kept from being forged?

[Jamo]

That's why you need a federal picture ID and a database to confirm the the social Security numbers.

Take a look at an I-9. Employees (not employers) get to choose what combination of identification documents they want to provide the employer...might be a drivers' license...then again it might be a junior college student ID or a library card. Make it ONE valid form of ID (the federal ID card concept I speak of) and you can start utilizing many of the same protections we build into our currency (smart threads, water marks, etc.). Get ATF and the Secret Service involved instead of state agencies, and you'll shut the phoney ID biz down substantially within the first year.

[Ron61]

All very good points Jamo and though my opinion is not worth much, I agree with you on all of them. I can't see why having your picture on a social security card is any more intrusive than having it on a drivers license. Also, since this state now allows the CHP full access to the DMV data base, something else that doesn't bother me, I don't see why it would hurt at all to have a national data base that employers could check to see if a person is legal or not. These are not things that I feel are an infringement on my rights, and if anything think they would tend to protect them. Whatever the final solution, ( a play on words, not meaning concentration camps ) is, I feel it will take a long time to come about and just passing a lot more laws is not going to be the answer.

Ron

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Jamo

That's why you need a federal picture ID and a database to confirm the the social Security numbers.

And...we need to deport those that don't have the picture ID!

The rules of engagement
By Michelle Malkin
June 16, 2007


As you follow the debate over the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, keep this cardinal rule in mind: 99.99 percent of the lawmakers who promise you they'll ensure the deportation of anyone who doesn't follow their new "guest-worker" regulations are either (A) lying or (B) completely clueless.

Rule No. 2: Anyone who plays the Enforcement equals Kicking-Down-Doors-And-Depriving-Babies-of-Mother's-Milk card (yes, that's you, Geraldo Rivera) is either (A) lying or (B) completely clueless.

As I've reported many times over the last several years, the nation's deportation abyss is governed by one reality: "It ain't over 'til the alien wins." Immigration lawyers and ethnic activists run a massive, lucrative industry whose sole objective is to help illegal aliens and convicted criminal visa holders evade deportation for as long as possible. Entry into this country should be a privilege, not a right. The open borders lobby has turned that principle on its head.

Look no further than New York, where four convicted criminal aliens -- a child molester, two killers and a racketeer -- just won a federal lawsuit to remain in the country after all being ordered deported. The stunning decision from the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Blake v. Carbone, came down on June 1 as the "shamnesty" debate was bubbling in Washington.

The ruling, which hinges on convoluted due process arguments, will greatly expand the number of criminal aliens convicted of certain aggravated felonies who can now receive relief from deportation. This is happening despite the passage of two federal immigration reform laws in 1996 severely restricting deportation waivers for criminal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.

The lead winning plaintiff, Leroy Blake, is a Jamaican national convicted of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor in 1992. The feds began deportation proceedings in 1999. An immigration judge ruled Blake deportable in 2000. Blake took his case to the federal Board of Immigration Appeals, which remanded the case back to the immigration judge, who granted him relief from deportation. The then-INS appealed the judge's ruling. In 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the INS and ordered Blake removed from the U.S. Blake filed a motion to reconsider, then took his case to the 2nd Circuit.

The other plaintiffs who've successfully gamed the system include:

Aundre Singh, a native of Guyana, who was convicted of second-degree murder in 1986. In 1997, the then-INS moved to deport him. In 1998, an immigration judge ordered him deported. In 1999, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Singh's appeal. In 2003, Singh filed a motion to reconsider, which the appeals board denied. Singh filed for reconsideration of that ruling, which was denied in 2004. Singh tried again to appeal the board's ruling in 2005 and was denied again before heading to the 2nd Circuit for relief.

Errol Foster, a Jamaican national, who killed a man with a pistol in 1990. He pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter. He was released from prison in 2002. The feds began deportation proceedings while he was still in custody. An immigration judge ordered his removal in 2000, which Foster appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his appeal in 2001. Four years later, Foster was still in the country -- appealing the rejected appeal and filing three separate federal lawsuits before getting lucky with the 2nd Circuit.

And Ho Yoon Chong, a South Korean national, who was sentenced in 1995 for racketeering related to his participation in a Korean crime ring. In 1998, the then-INS moved to deport him. In 2002, an immigration judge ordered him deported. In 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the judge. Like his fellow criminal aliens, Chong didn't give up, and now he has won the immigration litigation lottery.

Immigration lawyers representing criminal aliens like these four menaces have gummed up the court system with 11 years of litigation over the 1996 laws banning deportation relief for felons. Meanwhile, when all else fails, deportable aliens can appeal directly to their member of Congress to circumvent immigration laws through special legislation.

More than 50 bills have been introduced this year that would grant special, private relief to individual immigrants fighting deportation. Past and present beneficiaries have included smugglers, illegal aliens and a convicted murderer, Mohuiddin A.K.M. Ahmed, who is wanted in Bangladesh for engaging in terrorist activity and participating in a 1975 assassination plot that left the prime minister and dozens of his family members dead.

These individual bills are ripe for corruption. Indeed, the Abscam scandal in the 1970s involved payoffs for the sponsorship of exactly these kind of private immigration laws. Democrats and Republicans alike continue to sponsor these "private relief" bills seeking to sabotage deportation efforts.

Every time a private relief bill passes, the available visas for that year are reduced by the number of illegal alien/deportable immigrant recipients granted legal status/deportation relief through the special legislation. The bills needn't pass for the recipients to gain benefits. Mere introduction buys the deportable aliens time that ordinary, law-abiding citizens can't buy in our court system.

Open-borders Democrats led by Ted Kennedy bleat about the lack of "due process" for downtrodden aliens, but immigration lawyers and their clients know the deal. Whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes or not, it ain't over 'til the alien wins. This is the real "silent amnesty" that no one in Washington will talk about. Go ahead. Ask them.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild."
____

I'd suggest that lying AND clueless should be added.

[petek]

"Give us a computerized database where we can check Social Security numbers immediately BEFORE hiring someone, allow us to investigate individual employees without getting hit with discrimination suits, etc. Obviously, little of those tools are present in McCain-Kennedy."

Jamo scores another touchdown! This would be a great tool for any employer.

[bomelia]

I think we need to incorporate McCain-Kennedy under a new name.

McKennedy.

Saves ink...possible fewer greenhouse gases.

Mike

[stengun]

Howdy,

This is a simple problem to solve.....

Make it a Federal felony to employ illegals. The sentence would be 10 years flat (without parole) in a gladiator style prison, not a country club type. Then all you have to do is enforce it. After you sent a couple of CEO's, plant managers and HR managers to prison, the rest wouldn't even think about hiring an illegal. Oh, if they claim they didn't know they were illegal, double the sentence. Here in Arkansas we already have a law on the books that allows for doubling the sentence if you batter a child under 12, or a person over 60. Just add unknowingly hiring illegals to the list.

Yep, once again we would hera Perot's "Gaint Sucking Sound", but this time it would be the illegals heading south for the border.

No jobs, no illegals. Pruddy simple to me.

Yea I know, this would never fly because both parties think that if the illegals are made into US citizens they will vote for them. Since most illegals have an ID that states they are US Citizens and they don't vote, what makes anyone think they will vote if they are made into legal citizens. Besides, look at how few citizens voted in the last election, or back in '04.

Plus it's easy to check to see if a person is illegal or not. All you have to due is call the Employment Security Division and they can tell you if they are an illegal or not.

Paul