Ask Me Help Desk - Amnesty is Durbin's Dream

Kate O'Beirne alerts us that the Comprehensive Amnesty plan that was proposed in the spring, and shot down after Congress heard from we the people, is going to be repackaged ;and reintroduced as riders to legislation in a piecemeal basis .

Quote:

Determined amnesty advocates who lost the fight for “comprehensive” immigration reform three months ago are now attempting to grant illegal aliens “amnesty on the installment plan.” Illegal aliens who entered the U.S. before age 16 and who have lived here illegally for five consecutive years will be the first to qualify under a bill the Senate is expected to vote on this week. Senator Durbin (D. Ill.) will offer his Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act as an amendment to the defense-authorization bill. Later in the month, senators will attempt to extend amnesty to agricultural workers.

Under the DREAM Act, applicants for amnesty who claim to be enrolled in a community college, technical school, or university will receive immediate “conditional” legal status. Sound familiar? The Migration Policy Institute estimates that about 1.3 million illegal aliens will be eligible for the amnesty. Because the act’s provisions are retroactive, additional illegal aliens will also qualify. Along with illegal aliens who have graduated from high school or completed a G.E.D. any illegal alien, regardless of age, who initially came here illegally before age 16 and meets the education provisions qualifies for a green card and eventual citizenship. As green-card holders, they can all sponsor their illegal alien parents for green cards. To accommodate DREAM Act aliens and their parents, numerical limits on green cards are lifted.

The DREAM Act also makes illegal aliens, present and future, eligible for discounted, in-state tuition rates by repealing the federal law that prohibits such a benefit for illegal aliens, unless it is also extended to citizens and lawful residents. Unlike legal foreign students, illegal aliens will also qualify for federal financial assistance.

The DREAM Act enjoys bipartisan support. It’s backed by Senators Clinton, Obama, and Kennedy and its Republican co-sponsors include Senators Hagel, Lugar, Crapo, and Craig. Senator McCain supports the bill even though last November over 70 percent of Arizona voters opposed a proposition that would have qualified illegal aliens for in-state tuition.

“Comprehensive” immigration reform included both beefed-up enforcement measures and amnesty for illegal aliens. The reform failed because public support for the former was overwhelmed by public opposition to the latter. “Comprehensive” reform may be dead, but amnesty is very much alive.

Kate O'Beirne on Immigration on National Review Online

So ;if Durbin gets away with this ,then any Senator who votes against the Defense Authorization Act because of this provision can be accused of denying the troops the funds needed to support them. The answer if you are opposed to this is to call as many Senators as possible and keep this rider off the bill. If this ever gets to the President's desk you know he will sign it.

The following Senators have made a firm commitment to vote NO on SA 2237, the DREAM Act amnesty amendment :

Alabama: Sessions
Arizona: Kyl
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning
Louisiana: Vitter
North Carolina: Burr
Oklahoma: Inhofe
Tennesee: Corker

The following senators have not made a firm commitment to vote NO on SA 2237 (all phone numbers in the 202 area code):

Alabama: Shelby – 224-5744
Alaska: Murkowski – 224-6665; Stevens 224-3004
Arizona: McCain 224-2235
Arkansas: Lincoln 224-4843; Pryor 224-2353
California: Boxer 224-3553; Feinstein 224-3841
Colorado: Allard 224-5941; Salazar 224-5852
Connecticut: Dodd 224-2823; Lieberman 224-4041
Delaware: Biden 224-5042; Carper 224-2441
Florida: Martinez 224-3041; Nelson (Bill) 224-5274
Hawaii: Akaka 224-6361; Inouye 224-3934
Idaho: Craig 224-2752; Crapo 224-6142
Illinois: Durbin 224-2152; Obama 224-2854
Indiana: Bayh 224-5623; Lugar 224-4814
Iowa: Grassley 224-3744; Harkin 224-3254
Kansas: Brownback 224-6521
Kentucky: McConnell 224-2541
Louisiana: Landrieu 224-5824
Maine: Collins 224-2523; Snowe 224-5344
Maryland: Cardin 224-4524; Mikulski 224-4654
Massachusetts: Kennedy 224-4543; Kerry 224-2742
Michigan: Levin 224-6221; Stabenow 224-4822
Minnesota: Coleman 224-5641; Klobuchar 224-3244
Mississippi: Cochran 224-5041; Lott 224-6253
Missouri: Bond 224-5721; McCaskill 224-6154
Montana: Baucus 224-2651; Tester 224-2644
Nebraska: Hagel 224-4224; Nelson (Ben) 224-6551
Nevada: Ensign 224-6244; Reid 224-3542
New Hampshire: Gregg 224-3324; Sununu 224-2841
New Jersey: Lautenberg 224-3224; Menendez 224-4744
New Mexico: Bingaman 224-5521; Domenici 224-6621
New York: Clinton 224-4451; Schumer 224-6542
North Carolina: Dole 224-6342
North Dakota: Conrad 224-2043; Dorgan 2551
Ohio: Brown 224-2315; Voinovich 224-3353
Oklahoma: Coburn 224-5754
Oregon: Smith 224-3753; Wyden 224-5244
Pennsylvania: Casey 224-6324; Specter 224-4254
Rhode Island: Reed 224-4642; Whitehouse 224-2921
South Carolina: DeMint 224-6121; Graham 224-5972
South Dakota: Johnson 224-5842; Thune 224-2321
Tennessee: Alexander 224-4944
Texas: Cornyn 224-2934; Hutchison 224-5922
Utah: Bennett 224-5444; Hatch 224-5251
Vermont: Leahy 224-4242; Sanders 224-5141
Virginia: Warner 224-2023; Webb 224-4024
Washington: Cantwell 224-3441; Murray 224-2621
West Virginia: Byrd 224-3954; Rockefeller 224-6472
Wisconsin: Feingold 224-5323; Kohl 224-5653
Wyoming: Enzi 224-3424; Barrasso 224-6441

Tom

I think that is a fine example of why it is so difficult to judge a politicians position on an issue by their voting record alone.

Hello tom:

"Amnesty is Durbin's Dream". It's my dream too. It's the RIGHT dream.

excon

excon

Maybe it is or isn't the " right dream " . That has been debated here before. Certainly if it was the right dream then the bill should stand on it's own without this sneaky back door way of getting it passed;especially given the fact that a "comprehensive bill " was debated and rejected in June.

DC

I fully agree with you on your point about voting records. Even worse is we have Senators like McCain and Lindsey Graham who have been walking around all summer and proclaiming to anyone who would listen that they heard the people and learned their lesson. My guess is the lesson they learned is that they cannot be upfront with the American people but instead can accomplish their goals through subterfuge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

excon

Maybe it is or isn't the " right dream " . That has been debated here before. Certainly if it was the right dream then the bill should stand on it's own without this sneaky back door way of getting it passed;especially given the fact that a "comprehensive bill " was debated and rejected in June.

DC

I fully agree with you on your point about voting records. Even worse is we have Senators like McCain and Lindsey Graham who have been walking around all summer and proclaiming to anyone who would listen that they heard the people and learned their lesson. My guess is the lesson they learned is that they cannot be upfront with the American people but instead can accomplish their goals through subterfuge.

A slick move that allows a way out for a negative vote either way... it will probably work too.:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

the bill should stand on it's own

Hello again, tom:

I agree, it should. And, if the Democratic party ever again recognizes its roots, it would. But, the Democrats are pretty much moderate Republicans these days, doncha think?

excon

Tom-

You always come up with the most interesting posts. Thank you. I will be very disappointed if anyone receives amnesty after what I went through going the legal route with part of my family. I wonder if the government would be willing to make refunds to those of us who paid? To my reasoning the government can't go half way on this immigration issue. That will not repair future issues. We either have to (1)accommodate our neighbors to the south in an economic joined effort no matter their age or (2)seal those borders permanently and crack down here in the States like never before. I suggest the first option and make the best of it. We have too much history in the Southwest and peoples that are intertwined.

Bobby

Bobby , I think both 1and 2 are needed with 1 being a regional economic development plan with our neighbors to the south . The pro-amnesty crowd is fond of saying that family values doesn't end at the Rio Grande . True... but the United States does. This is about sovereignty and about fairness as you illustrated. If we need 20 million immigrants to "blow leaves " ,then by all means they should be welcomed .But; they should stand on line and be properly processed like every other legal immigrant .

Hello again:

History tells me that if a program isn't working, it's going to NOT work twice as much when we "crack down" on it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Some might argue it was never in effect in the first place. But knowing the history I don't think building fences would be sufficient alone, although it may be start.

Bobby

"We can't keep drugs out of prison, Bobby. That tells me a fence isn't gonna work."

I agree. But my objective wasn't addressing a drug issue in and of itself. I don't think everyone that comes across our borders illegally is doing drugs or dealing them for that matter. I'm speaking to the fact of being in the US legally or illegally.

Bobby

excon ; I have never seen a serious effort either at border enforcement or making employers accountable so I do not know it has failed.

Bobby ;no building fences isn't 100 % proof but it would stem the flow. The bill above guarantees even more of a wave into the country because it has provisions for family sponsorships .People like you who have played by the rules will stand no chance.

Hello again, Bobby:

I didn't mean that people coming over the border were carrying drugs. Most of 'em, of course, aren't. I was just pointing out, that prisons with the BEST security in the world, doesn't stop what they are aiming to stop. So, I don't think a fence will stop much.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

History tells me that if a program isn't working, it's gonna NOT work twice as much when we "crack down" on it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

I tend to agree with you. The Amnesty granted to the Marielettos was a total disaster. The Amnesty of the 1980s was another disaster. Trying it again with a "bigger, better amnesty bill" will be twice the disaster of the other two amnesties.

On the other hand, if we try something that we haven't ever tried before, ei: actually enforcing immigration laws and border control, we might be surprised at how effective this untried method truly is.

Thanks for proving our point.

Elliot

Quote:

excon agrees: We can't keep drugs out of prison, Bobby. That tells me a fence isn't gonna work.

In the same vain, we can't track the 11 million illegal immigrants we have now, including the ones we actually have records on. How in the heck do you expect us to be able to track them once we legalize them, much less the tens of millions more that will come here as a result of the Amnesty Bill? How do we confirm their identities, give them IDs, track their legallity, and do all the things that the Amnesty Bill calls for, if we can't even tell who and where they are right now? That tells me that the Amnesty Bill can't work.

Again, you are just making my point for me.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

How in the heck do you expect us to be able to track them once we legalize them, much less the tens of millions more that will come here as a result of the Amnesty Bill?

Hello again, El:

I don't know. How do we track Jews?

This is more of your wrong headed right wing thinking. Once we legalize 'em, we DON'T track 'em. At least in the country I USED to live in, we didn't.

This is STILL a free nation. No? It wouldn't be, of course, if we started "tracking" people, which is what you righty's want.

excon

Excon,

Do you really think it is wrong to know who is coming into our country before granting them legal status? I certainly don't.

Do you have a habbit of letting complete strangers into your home to take your food, your money, using you spare bedroom as their own, etc? I sure don't. So yes, when someone knocks on my door, I usually ask "Who's there"? Before leting the person in. And if the person is a stranger, I don't let them wander around my house unwatched. You don't consider that sort of tracking appropriate?

And yet, ICE has proven its inability to do exactly that. They can't ask "Who's there" with any authority or rely on any answer they are getting. They can't track these strangers once they get in the door. And that is supposed to be their job.

So again, if they can't do that job now, when they have "only" 11 million strangers to ask "Who's there", how are they going to do that job for another 20 million once an amnesty bill is passed?

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Bobby:

I didn't mean that people coming over the border were carrying drugs. Most of 'em, of course, aren't. I was just pointing out, that prisons with the BEST security in the world, doesn't stop what they are aiming to stop. So, I don't think a fence will stop much.

excon

Prison's are chronically underbudgeted and understaffed. Just like our border. Not enough of the right things have been done.

If at this point we show them there will be amnesty, the rush on the border will look like lemmings going over a cliff. Stem the flow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Excon,

Do you really think it is wrong to know who is coming into our country before granting them legal status? I certainly don't.

Do you have a habbit of letting complete strangers into your home to take your food, your money, using you spare bedroom as their own, etc? I sure don't. So yes, when someone knocks on my door, I usually ask "Who's there"? before leting the person in. And if the person is a stranger, I don't let them wander around my house unwatched. You don't consider that sort of tracking appropriate?

And yet, ICE has proven its inability to do exactly that. They can't ask "Who's there" with any authority or rely on any answer they are getting. They can't track these strangers once they get in the door. And that is supposed to be their job.

So again, if they can't do that job now, when they have "only" 11 million strangers to ask "Who's there", how are they going to do that job for another 20 million once an amnesty bill is passed?

Elliot

WHOOOOOOOOO... :eek: .what a gigantic straw-man you have thrown in here.

They only have access to public property. If they commit crimes they will be tracked, just as excon can attest to.