83-16

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the Sessions Amendment by an 83-16 vote. The Sessions Amendment mandates the building of 370 miles of border fence in and around urban areas and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. The estimated cost for these barriers, according to Sen. Sessions, is $900 million. During his floor speech, Sen. Sessions said that he’d already gotten estimates from contractors on the project.

Needless to say, this is a major victory for conservatives who’ve been clamoring for a enforcement first bill. Combine that with the immediate deployment of National Guard units to the border, the hiring and training of an additional 6,000 Border Patrol officials, and you have a serious border security system.

These days, conservatives compare the current legislation to Simpson-Mazzoli. How any intellectually honest conservative can reach the conclusion that the curent legislation is just Simpson-Mazzoli II is beyond me. Here’s the Indiana University capsule on Simpson-Mazzoli:

Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming and Representative Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky, recognized that illegal immigration could not be stopped entirely at the borders of our nation and proposed a different approach to curbing the problem. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. It also offered legal amnesty to immigrants who could prove that they had been living continuously in the U.S. since 1982, a concession to the reality that illegal immigrants who had been living in the U.S. for a long period of time had submerged in society and would remain difficult to identify.

Do you see anything in that description that hints of beefing up border security? Anything that increases Border Patrol staffing? Anything that builds 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 more miles of vehicle barriers? Simpson-Mazzoli didn’t put in place a series of hurdles in the path to citizenship like this legislation has.

Frankly, conservatives are lying when they call this amnesty. Let me illustrate this anecdotally. Let’s suppose 2 men rob a bank. One is convicted, serves time in prison, then is paroled. The erstwhile bankrobber stays clean during his parole. The other bankrobber isn’t caught, is convicted in absentia and he’s eventually pardoned by the President. I’d submit to you that one made restitution to the bank, paid his debt to society, met all the stipulations that the judge imposed, then stayed clean during his parole. The other was convicted of a crime, then pardoned.

The end result is that they’re both free men at the end of a certain period of time. We’d be intellectually dishonest, though, if we said that they both were pardoned. We’d be laughed at if we said that.

Similarly, Simpson-Mazzoli said that illegal aliens had a relatively simple path to total amnesty. This legislation puts in place a series of conditions that must be met even before they could apply for citizenship.

The other thing that intellectually honest conservatives must shoot down is the enforcement only/first peoples’ argument. As Tony Snow pointed out on Sean Hannity’s show this afternoon, the Senate bill gives the border patrol more officers and more fence than the bill that Tom Tancredo supports.

How on earth a conservative can say that the House bill is superior enforcement-only legislation is laughable.

THE WINDBAG RAGES ON

Kennedy On Immigration: Detached From Reality, Part II (Video)

By Greg Tinti on May 17, 2006 at 01:12 PM

Click to Download (.wmv)

Another example of Sen. Ted Kennedy's twisted logic on display. According to Kennedy, "the idea that border security, in and of itself, of fencing or non-fencing is going to solve this problem just defies...DEFIES...recent history." His proof? After California erected a fence in that state, there was a spike in the number of people who died crossing the border--through Arizona.

Kennedy is purposely conflating two issues here and implying that physical fences actually lead to more death. But the obvious point Kennedy ignores is that the California fence was effective in preventing entrance to the United States but led to more crossings in Arizona. Now, logic dictates that had there been a fence in Arizona as well, it would have prevented people from crossing there and--more importantly--saved the lives of the majority of those people that died trying to cross.

Even worse, Kennedy would rather have a "virtual fence" which would likely allow more people to cross in dangerous areas and would have much less of an impact than an actual fence on lowering the number of people whom die from crossing our border. That doesn't make much sense to me. But as you've probably gleaned from the title of this post, this isn't the first time that Kennedy's been totally detached from reality on the immigration issue.

Flashback here.

UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin and Hot Air readers!

UPDATE II: Robin Schaffran quips in the comments, "I suggest we replace the real security fence around Ted Kennedy's home estate with a virtual fence instead and see if that provides him with the security he needs."

UPDATE III: BREAKING: The Senate just voted 83-16 in favor of a 370 mile triple-layered border fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the border. It is unknown at this time whether vehicle barriers also cause death.

THE PRICE OF A FENCE

By Michelle Malkin

The Senate ignores the Windbag from Massachusetts and votes:

The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.

Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure.

But if the price of the fence is this...

The prospects were less favorable for their attempt to strip out portions of the legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs.

...is it worth it? And given past history and yesterday's vote against enforcement first, you already know which provision--the amnesty, not the fence--is the Senate's top priority and which will be in place first.

House Republicans aren't falling for the ruse, and continue to push for enforcement FIRST:

Across the Capitol in the House, the story was different. Republicans pushed through a border security bill last year, and several members of the rank-and-file have criticized Bush for his proposals. To calm their concerns, the White House dispatched Karl Rove to their weekly closed-door meeting.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an outspoken opponent of the Senate bill, derided the effort. "I didn't see it was a persuasive event. If it was about Karl Rove seeking to convince members of Congress after debate that he's right and we're wrong it would have been better not to have the meeting," he said.

King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed that Rove did not seem to have been persuasive. "It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on; either you're giving amnesty to people who are here illegally or you aren't."

Meanwhile, here's just a small reminder of the cost of this nation's long history of open-borders empty gestures.

***

Should be an interesting scene in Washington in about an hour. The illegal alien lobby says it'll have 100,000 amnesty-demanding activists pounding the pavement. I can't make it there tonight, but hope to have a few eyewitness reports. Wonder if the MSM will EVER cover these radicalized protests in a fair and balanced way...

Who will be building the fence? Reader Daniel G. imagines the news story:

Illegal Immigrants Hired to Build Fence To Keep Illegal Immigrants Out

"They'll work for cheap and get the job done right,'' Pres. Bush said.

MORE ON THE MEXICAN INVASION

If you're a fan of unbridled arrogance you're going to love this one. It would seem that the government of Mexico is threatening lawsuits. Yup .. you got it right. Lawsuits. Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez has said that if the Mexican government sees that our National Guard is starting to detain people ... he means Mexicans, of course ... thus preventing them from entering our country illegally ... then the government of Mexico will start filing lawsuits.

Boil down the Foreign Secretary's comments ... If the United States National Guard actually takes any action to protect the borders of the United States by holding back the invasion force then we're going to sue.

One would expect that some highly-ranked U.S. official would stand up and up somewhere and tell the Mexican government that the United States intends to defend its borders, and that any lawsuits brought against our government as a result of those efforts will be considered to be a hostile act. Well .. you might expect that, but you had best not hold your breath.

A 'LAND OF IMMIGRANTS?"

I'm getting a bit tired of Bush's constant references to the fact that we're a "land of immigrants." He's right, of course ... but he seems unwilling to highlight the fact that our ancestors, the immigrants he's talking about, came here legally. They followed the law. They didn't seek an advantage over anyone else by jumping the line. Our ancestral heritage is one of adherence to the law. This is a claim that cannot be made by the tens of millions of Mexicans and Hispanics who have, in effect, told us to take our rule-of-law and stick it.

JOHNNY ISAKSON'S AMENDMENT FAILS

Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson offered a common-sense amendment to the Senate immigration bill. Isakson's amendment would have simply put off the establishment of a so-called "guest worker" program .. which is, of course, an amnesty program, until the Department of Homeland Security could certify to the U.S. Congress that our border with Mexico is secure. In short, Isakson's amendment would have mandated that we first shut off the flood before we try to clean up the flood damage. Isakson's amendment was shot down in the Senate by a vote of 55-40. The Senate sent the message ... don't secure the border first.

WE MUST CONSIDER THIS POSSIBILITY

By their actions our elected officials in Washington are sending us a rather strong message: We are not going to take any affirmative action to insure that the Mexican invasion across our southern border is brought to a halt. We must consider the possibility that these politicians want this invasion to continue because it serves their political needs. For the Democrats, this one is easy. Enabling the invasion is step one. Amnesty for those who have crossed our borders is step two. Step three will be figuring out a way to get those who were once illegal aliens, but by virtue of the amnesty program are illegal no more, to the polls to vote; presumably for Democrats. As for the Republicans? Well, there's always those heavy-duty contributors who benefit from the cheap labor offered by the invasion force. It's also possible that Republicans might actually believe that this legitimized invasion force will be prone to vote Republican!

This controversy over the Mexican invasion all boils down to one simple fact. It is fair to say that job one for the president and the members of congress is to defend and protect the borders of this country. In that regard they can be considered as nothing less than failures.

SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL WOULD ALLOW 100 MILLION NEW LEGAL IMMIGRANTS OVER THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS

According to a new report from the Heritage Foundation:

“If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.”

A Flood of Legal Immigrants

Under CIRA, immigrants could enter the country or attain lawful status within the country through eight channels. In each channel, immigrants would be granted permanent residence and the right to become citizens. The first channel represents immigrants who would have entered under current law; the second channel represents illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and would be given legal permanent residence under the bill. The other six channels represent new inflows of legal immigrants that would occur as a result of the bill. The total number of new legal immigrants over a twenty year period would be as follows: (See Charts 1 and 2.)

1. Visas under current law: Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million. This represents the status quo under existing law.

2. Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. These individuals are currently living in the U.S.; amnesty would allow them to remain legally and to become U.S. citizens.

3. Expanded family chain migration: The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.[14]

4. Employment-based green cards: The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year. For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.[15]

5. The guest worker (H-2C) program: CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. Assuming 10 percent annual growth in the annual number of guest workers entering the country (well below the bill’s maximum), the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.

6. Spouses and children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.

7. Spouses and children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.

8. Parents of naturalized citizens. The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million.

“Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. This is roughly one-third of the current population of the United States. All of these new entrants would be permanent residents and would have the right to become citizens. This would be a 84 million person net increase over current law.”

READ THE FULL REPORT

(And pass it on to others!)

BUSH'S SPEECH: IGNORING ILLEGAL ALIEN KILLERS, RAPISTS AND ASSORTED THUGS

During President George W. Bush’s televised speech on the issue of illegal immigration, not once did he mention the hordes of criminals entering the United States and preying upon American citizens. How often we hear the news media lamenting the fact that the US incarcerates more and more convicts each year. Want to reduce the incarceration rate? Then reduce criminals to enter the country illegally or enter legally but remain here illegally.

Some may accuse me of gross hyperbole when I say that the government of Mexico uses the US as their penal system, but truth be told, tens of thousands of criminal aliens who come into the US are from Mexico and our federal and state prisons, and local jails warehouse these lawbreakers at the expense of US taxpayers. Not only that, but the US provides an abundance of crime victims for these killers, robbers, rapists and child molesters.

When the United States incarcerates criminal aliens–noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally–in federal and state prisons and local jails, the federal government bears much of the costs. It pays to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and reimburses state and local governments for a portion of their costs of incarcerating some, but not all, criminal aliens illegally in the country through the Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program managed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Some state and local governments have expressed concerns about the impact that criminal aliens have on already overcrowded prisons and jails and that the federal government reimburses them for only a portion of their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. Congress requested that the General Accounting Office provide information concerning criminal aliens incarcerated at the federal, state, and local level. For the criminal aliens incarcerated, the state and local governments that received reimbursement through SCAAP, only received about 25 percent of the costs .

At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico.

It is estimated the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens — Bureau of Prison’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP –totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004. BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminal aliens rose from about $950 million in 2001 to about $1.2 billion in 2004–a 14 percent increase.

Federal reimbursements for incarcerating criminal aliens in state prisons and local jails declined from $550 million in 2001 to $280 million in 2004, in a large part due to a reduction in congressional appropriations. At the state level, the 50 states received reimbursement for incarcerating about 77,000 criminal aliens in fiscal year 2002 and 47 states received reimbursement for incarcerating about 74,000 in fiscal year 2003.

For the 5 states incarcerating about 80 percent of these criminal aliens in fiscal year 2003, about 68 percent incarcerated in mid-year 2004 reported that the country of citizenship or country of birth as Mexico, the Dominican Republic, or Cuba. Four of these 5 states spent about $1.6 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens reimbursed through SCAAP during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Estimates are that the federal government reimbursed these four states about 25 percent or less of the estimated cost to incarcerate these criminal aliens in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

At the local level, in fiscal year 2002, SCAAP reimbursed about 750 local governments for incarcerating about 138,000 criminal aliens. In fiscal year 2003, SCAAP reimbursed about 700 local governments for about 147,000 criminal aliens, with 5 local jail systems accounting for about 30 percent of these criminal aliens. The 147,000 criminal aliens incarcerated during fiscal year 2003 spent a total of about 8.5 million days in jail. Mexico leads as the country of birth for foreign-born arrestees at these 5 local jails in fiscal year 2003.

It’s estimated that 4 of these 5 local jails spent $390 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to incarcerate criminal aliens and were reimbursed about $73 million through SCAAP. It’s believed that the federal government reimbursed these localities about 25 percent or less of the criminal alien incarceration cost in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.