Democrats Unveil Outline for Amnesty

[sjr09 155]

Democrats Unveil Outline for Amnesty

Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and several of his colleagues, Senators ####### Durbin (D-Ill.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), released a proposal for sweeping amnesty legislation they hope to introduce this year. At the press conference surrounding the release, Senator Reid said Republicans and Democrats agreed that the existing immigration system is broken. He said the proposal he was unveiling amounted to an invitation for Republicans to work with his party on immigration reform.

The proposal, which the Senators dubbed the REPAIR (Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform) plan, did not come in the form of a bill, but a 26-page narrative describing what would be the main components of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.” The plan contains many of the provisions that made up the 2007 Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill (S.1639). It contains a mass amnesty program (called a “broad-based registration program”); a guest worker program with a path to citizenship; AgJOBS; the DREAM Act; an employment verification proposal based on a biometric social security card; and massive increases in legal immigration.

Unlike S.1639, the Reid proposal includes a commission on employment-based immigration to recommend policies that promote growth “while minimizing job displacement and wage depression and unauthorized employment”(Yeah Right)— a description that seems to concede that these are the natural result of our current immigration system. This commission would be able to declare immigration emergencies, meaning a situation in which our employment-based system “is either substantially failing to admit a sufficient number of workers for the needs of the economy or is substantially admitting too many foreign workers.” After declaring an emergency, the commission would submit recommendations for changes to Congress and Congress would then be required to approve or vote down the recommendations. (See pp. 21-22 of the proposal).

Also new are provisions that would preempt state and local ordinances regarding employment verification or immigration enforcement. This clearly represents an attempt by authors to strip Arizona’s new immigration law from the books, as well as the laws from many other jurisdictions that have passed laws encouraging immigration enforcement. While amnesty advocates are demanding sweeping preemption language in the wake of the Arizona law, big business lobbyists have long been seeking a similar provision to protect them from states requiring the use of E-Verify.

Finally, the proposal contains numerous promises of future enforcement of our immigration laws. It directs DHS to increase the number of Customs and Border Protection agents and ICE agents, and also states that equipment and technology used by these agents will be upgraded. It also authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to dispatch the National Guard to the border “as needed.” (p. 2) Perhaps most remarkable are the sweeping, grandiose statements of how this particular proposal will change the current state of immigration enforcement in a way that could not currently be done without legislation. “tates will be quickly reimbursed for the costs of incarcerating and transporting aliens,” it reads. (p. 7) “DHS will promptly identify, investigate, and initiate removal proceedings against any nonimmigrant” who exceeds his authorized stay or otherwise violates the term of his visa. (p. 6) And finally, “[T]here will be zero tolerance for illegal entry and reentry into the U.S.” (p. 5)

Across Capitol Hill, there was a wide disparity of reaction to Senate Democrats’ attempt to put immigration on the agenda. President Obama lauded the Senate Democrats’ plan. While acknowledging lawmakers may have little appetite for tackling immigration reform, Obama nevertheless said, "We can no longer wait to fix our broken immigration system, which Democrats and Republicans alike agree doesn't work." House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) dismissed a Democratic push for immigration reform as a “cynical ploy” to drum up midterm election votes, saying that “no one believes” it will pass in Congress. (Politico, April 27, 2010). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was more cautious in her remarks. "[A]s I said when President Bush was president and I'll say it when President Obama is president….If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership, as well as the willingness to move forward in the Congress." (Politico, April 29, 2010)

[Obama 2012 1,714]

A slap in the face to everyone here on VJ.

The US Government should offer EVERY person who came in legally and paid thousands in fees a full refund/tax credit if they are going to do amnesty once again.

The hell that was gone through in waiting to get here, to be able to stay here, for some people lasting a couple of years... Then illegals get to march in here, stay and get rewarded and maybe have to pay a fine for it? I call BULLSHIT.

Class Action Lawsuit against the Federal Government by all legal immigrants should happen.

And the current legislation on the books works fine. Just have to ENFORCE IT.

And the DREAM ACT? Are you fvcking kidding me? This fvcks US Citizens up the a$$ with a raw rusted rod.

[Heracles 417]

Reform for these people means amnesty period. What will they do to prevent another wave? Nothing.

The term is tossed around to illuminate amnesty in a positive manner, when in reality nothing is being reformed. Furthermore, that cements for the next wave that as long as you get to the US, they will eventually grant you amnesty.

Reform:

Noun

the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.

Verb

to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Booyah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A slap in the face to everyone here on VJ.

The US Government should offer EVERY person who came in legally and paid thousands in fees a full refund/tax credit if they are going to do amnesty once again.

"a guest worker program with a path to citizenship" - that means they must go through the immigration process.

You can't call it amnesty if you are fining them. True amnesty would be what Reagan did in the 80's by granting them citizenship outright with no penalties. This proposal is not even close to that.

[jimnlena 8]

It appears more to me like our goverment is broken!! The majority does not want amnesty!!

[jimnlena 8]

"a guest worker program with a path to citizenship" - that means they must go through the immigration process.

You can't call it amnesty if you are fining them. True amnesty would be what Reagan did in the 80's by granting them citizenship outright with no penalties. This proposal is not even close to that.

That is true!! Lets say $25,000 per head. About what I have paid in school and hospital taxes!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It appears more to me like our goverment is broken!! The majority does not want amnesty!!

Amnesty doesn't mean "anything short of deportation." This argument is getting silly.

That is true!! Lets say $25,000 per head. About what I have paid in school and hospital taxes!

They've paid taxes as well. In fact, they've paid for your Social Security and Medicare.

[Heracles 417]

They've paid taxes as well. In fact, they've paid for your Social Security and Medicare.

Any proof of this?

Nevertheless, SS and Medicare don't pay for state schools, hospitals, foodstamps and local services. So that argument is null and void.

You can't call it amnesty if you are fining them.

Fining who? The same people who cannot afford to pay $2 lunch for their kids, thus received free lunch.

Next you are going to tell us without them, our economy would be bankrupt. Even though county after county, state after state budget suggests otherwise.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I like the guest worker idea, but..........to be eligible to apply you should be outside the US, and there should be a yearly cap of maybe 75,000.

[justashooter 430]

Fining who? The same people who cannot afford to pay $2 lunch for their kids, thus received free lunch.

this is the problem with any such proposed legislation. any fines or fees that are levied in the legislation will surely be waived at the administrative level by "compassionate democrats".

[Danno 1,228]

this is the problem with any such proposed legislation. any fines or fees that are levied in the legislation will surely be waived at the administrative level by "compassionate democrats".

JAS you beat me to it.

Seriously doubt the unwashed masses of Americans are going to be had by political talk and empty promises.

The Border proves above all else that The FEDERAL Government is broken.

Rather then accomplish its most elementary responsibility ... it expands into areas it has no hope of succeeding at.

[SMOKE 1,426]

They've paid taxes as well. In fact, they've paid for your Social Security and Medicare.

only if they have stolen someone else's ID.

now how about those payroll taxes that pay for social programs? you know if you claim 5-6 dependents you're not going to pay payroll taxes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

only if they have stolen someone else's ID.

now how about those payroll taxes that pay for social programs? you know if you claim 5-6 dependents you're not going to pay payroll taxes.

If they are stolen SS#'s, they are still paying into the system and will never be able to collect unless they've completely assumed the other person's identity. However, most of them are counterfeit. That means all the SS and Medicare taxes are taken out, but never collected by them. This started happening after Reagan's IRCA of 1986, which began requiring employers document a social security number. Someone could make the argument that the architects of that legislation realized that meant a new source of revenue for SS and Medicare, given these facts:

Immigrants contribute billions of dollars annually but receive no public pension in retirement, are not eligible for Medicare, and are not entitled to any other benefits. (Social Security Administration)

The money that undocumented immigrants paid in 2004 added up to about 10 percent of that year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it pays in pension benefits. (Social Security Administration)

The money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections. (Social Security Administration)

After the 1986 passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the Social Security Administration began receiving mountains of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect or fake Social Security numbers, and placed them in the "earnings suspense file." Since then, the file has grown, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. (Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago)

link

[SMOKE 1,426]

If they are stolen SS#'s, they are still paying into the system and will never be able to collect unless they've completely assumed the other person's identity. However, most of them are counterfeit. That means all the SS and Medicare taxes are taken out, but never collected by them. This started happening after Reagan's IRCA of 1986, which began requiring employers document a social security number. Someone could make the argument that the architects of that legislation realized that meant a new source of revenue for SS and Medicare, given these facts:

link

trying to minimize a crime by admitting to another...priceless

so do you think those taxes would have been paid by some of the 10% of the US population thats unemployed?

[alienlovechild 75]

Pushing for amnesty to prop up SS isn't smart. By extension we to drop all border controls to boost our ailing economy and we'd soon have a long time recovery.

Hard to believe that at one most liberals were for zero population growth to the environment and for raising the standard of living.