Senate Reaches Deal To Give Illegals Amnesty

[G Bala]

1. Ten Key Myths (and Facts) about the Border Security and Immigration Reform Agreement of 2007 (taken from White House website):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070518-4.html

2. Initial Text of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (as of May 18, 2007)(Initial text, work still in progress):

http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/ImmigrationBill2007.pdf

As a certified AILA Kool-Aid drinker, I was advised that the Senate lounge will make at least 12 flavors available when the immigraiton debate begins in ernest next week. 

Cheers, gentlemen. 

[michaelb]

Less family visas means that your wife will not have an opportunity to bring any other members of her family here so it affects people who are here legally not illegals. Illegals can't petition for anyone but people who played by the rules are also going to be penalized. Hell members of my wife's family may as well come here illegally if they are going to take away legal family based immigration.

Well, UC, I see some else has already quoted this passage from you, but I'll do it again. ......that was the FIRST thing my wife noticed too, and here reaction was not favorable. She has two daughters still in Cali (at least  her son is here). At the time (when we were waiting for her K-1) one of the daughters was already over 21 and the other one turned 21 while the inefficient lowlifes over in Mesquite were sitting on their hands instead of doing their job. The end result was that they said the younger daughter could come, BUT she would have to leave within the 90 days, whether we go married or not (what the hell kind of logic is that?). Since then, I understand the law has been changed to protect dependent children from 'aging out' as they call it, but unfortunately, they didn't make the new law retroactive to cover cases that had already happened to...... Now THIS crap, the ones who came in illegally get a free pass and the ones who followed the law get the shaft.

[utopiacowboy]

So let's get this straight, MichaelB. The proposed legislation would prevent your wife from reuniting with her children while businesses would be allowed to increase the number of Indians they can bring over to put Americans out of a job and depress our wages. I'd like to get enough ropes for 535 members and hang 'em all. In November, 2008 I am not voting for ANY incumbent.

[william3rd]

I see we have a link to the White House on here. I wonder what will happen to those pesky Z visas.

All that will happen is that there will be no illegals anymore- and wages will fall precipitously.

W strikes again!!!!!

[Ray]

I'd like to get enough ropes for 535 members and hang 'em all. In November, 2008 I am not voting for ANY incumbent.

Hold your horses Cowboy!

There are many Republicans in the House who oppose this silly piece of crap legislation, like Duncan Hunter & Brian Bilbray from San Diego for example. Now in the Senate where the wimps rule, that's another story entirely.

William suggested writing our senators and congressfools to voice our oppositin. but with representatives like Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Bob Filner, I think I would only be wasting a stamp. But maybe I'll send them a zip-loc baggie with a fart inside... 

[Ray]

I think George Bush and our good friend Gary B are the only ones left on the planet who are still trying to convince us that this crap isn't amnesty...


             

[daytrader]

There are many Republicans in the House who oppose this silly piece of crap legislation, like Duncan Hunter & Brian Bilbray from San Diego for example. Now in the Senate where the wimps rule, that's another story entirely.

...all is not lost....Fred Thompson will announce for Prez b4 the 4th of July...he will run a totally different campaign than what has been run since Reagan's first term.  Fred's plan will appeal directly to the American people and generate tremendous pressure on the spineless GOP senators to agree with 54%+ of the electorate that will elect Fred in November '08.  Conservatives need to keep throwing wrenches into the Immigration process cooking in DC this summer and put it on the front burner along with the (a) War vs Islamic Fascists, (b) reforming all entitlements and a (c) flat tax -- Hopefully a real Conservative (like Reagan) will ride into the White House on a tsunami of reform next year.  Gen X'ers will vote their future pocketbook, knowing that entitlements and immigration/amnesty will doom their future standard of living in the USA. 

Did everyone hear that Bush wants the $5,000 fine taken out of the "comprehensive immigration plan".  Rumor has it that some GOP'ers in the House might start impeachment proceedings on Bush! LOL. 

Suggest checking this website daily for the latest on "comprehensive immigration" @  www.hotair.com


DayTrader

P.S.  link to recent analysis of Fred's insurgent campaign.  Hang in there amigos. 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/673ytudf.asp?pg=1

[Ray]

Our borders are in good hands with GW on patrol...


   

Hey, is that a DOOMBUGgy?

[doombug]

Initial Text of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (as of May 18, 2007)(Initial text, work still in progress):

http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/ImmigrationBill2007.pdf

So far, this is about the only noble provision I can find in the act--under Title I, SEC. 101. ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, (a) Additional Personnel:

(4) RECRUITMENT OF FORMER MILITARY PERSONNEL-
 
(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense or a designee of the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a program to actively recruit members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard who have elected to separate from active duty.

Any recently discharged vets out there who might be interested, and haven't yet reached their 40th birthday, the starting pay range: $35,595 - $45,189. Apply here.

One other expense noted in the text that's been overlooked by most commentators--one that the border jumpers are responsible for, but that the "forgiving" citizen and legal resident will ultimately "pardon" through the charity of tax contributions:

(c) Analysis of Damage to Protected Lands- The Secretary and Secretaries concerned shall develop an analysis of damage to protected lands relating to illegal border activity, including the cost of equipment, training, recurring maintenance, construction of facilities, restoration of natural and cultural resources, recapitalization of facilities, and operations. 
 
(d) Recommendations- The Secretary shall--
 
(1) develop joint recommendations with the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service for an appropriate cost recovery mechanism relating to items identified in subsection (c)

Hmm, I wonder how we could get some compensation for this taxation...



Hugo's done it for his good buddy Fidel. 

"Venezuela's swaggering Hugo Chávez undoubtedly has been Havana's most valuable partner, with advantageous trade and barter arrangements between the two serving as a linchpin of the relationship. A 2005 agreement sent 20% of Cuban doctors to serve in poor urban Venezuelan barrios, in exchange for a daily supply of 90,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil."

Felipe should be doing this for George. Something along the lines of the Oil-for-Food program--less the corruption. Dub it, "Oil-for-Aliens."

Funny, upon doing a search, only one reference was found on the Web under "Oil-for-Aliens." There are a few thousand references, however,  to "Oil-for-illegals." And they're no joke. In 2003, Rep. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina (R.) pushed a bill linking amnesty to Mexico's oil wealth.

"Before Bush strikes any deal on amnesty, 'he should insist on the free movement of ...oil from Mexico' and the opening of Mexico's oil resources to American investment."

And what did our quid pro quo-challenged friends to the south have to say about this?

"The Mexican press exploded in outrage. 'Blackmail!' cried the archbishop of Mexico City. 'Stupidity!' said a representative of the oil workers' union. A plot to 'annex Latin America,' intoned Nobel peace-prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. An example of U.S. lawmakers' 'ignorance,' 'arrogance,' and 'imperial vision,' according to a Mexican senator. The head of the leftist PRD called on President Vicente Fox to 'put on his pants' — act like a man — and oppose the proposal."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-krikorian051403.asp

[doombug]

But maybe I'll send them a zip-loc baggie with a fart inside...

Just be sure to put a hazmat label on it.

As a citizen, you wouldn't want to break any rules.


Or, just buy one that's prepackaged. (50¢ each):

Our borders are in good hands with GW on patrol...


   

His experience with patrolling doesn't stop there.

[doombug]

I went to the border yesterday to check on the wall's progress, and to add a fresh coat of paint to the borderline. Soonafter finishing, I noticed a joyous parade or something heading north, so I broke out the Cybershot and snapped this photo:



Wasn't Cinco de Mayo, like, the 5th of May or somethin'?

Or did La República de Aztlán finally declare its independence?

[doombug]

Anchor babies delight in expressing their patriotism.

[youtube=425,350]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z7YrkpKNB7M[/youtube]

Supported by your tax dollars.

Just imagine their chanting, "Gra-ci-as! Gra-ci-as! Gra-ci-as!"

[doombug]

Sen. Sessions has been pounding this home on the floor.

$2,500,000,000,000 (after taxes).

That's trillion dollars.

According to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, that is the cost our border jumping amigos will incur on the Treasury over their lifetimes should this bill pass. That's assuming only 7.9 million of them reach retirement.

Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

The calculation of this figure is as follows. In March 2006, there were 9.3 million adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skill. On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant creates a net cost (benefits minus taxes) for the taxpayer of about $17,000 per year. (This includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 9.3 million illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.

However, not all of the 9.3 million adults given amnesty would survive till age 67. Normal mortality rates would probably reduce the population by roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 7.9 million individuals would reach 67 and enter retirement.

Of those reaching 67, the average life expectancy would be around 18 years. The net governmental cost (benefits minus taxes) of these elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year. Over eighteen years of expected life, costs would equal $360,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per amnesty recipient times 7.9 million amnesty recipients would be $2.4 trillion. These costs would hit the U.S. taxpayer at exactly the point that the Social Security system is expected to go into crisis. This is a preliminary estimate based on my ongoing research. More research should be performed, but I believe policy makers should examine these potential costs carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, “Z visas” or “earned citizenship” to the current illegal immigrant population.

Amnesty proponents may argue that some of these individuals will go home without getting benefits, or before they reach retirement age. Though perhaps valid, that argument only emphasizes how expensive amnesty recipients would be; the longer they remain in the country the greater the cost to the taxpayer.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGEwMTY5NmVmODQ2ZTNlMjdmNTZjNTIzYTQ4NDNiMTU=

These conclusions appear to have a basis in past studies he's done on similar topics:

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer

Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts

For those out there who paint a rosy picture of low-skilled illegals (and you know who you are ), then focus your eye sockets on the words coming out of Mr. Rector's mouth. (This is from a May 10th, 2007, hearing):

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYzPU0Qmh-I[/youtube]

And, yes, illegals do draw welfare (via those shrieking anchor babies I broadcast in my previous post):

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjLSDL4_3_w[/youtube]

"No" to affirmative amnesty, ladies and genitals.
 
For equal parts compassion for the illegal returns equal parts indifference to the citizen.

Peace out!

[In the background, on C-SPAN, Kennedy just barked, "...they have to pay $5,000 over an eight year period." My emphasis.]

[Ray]

A more sensible approach than the “shamnesty” plan…

----------
Blind-Faith Amnesty
by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted 05/21/2007 ET


The U.S. Senate is pursuing another mass amnesty for illegal aliens -- much like the one 20 years ago, which turned into a horrible disaster.
|
Why would lawmakers rush toward something the American people strongly reject? Is there really no alternative to mass legalization?

President Bush has repeated the mantra that we can’t deport all 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. His leap in logic is that, therefore, we have to legalize them all.

Well, if the same government can’t enforce the law on that scale, what makes you think the government can possibly process that many people in a complex, unproven, loophole-ridden amnesty plan that bears Ted Kennedy’s fingerprints? It clearly can’t -- and the attempt will mean massive fraud and abuse.

The least popular president since stagflation-bound Carter is putting a lot of misplaced confidence in the Homeland Security Department. This is the stupidest display of hoping against hope since Pharaoh ordered more brick production while stopping supply of the raw material.

Besides being a magnet for more illegal immigration and a huge invitation for fraud and abuse, amnesty should be avoided at all costs. It’s a slap in the face to all immigrants who followed the law. We should try something different before retracing the 1986 mistake.

Despite denials that the White House-Ted Kennedy “compromise” legislation isn’t amnesty, by any common-sense definition, it most certainly is amnesty.

The “fine” is insultingly low. The reward is chain migration and permanent residency. The “punishment” is keeping the stolen U.S. job.

What is a good definition of amnesty? Pardoning lawbreakers for their offense and rewarding them with the object of their intention.

Does the Senate proposal constitute amnesty? The answer has little to do with the diversionary “path to citizenship” that politicians get so worked up about.

Certainly, immigration lawbreakers shouldn’t be able to gain U.S. citizenship. That privilege should be the first thing they are denied from ever obtaining.

If you let an illegal alien remain in this country, that is amnesty. If you let an illegal alien keep the American job he came here to steal, that is amnesty. If you make an illegal alien eligible for government programs and benefits, that is amnesty. If you let an illegal alien engage in his own “chain migration,” that is amnesty.

If we did grant any limited legalization, then legalized aliens should never be able to obtain any benefit that immigrants who abide by the law receive, including a green card, the right to sponsor any family members for visas or any exclusively American entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Yet Washington politicians are headed toward just that kind of lavish reward with the objects of the illegal aliens’ intentions.
How can you deal, then, with an illegal alien population that’s four times the size it was in 1986? The only realistic solution is Attrition Through Enforcement. Otherwise, you’ll overwhelm taxpayers, government agencies and American communities.

What is Attrition Through Enforcement? Steadily, systematically enforce the immigration laws on the books. Secure the border. Make America an illegal alien-free workplace. Cooperate with state and local law enforcement when they encounter illegal and criminal aliens in their routine duties.

Make electronic employment verification mandatory. March employers of illegal aliens on a high-profile perp walk. Go after multiple usage of a Social Security number. Make US VISIT mandatory for all foreign travelers, including Mexico and Canada, at land borders as well as airports, and for exit as well as entry.

If you make it more likely that illegal aliens can’t continue getting away with their offenses, they will find fewer employers willing to face prison for hiring them. With less opportunity, greater accountability, higher risk and less reward, fewer and fewer illegal aliens will come here. More and more illegal aliens will leave on their own (that is, self-deport, on their own dime).

What matters is reversing the trend. It took decades to get into the immigration problem of this magnitude. It’s OK if it takes a decade or so to finally solve it. But we have to reverse the trends starting now.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that Attrition Through Enforcement will cut the illegal population by 1.5 million a year for only about $400 million a year more.

That’s a real bargain, especially compared with the cost of subsidizing the vast unskilled illegal aliens (The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has found that half of illegal household heads dropped out of high school and cost American taxpayers some $20,000 per year.) Attrition Through Enforcement would cut illegal residency in half for $2 billion over five years.

Americans who care about the future of this nation should watch Washington closely these next few weeks. The White House and Senate are intent on giving away the store on immigration. These politicians are about to make a bad problem much, much worse.

Another amnesty will break the back of this great nation and sell our children’s birthright for a bowl of porridge.
----------

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20788

[doombug]

If we did grant any limited legalization, then legalized aliens should never be able to obtain any benefit that immigrants who abide by the law receive, including a green card, the right to sponsor any family members for visas or any exclusively American entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Yet Washington politicians are headed toward just that kind of lavish reward with the objects of the illegal aliens’ intentions.

How can you deal, then, with an illegal alien population that’s four times the size it was in 1986? The only realistic solution is Attrition Through Enforcement. Otherwise, you’ll overwhelm taxpayers, government agencies and American communities.

Make electronic employment verification mandatory.

More and more illegal aliens will leave on their own (that is, self-deport, on their own dime).

I really like this. I only hope Sen. Kyl is aware of it (and its potential), and can use it as leverage with Kennedy and crew.

Electronic verification does work in one area. Believe it or not: The issuance of drivers licenses (post 9/11, of course). 

Bogus drivers licenses are now nearly impossible to obtain in California. It would require internal and coordinated fraud between the state DMV and the Social Security Administration for someone to pull it off. And with the REAL ID Act calling for national compliance by May of '08, all states will be required to verify identity using the same guidelines or risk losing out on federal funds.

More BP agents. A completed wall. Employment verification system. Guest worker program. Attrition through enforcement. And, finally, a national holiday to celebrate.

Día de Bon voyage.

[doombug]

While over in Europe, a mirror of what's going on here...

France says no to mass legalisation of undocumented immigrants

[Ray]

Yep! That’s exactly what happened here in San Diego. The new border fence was so successful in stemming illegal aliens and drug smugglers (80% drop) that the libs used every tool in their bag of tricks to stop completion of the last few miles of fence near the coast. They have held it up for years in the courts because they said it would be a disaster to the environment.

What did I tell you? Here we go again. The lawsuits should follow close behind…

If you think the libs are going to sit back and let this fence be built, cutting off free access to millions of potential new Democrat voters, you’re nuts!

The Democrats will never build a fence. If it’s not the environmental angle, then they will come up with another million reasons why it shouldn’t be built.

“A fence could also prevent the ocelots and other animals from swimming across the water to mate with partners on the other side.”  Oh, I’m gonna freaking cry! 

*****
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_us/border_fence_wildlife

Group: Border fence threatens wildlife
 
By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press WriterMon May 21, 4:17 PM ET

Nancy Brown drives the government truck slowly past mossy ponds, thick shrouds of beard-like Spanish moss and majestic ebony trees, gleefully identifying the song of the kiskadee and the gurgling call of the chachalaca.

As the truck rounds a bend near the greenish-brown Rio Grande, a bobcat scampers ahead, disappearing into the lush subtropical foliage. Lizards dart about. A tortoise lazes in the sun. Somewhere in the forest, well-camouflaged by evolution, are ocelots and jaguarundi, both of them endangered species of cats.

These are some of the natural wonders in the Rio Grande Valley that Brown and other wildlife enthusiasts fear could be spoiled by the fences and adjacent roads the U.S. government plans to erect along the Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants and smugglers.

Environmentalists have spent decades acquiring and preserving 90,000 riverfront acres of Texas scrub and forest and protecting their wildlife. Now they fear the hundreds of miles of border fences will undo their work and kill some land animals by cutting them off from the Rio Grande, the only source of fresh water.

A fence could also prevent the ocelots and other animals from swimming across the water to mate with partners on the other side.

"If you have a fence that runs several miles long, if you are a tortoise or any animal that can't fly over or go through it, then you have a pretty long distance that you have to go to get water," said Brown, an outreach manager at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, 225 miles south of San Antonio. Also, "any destruction of any brush is very damaging."

In addition, some worry that the barrier — described in some plans as triple-layer metal fencing — will damage the tourism industry along the Rio Grande.

The wild cats, reptiles and at least 500 species of birds attract visitors from around the world who bring the impoverished region $150 million a year. Depending on how far inland the fence is built, it could create a no man's land north of the river, hurting tourism.

While the Department of Homeland Security said it has not made any final decisions on where the fence will go, meetings this week with the Border Patrol have wildlife officials convinced that some of the 70 miles planned for the Rio Grande Valley will be erected on the string of wildlife refuges along the border.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said environmental concerns will be taken into account in the final decisions. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has used his authority to waive environmental regulations for security reasons in other states, and Knocke said he would do so in the Rio Grande Valley if necessary.

"We do have to be mindful of the fact that we are remedying a problem that has been more than two decades in the making," he said.

The refuges show signs of immigrant activity — food wrappers and water jugs, discarded wet clothing, the plastic bags used to carry a change of clothing across the river. Similar evidence is found up and down the river, despite the presence of Border Patrol agents and the sensors and cameras that make up the current "virtual" fence.

The fence idea "is wholly incongruous with a 30-plus year investment by the federal government, the citizens and the landowners of the Rio Grande Valley who have worked hard to protect their special land and waters," said Carter Smith of the Nature Conservancy. The organization said the government should instead use more border agents, sensors and cameras.


President Bush called for about 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and Homeland Security is committed to completing 370 miles by the end of 2008. Congress has budgeted $1.2 million for the fences.

Close to $100 million has been spent creating, restoring and maintaining the refuges, wildlife officials said.

"The bottom line is the wildlife corridor took us many years to put together," said Karen Chapman of Environmental Defense. "It represents work, hard work, by a number of federal, state and local agencies and citizens of the Valley.

And when we were working to put that wildlife corridor together, nobody was doing it with the thought that someday it was going to be stuck behind a wall."

The four-county Rio Grande Valley contains 11 distinct ecosystems, Brown said.

"From a biological standpoint this area is really, really impressive," she said. "You have a coastal climate meeting a desert climate meeting the temperate and the tropical."
*****

[jediknight]

go after the employers that hire illegals and go after them real hard. employers should be fined $100,000 or more for each illegal they hire, even those that hire maids.
JK

[doombug]

“A fence could also prevent the ocelots and other animals from swimming across the water to mate with partners on the other side.” 

So why don't these "concerned" environmentalists open an introduction agency for the lovelorn beasties? IMBRA--so far--doesn't apply to wildlife, so no background dossier would be required for them to exchange burrow locations. 

And each species could post their success stories on the forums at Endangered Love.

Switching gears now, I got to thinking a bit more on the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. (The title alone needs to be amended.) Specifically, that $5,000 penalty.

For a measly five grand--give or take--the lawbreakers get in return 1) a paved road to citizenship, 2) club membership in affirmative action (an upgrade from membership in affirmative amnesty), and 3) a $360,000 annuity that matures the moment the President signs the bill.
 
The only just revenge would be to see them inherit an AW as well.

[doombug]

Have a defibrillator within reach if you risk reading this.

Flawed Provisions
The following are ten of the worst provisions—by no means an exhaustive list—of Title VI of the bill:

Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law

Despite all of the flaws and inequities in it, I see this piece of shit becoming law. The reason will be one of "compassion." They won't have it in 'em to demand that the lawbreakers leave the country.

[william3rd]

Welll- I dont know. I think that the #9 idea is a GREAT idea!!!!  I should head up to Bakersfield and get ready.

Of course, during the SAW program, the government had hundreds of SAW (SPecial Agricultural Workers) working on melon patches in Death Valley. Maybe they actually would have been working with watermelons if there had been any water. . . . 

[william3rd]

In the amendment battle today, the bill was amended to reduce teh guest workers to 200,000. Tomorrow it is expected that a proposal to give mandatory 60 day jail sentences to aliens who return after being removed.

Personally, I think that the jail sentences should be much longer AND that aliens who return unlawfully after removal should be permanently denied Adjustment of Status.

Further, the family preference limitation is long overdue.

That will take away some of the incentives if all they have to look forward to on returning is a prison cell.

CALL YOUR SENATORS TOMORROW MORNING AND LET THEM KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.

[Ray]

If you haven’t yet had a chance to read the link that Doombug provided then you better read it now!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1468.cfm

ANOTHER slap in the face to all of us who follow the law and petition fiancées through normal legal channels.

A K-1 fiancée visa holder wishing to work while adjusting status needs a work permit at $180 and about a 60-90 day wait. An ILLEGAL ALIEN Z-visa recipient gets an instant FREE work permit with a max one-day wait.

A K-1 fiancée visa holder awaiting adjustment who wishes to leave the country and return must first file a request for Advance Parole at $170 and with the normal long wait for processing. An ILLEGAL ALIEN Z-visa recipient gets automatic instant re-entry privileges at no additional cost.

Follow the law…get slapped in the face!
Break the law…get rewarded with jackpot benefits!

Does anyone here (besides Gary Bala  ) think this piece of crap legislation is a benefit to America and Americans? This piece of crap is only a benefit to pandering politicians, AILA, and ILLEGAL ALIENS who laugh in our face and demand their “rights” in our streets.

At least one Senator had the balls to call this garbage for what it is, a “piece of shyt”. Thanks to House Minority Leader John Boehner and to Doombug for the link!   

Screw these arrogant polititians! FLUSH the Senate's stupid immigration shamnesty bill!

[doombug]

This madness wouldn't stand in Mexico.

But the hypocrisy does.

Mexican Constitution 101. (Aka, required reading!):

Artículo 32.

Los mexicanos serán preferidos a los extranjeros en igualdad de circunstancias, para toda clase de concesiones y para todos los empleos, cargos o comisiones del gobierno en que no sea indispensable la calidad de ciudadano.
http://mexico.udg.mx/politica/constitucion/t1cap2.html

Translation:

Article 32.

Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.
http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html#TitleIChapterII

One other noteworthy Article:

Article 33.

Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.

Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. [My emphasis.]

Is this double standard imagined? Searching a bit, I found that others come to the same conclusion:

Mexico's Glass House - How the Mexican constitution treats foreigners

Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.

[...]

The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

- Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.

- Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.

- Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

- Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.

- Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
 
[...]

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto [criminals caught in the act of committing an offense], any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."  Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. [Our "vigilante" Minutemen can't even do this.]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608703/posts

The article goes on to cite each section of the Mexican constitution that supports the prohibitions indicated in bold above.

[michaelb]

Your facts are correct, but I'm going to have to disagree with your conclusion, doombug. I've been aware of those items of the Mexican constitution for 30+ years and have always taken this approach: THEY have certain laws, they ENFORCE them. WE have certain laws and we DON'T enforce them......now, who is following a double standard?