Blogs for Borders IS NO LONGER UPDATED! It originally was updated by bloggers dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. We supported legal immigration and news, articles and opinions on issues related to our nation's borders, immigration policy, illegal aliens and amnesty proposals.
Border Patrol Local 2544 once again shows us from an agent's perspective that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing at higher administrative levels. We told you about DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's dramatic pronouncement that the border was secure, which was shortly followed by her ordering that a sequestration cut of $283M jointly to the Border Patrol and Port Inspectors (the two groups have about the same number of agents) was going to be 88% applied to the Border Patrol ($248M).
Which means that rank and file agents who are looking at a 40% cut in salary starting this next month will be watching their managers get between $15,000 and $22,000 raises (if I read the charts correctly).
It could be that the increases might be blocked in the event of sequestration, but that has not been clarified. For the record, I have no problem giving people increases for doing a good job. The problem here is the old shell game: there's no money for some people, but somehow it's there for others.
Tags:Border Patrol, Local 2544, Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mike Fisher, PAICs, Patrol Agents in Charge, sequestration cuts, illegal aliens.To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Blogs for Borders supports legal immigration and appreciate all legal immigrants regardless of nationality or country of origin. Race, creed or color mean nothing to us as we welcome all legal immigrants to the "melting pot" of America. Legal immigrants study about our Constitution and learn about our history and take an Oath of Allegiance making our country their country and accepting our rich heritage.
However, illegal aliens (not legal immigrants) began by dishonoring both native born and legal immigrants in our county.
Allowing the illegal "gang bangers" and others who already despise our laws to become citizens is an insane agenda designed to destroy the United States of America. Key questions are who is pushing this agenda, and why are they doing this? Tags:amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released 300 illegal aliens from detention centers in Arizona, according to the Arizona Daily "Red" Star, because of sequestration cuts that maybe, might happen in a couple of days.
“As fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and possible sequestration, ICE has reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within ICE’s current budget,” said the agency’s spokeswoman Amber Cargile.
While Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was "appalled", Senator Jeff Flake said it was "a deeply misguided move by DHS."
All 5 detention centers involved are located in Pinal County, a large extended piece of land between Tucson and Phoenix. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau commented that he was not officially notified and only found out by private calls from ICE agents.
Of course, liberals are happy with the development. One of the more asinine comments was made by Caroline Isaacs, local program director for the American Friends Service Committee:
“To me, it’s simply a more honest revelation of the fact that most of the people in detention don’t need to be there in the first place.”
Well, let's just empty the prisons then... That would prove that all of them don't need to be there either, right, Sweety?
Tags:amnesty, illegal aliens, ICE, sequestration cuts, Arizona Daily Star, Jan Brewer, Jeff Flake, Paul Babeau, Caroline Isaacs, American Friends Service Committee.To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Last week found DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano charging across the land on a donkey a la Paul Revere proclaiming to all "The Border is Secure!" This, after her lightning visit to the border in a totally staged (according to some who were there) fact finding expedition.
In my last post I wanted to help broadcast the Border Patrol's plight, not to mention our nation's border security, due to the idiocy and deceitfulness of the government aristocracy. Now, in the few days since then, more facts and events have surfaced that only add to the charges against Napolitano.
Fact #1. It turns out that Arizona congressman Ron Barber (D-Az02) had requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Border Patrol strategies and resources, to verify how secure the border is. The report was delivered Dec. 10, 2012. From the GAO report, Barber concludes,
"This study confirmed that the risk and need of the Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol is high and we need the best possible strategy moving forward."
Janet Napolitano's cry last week was not only a lie, but a lie designed to fly directly into the face of Truth and spit on it. Truth, in this case, is coming from many quarters.
Fact #2. Now Napolitano has the audacity to warn Congress about how bad the sequestration cuts will be for the Border Patrol and national security.
The Border Patrol itself has been hamstrung by both high-level corruption going up all the way to Napolitano, and by Obama, who is doing all he can to bring people illegally across the border into the U.S.
I get the feeling that Nappy is playing both ends against the middle. The problem is that Border Patrol families and National Security hang in the balance while she plays her games.
Tags:Border Patrol, sequestration, Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, AUO cuts, border security, illegal immigration, amnesty.To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
White House Immigration Liaison Opposes Employer Verification
H/T Numbers USA - White House Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Munoz, who is also directing Pres. Obama's efforts to pass a mass amnesty for illegal aliens, opposed workplace verification when she served as the Senior Immigration Policy Analyst for the National Council of La Raza. The Center for Immigration Studies has uncovered a 75-page document prepared by Munoz in 1990 that responds to the 1986 amnesty bill. In the document, Munoz and NCLR call for the repeal of the I-9 workplace verification system.
In the report, Munoz also opposes a national ID card, which has been pushed by Rep. Luis Guitierrez and five of the eight "Gang of Eight" members in the Senate - Senators Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Dick Durbin.
In the 1990 document prepared by Munoz, she concludes that workplace verification creates discrimination in the workplace and the federal government should focus more on securing the border.
Congress should repeal employer sanctions. No public policy objective justifies creating discrimination against U.S. citizens and others lawfully authorized to work in the United States. Congress, therefore, has a moral obligation to repeal employer sanctions. ...
Congress and the Administration should develop alternatives to employer sanctions which would be more likely to be effective at controlling illegal immigration without infringing on the civil rights of Hispanic and other Americans. Such a policy should include: increasing border enforcement and accountability of the Border Patrol; increasing enforcement of existing labor laws, thereby "targeting" employer [sic] who continue to hire and exploit undocumented workers; and increasing penalties for harboring and smuggling illegal immigrants.
Congress should reject proposals to develop any type of identity card. It is not clear that any new type of identification system, whether it be a new card or an "improved" social security card, would reduce discrimination. Implementation of a new form of identification may cause more problems than it resolves.
To read the full document, see theCenter for Immigration Studies. Tags:White House, Domestic Policy Council Director, Cecilia Munoz, oppositing, workplace verification, E-Verify, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
By Rachelle Younglai | Reuters: More than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system.
The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.
Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.
Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.
These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark. . . . Tags:Reuters, poll, majority, deport illegals, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The Ronald Reagan amnesty of 1986 was a conspicuous failure, and a virtually identical plan failed in 2007 when it was pushed by John McCain, Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush.
Now the establishment has lined up eight Senators plus a media chorus to resurrect the Reagan amnesty. That may make sense if you are seeking leftwing Democratic votes, but it is insanity for conservatives and Republicans.
The Reagan amnesty admitted twice as many illegals as expected and was riddled with fraud and cheating. It started a gigantic stream of illegal aliens to walk, swim, or bribe their way across the border into the U.S. that has continued to this day.
The amnesty pushers are counting on Americans not to remember the Reagan failure, and counting on the American people’s ignorance of arithmetic and politics. They are also hoping to make Republicans believe amnesty is the key to getting the Hispanic vote plus the key to conning religious citizens into believing amnesty is the way to practice Christian compassion.
The amnesty proposal cooked up by six Senators who claim to be bipartisan is essentially the same plan that aroused the fury of the grassroots in 2007 and covered Congressmen with a tsunami of messages. But there is one big difference today; this time we know the cost, and that’s truly scary.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that this amnesty plan will cost the U.S. taxpayers “$2.5 Trillion above any taxes paid in” because the majority of illegal aliens who would eventually be legalized by the proposal are uneducated and poor. At least 60 percent are high school dropouts so they live below the poverty level and will be eligible to receive many of our 79 varieties of welfare handouts.
The entire plan should be illegal because it violates an explicit tenet of federal law that anyone granted entry into the U.S. must be financially self-supporting and not likely to become a public charge. Of course President Obama is not shy about issuing illegal executive orders.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) pointed out that “We know already that the Administration refuses to enforce existing law restricting immigrant welfare use, and in fact promotes expanded welfare use to immigrants, including food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. . . . What good are promises of future enforcement when the Administration covertly undermines those laws now in place?”
There is no way that supporting amnesty will give Republicans the Hispanic vote, and amnesty advocates are plainly dishonest when they assert the contrary. In the election following the Reagan amnesty, George H.W. Bush got only 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in 1988, and only 25 percent when he ran for reelection in 1992.
We’ve been told that George W. Bush was well-liked by the Hispanics, but he got only 35 percent of the vote when he was elected in 2000. There is no evidence that any plan can give Republicans 50 percent of the Hispanic vote.
When Hispanics are asked what issues they care most about, immigration usually ranks only fifth. Hispanics who come from countries where big government is a permanent fact of life and where the economic systems are based on bribery are unlikely prospects for the Republican message of limited government and restraints on government spending.
Any amnesty plan, no matter how it is dressed up, is a formula for more Democratic votes and the big-government, big-spending policies advocated by the Democrats.
A couple of coalitions have formed to try to convince religious groups that amnesty is a manifestation of Christian compassion. In fact, it is gross hypocrisy because it betrays the millions of immigrants who came here legally and obeyed our laws.
This was well understood by the famous advocate for the rights of Hispanic immigrants, Cesar Chavez. Long deceased, he is still such an Hispanic icon that the National Education Association (NEA), year after year, passes a resolution calling for a national holiday to honor Cesar Chavez, and it’s already a state holiday in California.
Chavez was vehemently opposed to illegals coming across the Mexican border because they took jobs from legal immigrants. He ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegals working in the fields so our government could deport them.
Chavez got his supporters to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegals, and he offered staff to the INS to serve as volunteer border guards to keep Mexicans from sneaking into the U.S. Occasionally, Chavez’ people even physically attacked illegals to scare them away. Tags:Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, hypocrisy, amnesty advocates, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
On about March 4th the union will receive a notice from the Agency. The notice will state that they are going to decertify AUO for all agents in 30 days. This means that we will lose our 25% premium pay and our FLSA around the first part of April.
The Agency will also call for placing all agents on one (1) unpaid furlough day per pay period starting in April. That equals a 10% cut in your basic pay.
With both of the above taking place, your pay will be cut about 40%.
The formal notice was sent to the union yesterday (Tues Feb. 19th), and lists out the full range of cuts, including gas, vehicle maintenance, number of vehicles in use, training, and more. The full text memo is here.
We've documented the BS and insults the DHS Secretary Napolitano and the Obama administration have levelled at the Border Patrol here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here and here in addition to the ones above. Now, with plans to remove our security in between ports of entry, and with amnesty just around the corner, the Mexican border regions of the U.S. will become even more dangerous than they already are.
But then, border security was never the plan, was it, Barry?
Tags:amnesty, illegal aliens, Border Patrol, AUO, sequester, Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, salary cuts, border security.To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
USDA Promotes that the Pilgrims Were Illegal Aliens
Videos Reveal Indoctrination Program Requiring USDA Staffers to Bang on Tables, Chant, “The pilgrims were illegal aliens”
Judicial Watch today released previously unseen USDA videos revealing a compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program requiring USDA employees to bang on tables, chanting in unison “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” while being instructed to no longer use the word “minorities,” but to replace it with “emerging majorities.” Judicial Watch received the videos pursuant to a May 18, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The sensitivity training sessions, described as “a huge expense” by diversity awareness trainer and self-described “citizen of the world” Samuel Betances, were held on USDA premises. The diversity event is apparently part of what USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack described in a memo sent to all agency employees as a “new era of Civil Rights” and “a broader effort towards cultural transformation at USDA.” In 2011 and 2012, the USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000 for their part in the “cultural transformation” program.
USDA Training Administrator, Vincent Loran, in an October 10, 2011, email previously revealed by Judicial Watch, asked Betances for a copy of a training video vowing to keep it secret. “It will not be used for or show [sic] in any way shape or form,” Loran promised. Nevertheless, Judicial Watch was able to obtain the video. Highlights from the video of the taxpayer-financed diversity training include:
USDA Sensitivity Training Video Excerpt 1 – “If you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the expense of the team that putting the video together, this is a huge expense.”
USDA Sensitivity Training Video Excerpt 2 – “I want you to say that American was founded by outsiders – say that – who are today’s insiders, who are very nervous about today’s outsiders. I want you to say, ‘The pilgrims were illegal aliens.’ Say, ‘The pilgrims never gave their passports to the Indians.’” Betances also asked the audience, “Give me a bam,” after these statements, to which the audience replied in unison.
“This USDA diversity training video depicts out-of-control political correctness,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “Can someone please explain how any of this helps USDA employees to better serve the American taxpayer? This video further confirms that politically-correct diversity training programs are both offensive and a waste of taxpayer money. No wonder it took over half a year to obtain this video from the Obama administration.”
As reported by Fox News in October, 2012, Judicial Watch first broke the news of the USDA compulsory sensitivity training program based upon information it obtained in response to a FOIA request. That request was prompted by a tip provided to the organization by a USDA whistleblower.
Judicial Watch also previously uncovered information revealing that in April 2011, the USDA had treated 300 of its employees to a taxpayer-funded ‘tasty celebration’ of dishes from around the world, salsa dancing lessons from Vincent Loran, and a rap performance by a USDA employee who shared his feelings on human differences. Tags:Judicial Watch, USDA, sensitivity training, tax-funded, Pilgrims, illegal aliens, tasty celebration of dishes, salsa dancing, rap performance To share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
It is an explicit and unambiguous tenet in federal law that those granted entry into the U.S. must be able to support themselves financially. But the Obama Administration has aggressively defied this strict federal statute. What are new promises worth when existing law is unilaterally waived?
Last year, the Ranking Members of Budget, Finance, Judiciary, and Agriculture Committees wrote an oversight letter to Secretaries Napolitano and Clinton that said in part:
“The [Immigration and Nationality Act] specifically states: ‘An alien who… is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.’ … We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge… Under your interpretation, an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a ‘public charge.’”
DHS even has a website, WelcomeToUSA.gov, that features a page promoting welfare benefits to newly arrived immigrants. (Some of these benefits, under law, should automatically disqualify the applicants from entry into the U.S. The page is also being updated to promote free coverage under the President’s health law.) Yet DHS has completely stonewalled the Committees’ oversight efforts—not replying to a single inquiry. Initial data from the State Department shows that just 0.068 percent of visa applications were denied in 2011 on the grounds of being a welfare risk. (The rate is even less—0.003 percent—when one takes into account those who are able to overcome public-charge denials in subsequent years.) In other words: Despite laws to the contrary, virtually no one is being turned away from the United States for being welfare-reliant.
Relatedly, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has stopped complying with efforts to learn more about his Department’s efforts to enroll immigrants and non-citizens on 15 USDA-administered welfare programs. The Department has even produced and broadcast soap opera-like “radio novelas” featuring individuals who were pressured into accepting benefits despite insisting that government assistance was not needed. USDA has also entered into a partnership with Mexico to boost welfare enrollment among non-citizens. Thanks in part to such controversial tactics, food stamp usage among immigrants has quadrupled since 2001. Vilsack missed deadlines in October and December to answer questions about USDA’s activities.
Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that a recent Center for Immigration Services study found that 36 percent of immigrant-headed households received at least one welfare benefit in 2010 (including public housing). The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector offered this mathematical analysis in 2007: “On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers… It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family.”
As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”
Tags:immigration, welfare state, immigration policy,Obama Administration Defies Federal Law, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Napolitano: No need to bind amnesty to border security
DHS Secretary Janet Napalitano proved herself a dingbat when she made statements for the following referenced Washington Times' article. Quoted is only the first few paragraphs. and highlighted arethree of her statements which evidences her lack of credibility.
Dingbat: DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano
By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times: Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano told lawmakers Wednesday that the southwest border is more secure than ever and warned against holding legalization hostage to more border security — prompting a key Republican to warn the Obama administration that it is endangering chances for a bill this year.
Ms. Napolitano, testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Border Patrol has been beefed up, hundreds of miles of fencing have been built, and her department is deporting a record number of illegal immigrants.
She said those efforts will ensure there is no repeat of 1986, when amnesty was supposed to be coupled with better immigration enforcement, but the government didn’t follow through.
“Immigration enforcement now is light-years away from what it was in 1986,” she said.
The state of border security is a giant factor in this year’s debate, disputes over which helped scuttle an immigration bill in 2007.
This time, the plan emerging in the Senate would grant illegal immigrants immediate tentative legal status but would withhold green cards — the key intermediate step on the path to citizenship — until the border is secure. . . . Tags:Homeland Security, Secretary, Janet A. Napolitano, digbat, statements, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Petition Opposing 'Gang of Eight' Amnesty
I oppose the Senate Gang of Eight's amnesty proposal to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, in this time of budget deficit crisis and high unemployment.
Combined with current laws, the legalization would be a pathway to massive new welfare expenditures, job competition, chain migration and more illegal immigration.
1. It would cost trillions of dollars in extra government spending on social services.
2. It would immediately put millions of illegal aliens in front of the employment line to hold or take U.S. job s while 20 million Americans who want a full-time job can't find one.
3. It would allow amnestied aliens to begin endless chains of relatives to come and add further competition for jobs and government resources.
4. It would immediately legalize 11 million illegal aliens without requiring triggers that fully implement enforcement first. The previous seven amnesties between 1986 and 2000 had no enforcement triggers and served only to entice 11 million new illegal immigrants who now demand their own amnesty.
By Steven A. Camarota, A new poll using neutral language — and avoiding the false choice of conditional legalization vs. mass deportations — finds that most Americans want illegal immigrants to return to their home counties, rather than be given legal status. The findings also show a very large gap in intensity, with those who want illegal immigrants to head home feeling much stronger about that option than those who would like to see illegal immigrants receive legal status.
Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.
There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about that view, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about this view.
One reason the public may prefer that illegals head home is a strong belief that efforts to enforce immigration laws have been inadequate — 64 percent said that enforcement of immigration laws has been “too little”, while just 10 percent said that it had been too much, and 15 percent said it was “just right”.
When asked why there is a large illegal population in the country, voters overwhelming (71 percent) thought it was because we had not made a real effort to enforce our immigration laws. Only 18 percent said it was because we were not letting in enough immigrants legally.
Another reason for skepticism about legalization is that most voters (69 percent) agreed with the statement that “giving legal status to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem because rewarding law breaking will only encourage more illegal immigration.” Just 26 percent disagreed.
When asked if they had confidence that immigration laws would be enforced in the event of a legalization, just 27 percent expressed confidence that there would be enforcement, while 70 percent indicated that they were not confident immigration law would be enforced.
Enforcement remains politically very popular. Of likely voters, 53 percent indicated that they would be more likely to support a political party that supports enforcing immigration laws vs. only 32 percent who said they would be more likely to support a party that supports legalization.
The poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and is a national survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted January 23-24, 2013. The margin of error for questions is +/-3%.
----------------- Steven A. Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies Tags:Americans, prefer illegals go home, National Survey, illegal aliens, Center for Immigration StudiesTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing
ARRA News Service -This is great!!!!! Pay attention........ Take notes.
Mr. Henson Ong (a proud legal immigrant) schools the commission and audience at this Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing in Hartford, CT, on Jan. 28, 2013, as well as the rest of us on the Second Amendment.
"A free people can only afford to make this mistake once!" Video Source
Tags:second amendment, rights, reasons, Henson Ong, legal immigrant, Gun Violence prevention hearing, Hartford, CTTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Reid Changes Strategy: Immigration Reform Bill Faces Full Senate Gantlet
The Washington Times - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s vow last week to put the immigration bill through the regular Senate process of committee hearings and floor amendments may sound inconsequential, but it marks a major shift for the Nevada Democrat.
In 2007, the last time the chamber took up immigration, Mr. Reid twice tried to shoehorn a bill through the chamber under tightly controlled rules that locked out most debate. He was rebuffed both times, and the measure ultimately imploded under the weight of a bipartisan filibuster.
“I look back in retrospect and say it was a mistake not to go through the committee process last time,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, one of Mr. Reid’s top lieutenants, told reporters. . . .
The 2007 bill had just enough for everyone to dislike, which helped prompt the bipartisan filibuster that blocked it.
It’s unclear what this year’s bill will look like because the “Gang of Eight” has produced only a five-page framework.
One key question is whether the Gang of Eight will feel obliged to stand together in defending its grand bargain against all amendments, or whether the lawmakers instead will be free to vote their consciences.
The last time, defending the bargain led to striking votes in which Mr. Kennedy, a labor union defender, voted against labor’s wishes, and in which Mr. Kyl voted against stiffer enforcement provisions.
Mr. Sharry said he expects Mr. Sessions, who informally led the opposition in 2007, to try to offer some of those same enforcement amendments to try to divide supporters of the bill.
Indeed, a Republican Senate aide told The Washington Times that the Republicans will home in on security and enforcement amendments and said the bill “faces an uphill climb.”
One of the groups that rallied voters to make phone calls, shutting down the Senate switchboard, has panned the latest effort.
“This is not a serious plan for comprehensive immigration reform; it is a comprehensive special-interest New Year’s wish list, in which everyone gets something except the American people,” said Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for Numbers USA. “Unfortunately, all Americans get is the bill, which they will have to pay with their jobs and their tax dollars.” Tags:Harry Reid, strategy, immigration reform, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
“Immigration reform” as proposed by both sides nearly always includes some sort of “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens with no real reform to the way we decide who gets to come to America and who does not. Not to mention the wide-open borders we make but a feigned attempt to enforce.
In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
(H)ouseholds with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children)... had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
Clearly the answer is not to make illegal aliens legal, because that actually increases their use of government programs. Which makes sense -- once “out of the shadows,” they are then free to get in the sunshine-washed government money lines.
Nearly everything anyone is proposing as “immigration reform” should be preempted by something simple and rational -- a financial means test.
If you are going to be on one or more government programs when you get here -- you don’t get here. And if you are already here and on one or more programs -- you can’t advance your residency status.
Applying to be a guest worker? A resident alien? A citizen? Illegally here and want a path to citizenship? Means tests for all.
The pro-amnesty crowd may argue that this proposal should be relegated to discussions about welfare reform rather than immigration reform. In that case, fix the welfare sate before you even begin to discuss immigration reform and add millions more citizens who will be dependent upon the government.
We simply cannot afford to continue being the blank check to the planet. Tags:financial means test, every applicant, Immigration reform, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has introduced new legislation (S.202) in the U.S. Senate that would require all employers in the United States to use E-Verify. Sen. Grassley serves as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees immigration policy in the Senate. He also sits on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. The Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act of 2013 would make the E-Verify program permanent and would require all employers to use the system within 12 months of enactment.
"With employers using the program on a voluntary basis, E-Verify has already proven its value in helping to enforce immigration laws by giving employers a tool to determine if individuals are eligible to work in the United States. And, if we can help stop employers from hiring people here illegally, we can help stem the flow of individuals crossing the border for jobs," Sen. Grassley said. "E-Verify will safeguard opportunities for legal workers and give employers a reliable tool to have a legal workforce."
The bill was introduced with 10 original cosponsors, including John Boozman (R-AR), Bob Corker (R-TN), Michael Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), David Vitter (R-LA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS.). Sen. Grassley's bill would:
Makes permanent the E-Verify program that was created in 1996;
Makes E-Verify mandatory for all employers within one year of date of enactment;
Clarifies that federal contractors and the Federal Government (executive and legislative branches) must use it, and allows the Secretary to require “critical employers” to use it immediately;
Increases penalties for employers who don’t use the system or illegally hire undocumented workers;
Reduces the liability that employers face if they participate in E-Verify when it involves the wrongful termination of an individual;
Allows employers to use E-Verify before a person is hired, if the applicant consents;
Requires employers to check the status of existing employees within 3 years;
Requires employers to re-verify a person’s status if their employment authorization is due to expire;
Requires employers to terminate the employment of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify;
Helps ensure that the Social Security Administration catches multiple use of Social Security numbers by requiring them to develop algorithms to detect anomalies;
Amends the criminal code to make clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own without lawful authority and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendant’s “knowledge” of the victim;
Establishes a demonstration project in a rural area or area without internet capabilities to assist small businesses in complying with the participation requirement; and
Provides an offset to pay for any upgrades or expenses required by the legislation using unobligated funds from various departments.
Tags:Senate Bill, Chuck Grassley, mandatory e-verify, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!
by Chris Chmielenski, NumbersUSA: After a four-day gushing of praise from the mainstream media over the Gang of Eight's immigration proposal, reality is beginning to sink in. Today's Washington Post headline read: DEAL ON MIGRANTS FACES BIG OBSTACLE.
And Politico also played up a theme pushed all week by our very own Rosemary Jenks (who has been quoted more than 200 times this week) that not all Democrats are on board with offering an amnesty to the nation's 11 million illegal aliens. They swoon over the kind of bipartisanship that brings together John McCain and Marco Rubio on the one hand and Ba rack Obama and Chuck Schumer on the other.
They believe the Republican Party needs to moderate its harsh rhetoric about immigrants -- if only to salvage its political future -- and are welcoming the GOP's new realism.
But is that enthusiasm causing media organizations to overestimate the prospects for reform?
Some of this started yesterday when CNN commentator and Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Howard Kurtz called out the media for its slanted coverage of the immigration proposals. In his column, he wrote that the "mainstream media are rooting for immigration reform" and cautioned them on their optimism.The reality is, there are plenty of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have expressed serious concerns with this week's amnesty outlines. Furthermore, Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker John Boehner have said that they plan to use regular order -- subcommittee markups, committee markups, and floor debate -- before allowing a final vote, so we have no idea what a final bill may look like.
Today's more cautious coverage from the media could be a reaction to comments made yesterday by Sen. Chuck Schumer. During a press conference with fellow Gang Member Dick Durbin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Schumer said: "We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship." This is the same Chuck Schumer who helped strip the enforcement "triggers" out of the 1986 amnesty bill. And he was making it clear that the benefits of amnesty will not be delayed by any enforcement triggers this time either.
Seems as though Sen. Marco Rubio, who's been leading the GOP effort for the Gang of Eight, has some decisions to make. After all, he said on the Senate floor on Tuesday: "If it is certified that the enforcement mechanisms [including securing the border] are in place and have happened--that is critical--then and only then do we then move to phase 2 [a pathway to citizenship]."
Will Rubio simply ignore Sen. Schumer's statement? Will he demand that Sen. Schumer clarify what he said? Or will he simply pull out of the Gang of Eight almost ensuring that the amnesty proposal collapses?
In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on Congress. . . .
We've still got a long way to go in this fight. But if you followed the reporting from earlier this week, you would think a mass amnesty was inevitable this year. Your phone calls, however, have truly helped shift the tide!
Recommend registering as a member/activist on NumberUSA. It's free! Join other concerned citizens by keeping informed and sending faxes (free) via their server to your Federal and State officials. Tags:NumbersUSA, amnesty, illegal aliensTo share the post, click on "Post Link." Please mention / link to Blogs for Borders. Thanks!