Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Sweet column: "Silent Amnesty" and the faltering immigration bill

| 15 Comments


MANCHESTER, N.H. -- ''Silent amnesty.''

GOP White House hopeful Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a champion of the comprehensive immigration bill faltering on the Senate floor this week, did not invent the phrase. But he has been using it lately. If the notion of "silent amnesty" gains traction, it may throw a lifeline to the comprehensive immigration bill, which is, once again, headed nowhere.


Amnesty is a red-meat word. Immigration opponents spit it out to demagogue, making it difficult to have a rational discussion about what to do with the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

Backers of the comprehensive immigration bill use a lot of energy to dance around the word amnesty. Giving a break is a form of amnesty. Lou Dobbs has a point. But a process to legalize illegal status -- full of hoops to jump through -- is a long way from the blanket amnesty that opponents talk about.

McCain is trying to reframe the discussion. The word "amnesty" needs to be neutralized. The other day, in calling out rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who does not support a revamp of the system, McCain said that position amounted to pandering and "silent amnesty."

At the Republican presidential debate at Saint Anselm College here Tuesday night, McCain explained, "For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty. What we have done is what you expect us to do, my friends, and that's come together with the president of the United States, the leader of our party, Democrat and Republican, conservative Republicans like Jon Kyl, Johnny Isakson, Saxby Chambliss and Trent Lott, and sit down and figure out an approach to this problem.''

If Congress stalls, then illegal immigrants stay in the country without doing anything to resolve their status. That, in effect, is also a break. That's a form of amnesty, because there is no way millions of people -- some living in the shadows of society -- are going to be rounded up and sent back.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who like McCain has worked for years on immigration, said "we will not conduct massive roundups and deport 12 million. We do not have the means to do it. It would disrupt our economy and inflict hardships and cost more than $250 billion to have buses all the way from Los Angeles to New York and back to try and do this, if it was even possible."

Last year, Congress could not agree on a bill when the Republicans controlled both chambers. With the Democrats in charge, the result may be the same because the measure may be loaded with compromises -- such as a guest worker program -- some Democrats just won't accept. Watching the Senate struggle this week with a series of amendments to the main immigration bill, I don't think this downbeat prediction is premature

Immigration is already injected in the 2008 Republican primary, and the debate showed the wide divide between McCain and his chief rivals, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Romney, who say that the overhaul is not necessary.

Unlike most Senate matters, where 60 votes are needed to keep a measure alive, this time the magic number is just two. As I wrote this Wednesday, the two Senate leaders, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), were talking to see if they can break the brewing stalemate. McConnell wants the Senate to consider more amendments; Reid wants an agreement over how much time they will take up.

Whatever the Senate decides, there will have to be a second vote before any bill goes to the president to sign. As Reid said, "Whatever we bring out of the Senate will be an imperfect piece of legislation, of course. But remember, there are other steps before we finish this. The House has to do a bill. The president will have his input there, I'm sure. It has to go to conference. There will be input there.''

If the process stops, then the silent amnesty continues.


© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

15 Comments

Ms. Sweet,

Your article today repeats the false choice set up by proponents of the gargantuan "comprehensive immigration reform" bill. As explained by your piece, the policy choice for illegal aliens already here is either (a) unsuccessful mass deportation leading to a "silent amnesty," or (b) mass paid amnesty. But there is a clear third way--enforcing the existing laws. The law already prohibits employers from hiring illegal aliens. So we could simply expand and improve the electronic employer verification system to include more businesses, particularly sectors of the economy that attract large numbers of illegal aliens--construction, food processing, janitorial services, restaurants. Many illegal aliens have come here in the last few years. They do not have extensive or long-lasting ties to the community. If they can no longer work, they'll take their savings and go home.

As a person of your experience knows, whenever someone says the only choices are either A or B they're almost always wrong. Life is not a multiple choice test.

I think we can all relax. No matter what the "man on the street" thinks, politicians being who they are will do nothing. If you want to know what happens to a country who does not control the imigration, just ask the American Indian. www,1-800BadCredit.com Dewey Kearney

Same old story - I agree that politicians will do nothing.

I would much prefer the legalization of these people since turning the US into a police state where we have to show proof of citizenship everywhere we go so we don't get deported doesn't sound very nice.

I see these people working in the fields, working in hotels, restaurants, car washes - they work and they work hard. I don't have a problem with this legalization and I'm really sick of the tone of the debate, the indiscriminate use of terms like 'illegals' or 'aliens' that are used to dehumanize these PEOPLE.

It strikes me that most people that use those terms are xenophobes who have the 'my immigrants where here before yours - so I get to stay' attitude. Please spare me the 'mine came over legally' argument as most anyone could immigrate here legally in the past.

The ridiculous choice that McCain asserts is a "silent amnesty" doesn't exist. This Administration and this Senate have already allowed stepped up enforcement and increased border security that is beginning to make a dent (albeit tiny) in the enormous illegal alien population. I doubt that Citizens will accept any sort of roll back in enforcement or border security.

All that America's Citizens ever asked for was that our existing laws be enforced. S. 1384 runs contrary to the security, economic, social and cultural interests of America's Citizens. The way that S. 1348 was crafted, the lack of oversight and public scrutiny, the flaws and faults of this legislation are so deeply pervasive that this bill cannot be considered as anything less than a dire threat to America. Indeed, it's as though Senators are pursuing the exact opposite of what America's Citizens are asking for, and they are forcing it down our throat as punishment for daring to ask that they enforce our existing immigration laws!

President Bush and this Senate have drastically misjudged the public sentiment opposing this bill. With stepped up enforcement and improved vigilance at the border, there is no immediate mandate to pass new legislation, particularly legislation as dangerously misguided and egregious as this Senate Bill. Senate members should do the right thing and listen to the will of the people and kill this insane legislation once and for all.

Given the extraordinary efforts of this President and this Senate to usurp the will of the majority of America's Citizens and force this legislation on an unwilling public, no legislation would be far better than S. 1348. This bill is unworkable, it only makes things worse and reduces our enforcement options! This legislation is nothing more than corrupt pandering, and Senate members should be ashamed of supporting this nightmare and selling out the interests of America's Citizens!

Certainly, America's voters will take corrective action in 2008. Perhaps then, wiser heads(i.e. a new President, and doubtless; a much changed Senate) will listen to what we, the people have to say, and help craft legislation that is definitively in the best interests of America's Citizens.

Scrap this whole bill and start with a clean sheet of paper then put in the following: 1)Build a fence along the border to be completed in 2 years time; 2) require all law enforcement agencies to inquire about immigration status every time someone is stopped, questioned, or apprehended; 3) put anyone found to be in an illegal status in jail until such time as the ICE can pick them up and deport them; 4) raise the penalty for employing anyone without proper to $10,000 per day per employee and 1 year in jail for the employer for second offense; 5) require every governmental agency to show compliance before they can receive any federal funds.

THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE DUSTIN INMAN SOCIETY, AND THE FINAL DAYS OF THIS MONSTROUS OBSCENITY OF THE ROYAL BUSH.

DIS Update: BORDER PATROL AGENTS: Senate bill is a sell out... see video:


All: We are back from South Georgia speaking gigs...I am now sitting down to return an avalanche of emails....more tomorrow, lots of news to share.

BORDER PATROL AGENTS: Senate bill is a sell out... see video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpzr-A8p9AI

Judge Greg Mathis -- BlackAmericaWeb.com
'Guest worker' scam a slap in the face to unemployed blacks
Plenty of media and political attention has been placed on America's current shortage of skilled workers. According to USA Today, utility companies are especially in need of staff. This includes welders, plant operators and engineers. If staffing needs aren't met, sections of the country may be prone to blackouts and electricity shortage.

Ericka Andersen -- Human Events
Amnesty for honest gang bangers
Too many tv comedians joke about the "Crips" and the "Bloods," rival gangs in Southern California. But for thousands of Americans, street gangs are a threatening reality. As Central Americans migrate to the United States in great numbers, they bring with them some of the world's most brutal gangs -- including the notorious...

Sen. Sessions Releases List of 20 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) released a list of 20 loopholes in the comprehensive immigration bill today which reveals that the bill is fatally flawed and will not establish a functioning immigration system in the future.

The list of loopholes includes flaws effecting border security, chain-migration and assimilation policies. The list exposes the lack of serious attention given to ensuring that the legislation fixes America's failed immigration system.

"I am deeply concerned about the numerous loopholes we have found in this legislation. They are more than technical errors, but rather symptoms of a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that stands no chance of actually fixing our broken immigration system," Sessions said. "Many of the loopholes are indicative of a desire not to have the system work."

For example, one loophole in the "enforcement trigger" fails to require the U.S. VISIT system - the biometric border check-in/check-out system established by Congress in 1996, but never implemented - to be fully functioning before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the system in place, the U.S. has no method of ensuring that workers and their families do not overstay their visas.

Another flaw in the legislation prevents the benefits of merit-based immigration from taking full effect until 2016. Until then, chain migration into the U.S. will actually triple, compared to a disproportionately low increase in skill-based immigration. As a result, the merit-based system in the bill is only a shell of what it should have been.

A third loophole in the bill allows immigrants to avoid demonstrating a proficiency in English for more than a decade. Illegal aliens are not required to learn English to receive full "probationary benefits" of citizenship. Passing a basic English test is only required for the third Z-visa renewal, twelve years after amnesty is granted.

Sessions will highlight many of the loopholes contained in the list this week during Senate debate on the immigration bill.

* Loophole 1 - Legal Status Before Enforcement

* Loophole 2 - U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger

* Loophole 3 - Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law

* Loophole 4 - Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers

* Loophole 5 - Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status

* Loophole 6 - Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible

* Loophole 7 - Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required

* Loophole 8 - Gang Members Are Eligible

* Loophole 9 - Absconders Are Eligible

* Loophole 10 - Learning English Not Required For A Decade

* Loophole 11 - Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years

* Loophole 12 - Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence

* Loophole 13 - Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration

* Loophole 14 - In-State Tuition and Student Loans

* Loophole 15 - Inadequacy of the Merit System

* Loophole 16 - Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay

* Loophole 17 - Chain Migration Tippled Before Being Eliminated

* Loophole 18 - Back Taxes Not Required

* Loophole 19 - Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories

* Loophole 20 - Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct

Read the complete article and find lots more information at http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/info/us_senate_amnesty_compromise_2007may.html

Want to learn the real truth, suppressed by the major corporate newspapers?
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
www.numbersusa.com
www.judicialwatch.org
Free Press Evidence of Lies about the Amnesty bill S-1348
http://www.idexer.com/
http://libertypost.org/index.shtml
Read the Truth about THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://stopspp.com/stopspp/

I have never heard so much hot air in my 66 years, as that crying for amnesty. And regardless of what THEY call it, it IS AMNESTY. The citizens and LEGAL immigrants of the U.S., DO NOT DESERVE TO BE SHACKLED WITH SUPPORTING THESE LAWBREAKERS.

1965 – Immigration broken – AMNESTY GRANTED – promised it would never happen again – fight led by TED KENNEDY AND CRONIES

1986 – Immigration broken – AMNESTY GRANTED – promised it would never happen again – fight led by TED KENNEDY AND CRONIES

2007 – Immigration broken – AMNESTY WANTED – promises it will never happen again – fight led by TED KENNEDY AND CRONIES

What is wrong with this picture?

How stupid is Ted Kennedy?

How dumb are his cronies?

NO AMNESTY.

FINE ANYONE HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS BIG BUCKS WITH PRISON SENTENCES FOR REPEAT HIRING.

CUT OFF THE PUBLIC DOLE.

WITH NO PUBLIC TROUGH TO FEED AT, THESE LAWBREAKERS WILL SELF-DEPORT.

YOU WANT A BETTER PLAN? USE THE ONE SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN LEGION.

Unfortunately, this column parrots the bogus conundrum, "What will we do with the 12 million illegal immigrants here now? We can't deport them." What few people seem willing (or able) to see is that this entire premise rests on shaky ground.

Why? Because it treats the 12 million figure as if it were a stable, defined number of documentable people. In fact, not only is it merely someone's estimate; it's also a fluid number. It's not as if there are 12 million people settled in homes on the Main Streets of Anytown, U.S.A., or that all or most of them have been living in the United States for years. Those 12 million include everyone from 20-year illegal residents to the guy who scaled the fence five minutes ago -- and while I might entertain an argument (note the word "might") that the former individual at least deserves consideration for citizenship, my answer to what we do about people like the recent fence-hopper is, "Toss him back over."

Here's another crucial question: Who exactly are these 12 million people? If we can't even identify them, let alone find them, let alone keep them out of the country in the first place, how in heaven's name are we going to process them? Don't tell me all the provisions that the bill contains -- I'm talking reality. I mean, you can pass a law that outlaws hurricanes, but that doesn't mean it's going to have any practical effect on the next one. Likewise, the chances of enforcement in this immigration bill are slim and none.

I also scoff at the false premise of "Come on! These people do our work for us." To which I say, "Yeah ... and what's your point?" Look, I might be able to go to another country and get a summer job, but does that entitle me to citizenship? I think not. Likewise, the fact that some hard-working Mexican may have done my neighbor's landscaping for the past two years doesn't make me favorably inclined to grant him all the rights accorded native-born Americans. He got what he came for anyway: a better paycheck than he'd have received south of the border.

The main reason this bill deserves to die a swift death, however, is because its effect would be worse than that of doing nothing. After all, doing nothing means that the 12 million (or however many) illegal immigrants don't get to become citizens. Which means that even though they might still reside in our country, at least they're not entitled to taxpayer-funded benefits such as Social Security, welfare and the like. Nor will they be able to use their citizenship status to bring another dozen family members into the country legally.

If we seriously want to grapple with illegal immigration, we should finish the fence, penalize employers who hire illegals, pass laws prohibiting medical care for non-paying non-citizens except in a case of emergency, prohibit foreign schoolchildren from getting a free education funded on the backs of hard-working Americans, and repeal the law that enables pregnant Mexican women to drop babies two feet north of the border and make their children American citizens.

Unless Congress gets out of its ivory tower and starts listening to the voting folks in their districts, these "wise men" (and women) of Washington are going to see the biggest revolt since the Boston Tea Party. It's tough enough for Joe and Mary Yank to make ends meet without dipping farther into their pockets to pay the freight for gate-crashers. So this time, instead of rewarding lawbreakers, let's make the so-called "path to citizenship" a one-way ticket to Juarez.

Al in So Cal wrote >>I'm really sick of the tone of the debate, the indiscriminate use of terms like 'illegals' or 'aliens' that are used to dehumanize these PEOPLE.

Calling them "undocumented workers" is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.

It walks like a duck and talks like a duck. The duck can go through the correct channels (yes, like my ancestors did) or the duck can go home permanently.

For as bright as we Americans are supposed to be, I find that most of what has been said in opposition of "Illegal" Immigration has been nothing more than idiocy. To begin with, if you believe that a fence will stop them, you're opinions are null and void. No fence will ever be able to stop someone who is willing to die for something they believe in. To believe this silly notion is ignorant at best.

What of those Americans who are currently on welfare (and don't comment on some crap about illegal aliens leaching from welfare). I am one to desire the best for the people as well as the economy. Therefore, what if we were to deport those who are citizens (those that can work and choose not too), and legalize one illegal that is willing to work for each "American" deported?

Many Americans have become quite spoiled and are willing to slam illegals, due to the fact that they were lucky enough to be born here. They look for something to speak out against that they are able to rant about without fear of jeopardizing anything in the process. They are unable to lose citizenship, thus they shall rant.

It seems that the arguments presented here are from ridiculously narrow-minded people, who are unable to consider another’s viewpoint or circumstance. Welcome generation ME!

Jon-Michael sounds very young and very idealistic. But it takes more than idealism to grapple with the core issues of illegal (yes, that's the correct word) immigration, and alas, the proponents of this all-but-dead (thankfully) bill seem long on emotion and short on logic.

Jon-Michael's fundamental confusion appears to revolve around his inability to understand (and/or care about) the significance of citizenship and sovereignty. He downplays the status of Americans who were -- in his words -- "lucky enough to be born here," as if that's all but irrelevant to the discussion.

But hel-looooo ... that's the crux of the issue: who has a right to live here, who has a right to work here, and more to the point, who has a right to access the government-provided services of the United States. Not to mention who's going to pay for those services.

If Jon-Michael thinks national borders are nothing more than dashed lines on Rand McNally maps, he may never grasp this point. And if he doesn't understand that government services such as welfare and Social Security don't come from a big money tree in Washington, but rather, from millions of hard-working American citizens ... well, he'll probably continue his simplistic dismissal of opponents' views as "idiocy."

But in the hope that he's truly interested in understanding the grassroots outrage that this bill has triggered, I'll summarize a few key points:

1. Sorry to inject reality into this conversation, but illegal immigrants DO leech off the system by getting free medical care, free education and lots of other freebies paid for by American citizens.

If you think hard-working taxpayers have some duty to provide free government services to people from other countries, maybe you and others who think like you do should cash your own paychecks, stand on our southern border and throw your contributions over the fence.

The rest of us would rather take care of our own American "family," thank you. And just as I wouldn't provide free food and lodgings to a trespasser who camped out on my lawn or broke into my garage, I see no need to spend a penny on people who are citizens of other countries.

If this point still eludes you, consider that Social Security is already headed toward bankruptcy and many other government services are becoming increasingly stretched. Add tens of millions of unskilled, uneducated workers from Mexico and elsewhere to our citizenship rolls -- not to mention however many family members they bring with them -- and we'll either have to severely cut back on government services ... or we'll have to continually take more out of your paycheck and mine. Again, if you'd like to give up more of the money you work for (assuming you work) to this kind of cause, be my guest.

2. What evidence is there that a fence on our southern border wouldn't drastically reduce the number of illegals crossing into our country? Fact is, San Diego built a 14-mile fence and saw an immediate and dramatic drop in foreign nationals streaming into their city. Look it up if you don't believe me. Are you genuinely afraid a border fence would fail ... or that it would succeed?

3. Opponents of the immigration bill can certainly "consider another's viewpoint or circumstance" -- but what does that matter? This isn't the Dr. Phil Show. I'm sure there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world who deserve sympathy, but that doesn't mean they should all get a free ticket into the United States, and it especially doesn't mean they should be entitled to free services paid for by American taxpayers.

See, unless a nation has unlimited space and unlimited resources, at some point its citizens have to take care of their own house and draw the line in deciding who belongs here and who doesn't.

If your "solution" is, "Borders don't matter, and everybody who can sneak into this country belongs here," then we as a nation are going to find ourselves in the same situation as the man who leaves the doors of his home unlocked, his refrigerator full and his wallet open ... and then can't figure out why the nice, peaceful home he once enjoyed is now cluttered with freeloaders.

Jon-Michael sounds very young and very idealistic. But it takes more than idealism to grapple with the core issues of illegal (yes, that's the correct word) immigration, and alas, the proponents of this all-but-dead (thankfully) bill seem long on emotion and short on logic.

Jon-Michael's fundamental confusion appears to revolve around his inability to understand (and/or care about) the significance of citizenship and sovereignty. He downplays the status of Americans who were -- in his words -- "lucky enough to be born here," as if that's all but irrelevant to the discussion.

But hel-looooo ... that's the crux of the issue: who has a right to live here, who has a right to work here, and more to the point, who has a right to access the government-provided services of the United States. Not to mention who's going to pay for those services.

If Jon-Michael thinks national borders are nothing more than dashed lines on Rand McNally maps, he may never grasp this point. And if he doesn't understand that government services such as welfare and Social Security don't come from a big money tree in Washington, but rather, from millions of hard-working American citizens ... well, he'll probably continue his simplistic dismissal of opponents' views as "idiocy."

But in the hope that he's truly interested in understanding the grassroots outrage that this bill has triggered, I'll summarize a few key points:

1. Sorry to inject reality into this conversation, but illegal immigrants DO leech off the system by getting free medical care, free education and lots of other freebies paid for by American citizens.

If you think hard-working taxpayers have some duty to provide free government services to people from other countries, maybe you and others who think like you do should cash your own paychecks, stand on our southern border and throw your contributions over the fence.

The rest of us would rather take care of our own American "family," thank you. And just as I wouldn't provide free food and lodgings to a trespasser who camped out on my lawn or broke into my garage, I see no need to spend a penny on people who are citizens of other countries.

If this point still eludes you, consider that Social Security is already headed toward bankruptcy and many other government services are becoming increasingly stretched. Add tens of millions of unskilled, uneducated workers from Mexico and elsewhere to our citizenship rolls -- not to mention however many family members they bring with them -- and we'll either have to severely cut back on government services ... or we'll have to continually take more out of your paycheck and mine. Again, if you'd like to give up more of the money you work for (assuming you work) to this kind of cause, be my guest.

2. What evidence is there that a fence on our southern border wouldn't drastically reduce the number of illegals crossing into our country? Fact is, San Diego built a 14-mile fence and saw an immediate and dramatic drop in foreign nationals streaming into their city. Look it up if you don't believe me. Are you genuinely afraid a border fence would fail ... or that it would succeed?

3. Opponents of the immigration bill can certainly "consider another's viewpoint or circumstance" -- but what does that matter? This isn't the Dr. Phil Show. I'm sure there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world who deserve sympathy, but that doesn't mean they should all get a free ticket into the United States, and it especially doesn't mean they should be entitled to free services paid for by American taxpayers.

See, unless a nation has unlimited space and unlimited resources, at some point its citizens have to take care of their own house and draw the line in deciding who belongs here and who doesn't.

If your "solution" is, "Borders don't matter, and everybody who can sneak into this country belongs here," then we as a nation are going to find ourselves in the same situation as the man who leaves the doors of his home unlocked, his refrigerator full and his wallet open ... and then can't figure out why the nice, peaceful home he once enjoyed is now cluttered with freeloaders.

TheEditor, it appears that perhaps you were unable to adequately grasp the minor points I attempted to call to your attention yesterday, thus I shall delve a bit deeper into this topic. Please do try to keep up with me. If my words or format begin to confuse you, I shall not be surprised, but that is not of my concern. Were I here to truly educate you on my view of immigration, I fear that all would be lost. Allow me to begin…
You begin by playing down my competency to comprehend the basic ideas of illegal immigration. Therefore I shall not waste my time trying to defend myself.
You move on to make a very general assumption that all illegals are leeching off of the system, when regarding “free medical care, free education and lots of other freebies.” That would be the equivalent to someone saying that most of the deaths, in one city, of white men are caused by black men and thus we can safely assume that black men hate white men. You must be careful when assuming.
I also do not think that “hard-working taxpayers” have any duty to provide government services to foreigners. I do not believe that I should pay into social security either, so that I can pay for someone else, whether they deserve it or not, to retire. Once I am ready to retire, there will be nothing left for me, so why not opt out of social security now? But this would seem cold hearted towards those who want me to pay for their retirement. Of course you go on to say later, “The rest of us would rather take care of our own American “family.” If I am understanding correctly that “family” you are talking about would be your immediate family and not the guy down the street that does not work even though he can, for fear the government will discontinue sending him checks. That having been arrived at, I now find that I, to some extent agree with you there. Therefore I should not have to pay for someone out of my immediate family to retire. Let us worry about ourselves first! Good idea!
You also comment on the addition of a “14-mile fence…” and how San Diego “…saw an immediate and dramatic drop in foreign nationals streaming into their city.” Of course were I to cross into the United States illegally and there was a brand new fence, why would I try to get in where the new fence was? As long as there is another place to get in easier, I would continue to use the easiest route in. Did I lose you there? (Sigh) Alas I fear I have.
By the way, you wrote “(assuming you work)” and as a closing statement, I would like to call your attention to the time at which I post these responses. I have a part-time job that I work 37-39 hours per week, with no benefits. (Part-time…) Now go ahead and try to humiliate me again. I await your response.

It appears that the Democrats are going to reintroduce S. 1348 and the Senator’s vote will be the deciding factor as to how we vote in the next elections.
There are some good amendments in the bill as it stood on Thursday, June 8 when it failed a vote of cloture but it was far from being sufficient. There still was a lot of displeasure with the bill as it was on Thursday night before it was pulled from the senate floor. There was a lot of talk amongst voters about what they considered the major problems with the bill.
One has to do with the fast track to citizenship (major flaw) for the 12 million felons in our country and the failure to prosecute the felons that have hired these illegals to work for cheap wages. Both have broken already existing laws and as citizens of the USA, we find it totally intolerable that our government will do nothing to bring these people up on charges. We abide by laws and are accountable, why should special privilege be given to illegals in our country just because our government sat idly by and did nothing to stop the mass influx of these illegals. Just because there are a large number of them is no reason to pass a bill to offer amnesty. The Senators are fooling themselves if they believe we do not understand what this fast track citizenship really is. Nothing can be said that will be able to pull the wool over our eyes and fool us about the true intentions of this bill. If this bill is introduced again and passes, before any security of our borders can be accomplished, we will see millions more of these illegals stampede into our country in droves so large, no even our army would be able to turn them back. They will know there is no way to document those who were here before or after a stampede across our borders takes place. That stampede will be so tremendous that it will be totally devastating to our country and all our social systems. This bill will be the beginning of the end for the USA!!
We already have laws that prohibit illegals from coming into this country without consequences and there are laws in place to prosecute those that hire them. We do not need more laws, we need our government to step forward, empower all of our law enforcement agencies to allow them to apprehend those without genuine documentation and deport them. No matter how long it takes, it can be done and we will not be convinced that our country does not have the money and resources to accomplish this task. Contrary to some beliefs, there are ways of identifing the illegals. Just take a trip to the fields of Georgia and South Carolina, make a stop at shirt factories in Alabama, etc. They can be found. The government let this situation get out of hand and now we want it to take care of business by enforcing the laws that we have. No one is above the law of this nation, especially illegal aliens within our borders and those that hire them.
There were so many things wrong with this bill and the amendments, that it isn’t funny. There are numerous loopholes and in my opinion, it makes the rest of the bill useless. The American citizens are not stupid and we know that this bill is no more enforceable than any other bill that has been contrived in our Senate and Congress. Our government needs to enforce the laws of our land that already exist and bring back the sovereignty of our nation before it’s to late.
This is serious to us and we pledge that if there is no serious effort to remove these illegals and securing our borders from further encroachment into our country, we will show our distain with our votes at the next election. Business will survive with the deportation of these illegals, our sovereignty will not if they are allowed to stay. The law is the law and no one, no matter what their stature is above the law. We demand deportation and securing our borders!
My friends and family are watching what the two Senators do in the next few weeks if S. 1348 resurfaces and we will be contacting everyone on our email list to stay informed as to how well they listen to their constituents. Everyone should do the same.

First of all, while I believe that there are many improvements that need to be made in America, I also believe that many improvements begin abroad. When discussion of immigration arises we must ask ourselves, why do are these immigrants risking their lives to enter the U.S.? It is because we have a lot of opportunities that others do not have! We have clean water, available jobs (not matter how menial some may be), an educational system, and a variety of other opportunities.

I believe that in order to address immigration we must start abroad. Obviously the billions of dollars our government spends on border patrol is not working. Not to mention how costly it would be took find all illegal immigrants and deport them.
I believe that we can put up all the fences we want, or supply Border Patrol with more expensive planes...BUT this problem will not be solved. The only means of preventing or alleviating illegal immigration is through helping to improve the conditions from which these individuals are fleeing. Immigration is not only a problem in America. France has also been having problems with migrants as well. Why?

Global poverty is the catalyst prompting migration. The sad part is that a measly $19 billion annually will eradicate global poverty and hunger (as well as address illegal immigration)!! PLEASE compare that to the annual spending on border patrol or on our defense budget.

The U.N.'s Millennium Development goals address global poverty and hunger! The plans and methods of establishing underdeveloped countries with a sustainable economy are underway. AND all we need to do is to contact our representatives and tell them that we want these goals to be addressed!

Please join in on fighting global poverty and hunger. We can address so much more in the process. (LIKE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!)

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on June 7, 2007 11:04 AM.

Obama opposes Southwick judicial nomination. was the previous entry in this blog.

Sweet blog special: Bush will veto latest stem cell bill. That's a promise. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.