DISSECTING THE BUSH/KENNEDY SHAMNESTY BILL

By Michelle Malkin ·

I've been hacking away at it all weekend and will post analysis tomorrow.

Hugh Hewitt has a seven-part dissection here and writes: "The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves."

The invaluable N.Z. Bear has taken the bill text and converted it into an annotation/link-friendly format that allows readers to browse page-by-page, allows bloggers to link directly to individual pages, and allows anybody to add commentary and links to individual pages.

Go here. Read it, use it, link and add your comments!

Scott Johnson at Power Line has the inside story on the death of Sen. John Cornyn's deportation and enforcement provisions, which prompted John McCain's obscenity.

AMNESTY.... PURE AND SIMPLE

Well the day is finally here. It is a day where our Congress and our President have come together to grant legal residency and then citizenship to millions of illegal aliens who broke the law. Criminals in this country will be on a fast track to becoming citizens, with the same rights and benefits as you and me.

A couple of points about the proposal:

First, there are only vague references to closing our borders. It won't happen. The borders will remain porous and the Mexican invasion of the United States will continue. The count now is between 12 and 20 million. That doesn't include the six million that have been granted amnesty in previous "deals." Over the next few years we'll see millions more come .... they'll either try to get in on this amnesty deal or they'll wait around for the next one. And there will be a next one. Neither political party has the will to do something to stem the tide of this invasion.

The bill calls for criminal aliens to step forward to obtain something called a "Z" visa. (Would that be for Zorro?) They have to pay some fees and a $5000 fine. Ain't gonna happen. Liberals and illegal immigration proponents are going to scream asesinato sangriento about this fee. "These poor people can't afford to pay the fee. You're taking food out of the mouths of their children ... etc, etc." We won't collect enough in those fees to fuel one Humvee.

The bill also says that heads of household will have to return to their own countries before they can get the Zorro Visa. What's the point? They leave their wives and children here and go home .. then come back to get the visa? The only way this will work is if that visa is only issued in the country where that person has citizenship. No Zorro Visas issued in the US. We'll see what's in the bill.

We're also told that every new crop of "guest workers" will have to return home after stints of two years. Yeah? How are we going to make this happen? Are we going to place harsh punishment on anyone who pays them after they're supposed to have gone home? How about landlords who provide them a place to hide?

Come on ... let's get serious here.

President Bush says this bill would "treat people with respect." Respect? How about the respect they showed for our laws? They're criminals! They told our country to take it's law and empujelos donde el sol no brilla! (Look, my Spanish isn't perfect here .. I'm trying.) Now we're talking about treating criminals with respect? There are millions of people around the world who are trying to get into this country legally. They apply for visas. The fill out the paperwork. The answer the questions. The study our language. And they wait --- they wait until the legal process has run its course, then they come into this country and try to assimilate. These are the ones who are owed our respect, not the criminals who cross the border illegally, work here illegally, stay here illegally ... and often avoid paying taxes.

Amnesty? Hell yes it's amnesty! The dictionary defines amnesty as "forgetting or overlooking of any past offense" or "an act of forgiveness for past offenses." Any way you look at it this bill does just that.

The reaction to this bill? Well, many Democrats like John Edwards are not too pleased with the temporary guest worker program. Others like McCain were standing right by Ted Kennedy as he announced the plan. So far as I know, Mitt Romney is the only candidate to come out against the bill.

And the final kicker is that the legislation won't even be ready to be viewed by the great unwashed until after the Senate votes on it. That sounds like a great idea; let's vote on one of the largest changes in immigration reform without seeing it in writing. You do understand why it's happening this way, don't you? They want to ram it through before you really get a chance to see what they're doing.

AMNESTY NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT!

Poll results on Bush/Kennedy amnesty;
The bogus "touchback" provision;
Kyl says the bill will be done tomorrow
GOP Clintonism: "This is a parole, not an amnesty"

By Michelle Malkin

Mitt Romney:

"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S."

My warning back in March about the so-called touchback provision--when no one was paying attention--still stands:

The amnesty-peddlers' game of "touchback" By Michelle Malkin · March 26, 2007 08:17 AM

Chris Kelly at Lonewacko has been doing the job no one else will do: doggedly analyzing and tracking illegal alien amnesty legislation coming down the pike.

You will hear, for example, that the amnesty bills require illegal aliens to return to their home country before being granted "temporary" guest worker status.

The requirement, dubbed the "touchback provision," is a sham. Just like most every other attempt at appearing tough on immigration enforcement has been under the Bush administration. Kelly highlights this description of the touchback game:

Lawmakers were vague about exactly how long they would have to stay outside the country under what is being called the touchback provision. But staff members said they could stay as little as one day.

In case you were still under the impression that DHS would stop this open-borders nightmare, DHS chief Michael Chertoff gives it two thumbs up.

From a retired Border Patrol agent:

As a retired Border Patrol Agent (26yrs.), I resent the attitude and actions of the Senate and House with respect to aliens in the USA. With IRCA in 1986, all things pertaining to illegal aliens in the USA were going to be answered. We were going to make employers responsible. Let me tell you: If there was ever a US Attorney scandal, it was their refusal to prosecute the violators. It only took about 1 year for every one concerned [to realize] that it was just hot air from Washington.

Bill West, high-ranking retired INS official, sums up many of the same points I've made repeatedly over the last several years to deaf ears:

Last year it appeared we dodged the bullet when proposed immigration reforms died on “The Hill.” Unfortunately, the mad rush to “do something” has taken over the common sense of too many of our political leaders and we may actually see some form of immigration reform become law in the near future. Most unfortunately, if this “reform” includes the proposed legalization and guest worker provisions currently being touted, whatever euphoria the politicos and the media may experience won’t last long because nothing passed in that context will work in the real world.

Redstate: "There is no bill."

9:02pm Eastern update. Sen. Jon Kyl on Hannity and Colmes: "I think the text will be done by tomorrow and there will be plenty of time to read it...I fought very hard for what I believe...I'm confident that the provisions I fought for will make it a much better bill...This is a parole, not an amnesty."

Reader John responds: "If this is a parole, will anyone go to jail for not following the law or will this be another non-enforced law?"

The question answers itself.

Another reader e-mails: "Don't you normally have to go to jail BRFORE you get parole?"

George Borjas boils it down: "No bill is better than this bill."

I JUST DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THIS

National Review has amazing news from Capitol Hill. Yesterday House Democrats unveiled a plan to rewrite the House rules so that Congress can increase taxes and government spending without having to vote. The House voting rules on tax increases have been in place for 185 years, and little 'ole Nancy and her party want to yank the rug right under all that history. And why? What are Democrats so eager to spend money on, if not on national defense (as they refuse to fund the troops in Iraq)? And who do they want to raise taxes on? Well that would be the rich, because after all they have no right to keep the money that they rightfully earned...

We're going to get into this with Jamie Dupree on the show today ... We'll need his help. Over the years congress has intentionally made so many of their rules vague to the point that the average person really can't understand what's going on up there.

The power of the purse is perhaps the most sacred power that Congress has, and Democrats are going to completely betray that trust by allowing money to be tossed around with absolutely no accountability. At a time when everyone (Democrats and Republicans) is fed up with ridiculous spending in Washington, this is exactly what our country does not need. Thanks but no thanks Democrats. You have demonstrated a hypocritical lack of sense and leadership time and time again, and you sure as hell will not be using any of my tax dollars without a proper vote!

AMNESTY NO!

By Michelle Malkin

scroll for updates

With friends like the Senate Republicans, who needs enemies?

I'll have much more to say and report. For now:

See, I told you so.

***

If it quacks like amnesty...

Here's the bill: S. 1348. Detailed textual analysis coming.

Meantime, Numbers USA reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) delayed until May 21 the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1348, immigration legislation very similar to last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill (S. 2611). The vote was delayed to buy Senators more time to negotiate a "compromise" bill and draft its language.

Frosty Wooldridge writes:

The Senators listed below are key to stopping Reid and Amnesty legislation. They voted in 2006 to bring the illegal alien amnesty bill to a floor vote so they could play "moderate" on the record with a "yes" vote for "inclusion". Then they covered themselves with the Republican base and tried to recover their "anti-amnesty" image by voting NO on passage of the bill, well aware that the legislation would fail and that their NO vote was just political tail-covering...

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), up for 2008 re-election
Thad Cochran (R-MS), up for 2008 re-election
John Cornyn (R-TX), up for 2008 re-election
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), was up for 2006 re-election
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), was up for 2006 re-election
Jon Kyl (R-AZ), was up for 2006 re-election
Trent Lott (R-MS) was up for 2006 re-election
Ben Nelson (D-NE) was up for 2006 re-election
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), was up for 2006 re-election
Craig Thomas (R-WY), was up for 2006 re-election
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Senator Murkowski
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Senator McConnell
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Hammer him to get a clue on adding 100 million people
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) call him to give him a piece of your mind
Arlen Spector (R-PA) mostly out of touch with reality, but call anyway
Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) He thinks Americans are bigots
Senator Mel Martinez (FL)
House Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Give her a piece of your mind on amnesty

Direct numbers to specific offices:

Senator Jon Kyl 202-224-4521
Senator Lindsey Graham 202-224-5972
Senator Harry Reid 202-224-3542
Senator McConnell 202-224-2541
Senator Ted Kennedy 202-224-4543
Senator Arlen Specter 202-224-4254

Kate O'Beirne:

The political calculation by conservative senators appears to be that the White House was going to cut a deal with Ted Kennedy with or without them and moderate senators would provide enough votes to pass any such bill. In the absence of vociferous opposition by conservatives, only about a dozen or so GOP senators are likely to oppose the grand "comprehensive" compromise.

My previous optimism about the Senate's inability to come up with a consensus plan that could win broad bipartisan approval obviously underestimated Republican senators' capacity for self-delusion.

I repeat:

There have been seven illegal alien amnesties passed into law since 1986:

·The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens

·1994: The "Section 245(i)" temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

·1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty

·1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America

·1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

·2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

·2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

Guess what? None –not one—of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.

And as I've noted before, there is no such thing as a "temporary" amnesty.

Flashback: Guest worker amnesty--the horrific implementation problems

Update: Chris Kelly dissects the GOP talking points on their immigration bill capitulation.

Update: I'm shocked, shocked....via WashTimes...

The Bush administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty.

Republicans are pleading with the Bush administration to hold firm on the safeguards, arguing that otherwise any new guest-worker program will be unworkable.

"We need their help on that," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who for two years has fought to give the Department of Homeland Security new tools to limit lawsuits, share information with the Social Security Administration and allow authorities to target those whose applications are denied and who should be deported.

ENFORCING THE LAW! OH NO!

The headline of this article reads "Workers sue U.S. factory after immigration raid." Now let's think about this for a moment. The raid that took place in a factory in Massachusetts, where 361 illegal aliens were found to be working in the factory, which produces U.S. military equipment and apparel. Point number one: isn't calling illegal aliens "workers" something like calling bank robbers "tellers?"

After the raid, the illegal aliens sued the factory for failure to pay them over-time wages. Are we out of our minds here? First we are paying them money to break our laws, and then we are allowing them to abuse our legal system. Absolutely not. The factory had been under a long time investigation and should be shut down or heavily fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, particularly to produce materials for the government. At the very least all government contracts should be immediately cancelled. There are plenty of companies out there who hire legal residents who would be willing to do the work.

Now we have to suffer the outrage of these criminal aliens turning around to sue the factory and reap the benefits of the U.S. Court system. Just how weak are we?

Perhaps my favorite line of this little article here says, "Dozens of children were stranded when 361 workers at Michael Bianco Inc., which makes equipment and apparel for the U.S. military, were arrested by federal agents in New Bedford, a port city about 55 miles south of Boston." What we have here is a typical leftist ploy to tug at the heart strings, making you feel guilty for not fighting to protect the "rights" of these illegal aliens and all of their children.

I know! Maybe we should consider not enforcing any criminal laws against people with children! Have a child, get immunity!