"Immigration Reform"

[towerclimber37]

If you want them not to break laws, make it possible for them to come here and work without having to. As it is, the process for getting a green card takes years. Who wants to wait years to be able to come here and work? That doesnt serve any purpose.

that is total crap. a person will respect the rule of law or they won't.

and they CAN come and work here...its called a work visa. it can be done legally, but they choose not to.

[The Rabbi]

that is total crap. a person will respect the rule of law or they won't.

and they CAN come and work here...its called a work visa. it can be done legally, but they choose not to.

Again, those take years to get. WHo wants to wait years?

Even the H1B visas, given to skilled workers, are subject to caps. IIRC, the cap was reached this year sometime in February.

And I thought you were ignoring me.

[dkd83]

Rabbi,

In your last post responding to me you wrote, "freedom is not a liberal issue, it is the original conservative issue." This is patently false. Conservativism, as a political ideology within Western Civilization, arose in the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.

Conservatives sought to return Europe to the pre-French Revolution status quo. Men like Metternich (Austria) sought to role back the liberal reforms and ideas of Nationalism spread by Napoleon. In fact, in 1815 the Congress of Vienna met specifically to accomplish these goals.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith were some of the most influential liberal thinkers in the Western tradition. All of these men believed strongly in personal liberty, minimal government intrusion, and personal responsibility. In the mid-nineteenth century, we had Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who penned The Communist Manifesto, which was another permutation of liberal ideology.

I used "extremely liberal" in my last post to appear diplomatic. Because we have chosen to refer to our present 2-party system in the US by using conservative and liberal as synonyms for Republican and Democrat we have diluted the meaning of the words. Both Republicans and Democrats are by definition liberals. Each party can trace its origins back to the liberal political traditions formulated primarily during the European Enlightenment.

I used "redistribution of wealth" to refer to your comments that suggested open borders and to previous comments in this thread, by you and others, that intimated the US should/could "fix" the problems in Mexico or other countries that prompt people to come here illegally.

Liberalism as a political ideology casts a long shadow. We need to understand this and speak accordingly.

[towerclimber37]

Again, those take years to get. WHo wants to wait years?

Even the H1B visas, given to skilled workers, are subject to caps. IIRC, the cap was reached this year sometime in February.

And I thought you were ignoring me.

as long as you don't post acerbic posts, I'll reply to your posts. I have no idea how you arrived at the convoluted notion that MORE crime, MORE taxes and Less control over who comes into and goes out of our country is a good thing.

so whats wrong with having caps on work visas? have you stopped to think that if we actually deport those who are here illegally then perhaps those visa caps would go up?

and I reiterate, you are operating on an assumption that we've been defeated already and that we can't control this. In my opinion, that is the dumb idea. No one can succeed at anything if they start from a point of belief that they've already failed.

we CAN control our borders, we can get a handle on it..but it will require consistent enforcement of the current laws.

[Guest Phantom6]

HEY,

Ok. I was going to stay out of this fray but I must say that I find the legalization of marijuana being compared to the Illegal Alien problem to be approaching lunacy. The only way that a parallel can be drawn between the Illegal Alien problem and the breaking of any law is the fact that if you are going to operate contra to the law you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions whether it is speeding, drugs, over boozed or carrying a gun into an establishment where it is prohibited. This apparently is not something that the Illegal Alien population in this country is prepared to do if the "rallies" are any indication.

Currently 1 in 32 Americans either are or have been in jail for something. Quite a large percentage of these Americans are incarcerated for what in the over all scheme of things are rather minor offences- possession and use of illegal drugs in particular. The legalization of marijuana or at the very least the relaxation of some of the drug laws would help ease some of the pressure on our society due to prison over crowding, medical costs which must be absorbed by the respective local, state and federal governments regarding prisoner care, housing, security etc. There are some that would say legalize it all putting most of the drug dealers out of business, tax it, make users register and sign DNR's so that when they OD they are not a burden on society. I'm not so sure that would be such a bad idea considering our experience with the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the passage of the Volstead Act which of course enabled the federal enforcement of the prohibition of alcohol. God bless the 21st Amendment's ratification in Dec. of '33.

Until the laws of this country are changed then those that use, traffic in and are caught with what are presently illegal drugs should expect to be incarcerated and punished under the law. Until the laws of this country are changed then those that come to this country outside of the law should be rounded up and booted as the law requires.

The legalization of marijuana would eliminate an American problem. Yes, a problem with world wide ramifications but an american problem none the less. After 9-11 several guys I know had a saying that went something like "Don't fund terrorism- Smoke home grown". Hey, I don't smoke it any more but it makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand Julio, Hajji, Viktor, Fritz, Charlie Chan and all the other's scrambling across our borders are an external problem that must be dealt with.

In a perfect world Mexico and other nations around the globe would not have the problems that drive their citizens to break US imigration laws. In a somewhat less than perfect world we should build a wall from sea to shining sea on both land borders and all illegal aliens should be run to ground, snatched up and booted out of the country. In a far from perfect world, guard the border physically, electronically and however else we may, register the illegals, charge 'em all 5k (USD), require that they learn the language and hold a job and offer 'em an opportunity to become legal. If they follow the rules let em join the club. If not, boot their sorry asses.

Whatever happens, until the law is changed, enforce the freakin' law!

OK, my rant is over:rant:

My

[towerclimber37]

and it was an eloquent rant!

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi,

In your last post responding to me you wrote, "freedom is not a liberal issue, it is the original conservative issue." This is patently false. Conservativism, as a political ideology within Western Civilization, arose in the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.

Conservatives sought to return Europe to the pre-French Revolution status quo. Men like Metternich (Austria) sought to role back the liberal reforms and ideas of Nationalism spread by Napoleon. In fact, in 1815 the Congress of Vienna met specifically to accomplish these goals.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith were some of the most influential liberal thinkers in the Western tradition. All of these men believed strongly in personal liberty, minimal government intrusion, and personal responsibility. In the mid-nineteenth century, we had Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who penned The Communist Manifesto, which was another permutation of liberal ideology.

I used "extremely liberal" in my last post to appear diplomatic. Because we have chosen to refer to our present 2-party system in the US by using conservative and liberal as synonyms for Republican and Democrat we have diluted the meaning of the words. Both Republicans and Democrats are by definition liberals. Each party can trace its origins back to the liberal political traditions formulated primarily during the European Enlightenment.

I used "redistribution of wealth" to refer to your comments that suggested open borders and to previous comments in this thread, by you and others, that intimated the US should/could "fix" the problems in Mexico or other countries that prompt people to come here illegally.

Liberalism as a political ideology casts a long shadow. We need to understand this and speak accordingly.

You make a good point but misplaced here.

THe terminology of things has changed. What is called a conservative today in America is really more a classical Liberal. What is called a liberal is really closer to socialist. I use the terms as they are commonly understood today.

As to redistribution of wealth, I dont understand, still, how opening borders will result in redistribution of wealth, except from the unproductive to the productive through their own enterprise. And that seems like an admirable redistribution.

As for fixing the problems in Mexico and So.America, it is probably beyond our ability. But that wont stop us from trying, and a good thing too. Bringing transparancy to markets and rule of law will do more to help people in those countries than a thousand aid programs and World Banks. Would be lots cheaper too.

And if we ignore those countries, they will turn to Chavez-style socialism and eventually become a threat to us.

[Guest Len]

Well, now you all have got me thinking about the merits of medicinal pot...

Oh well, once more I wade into the fray...

I find it odd (not surprising, but odd) that a group of staunch pro-2A gun owners would be opposed to the legalization of pot for medicinal uses. Virtually ALL the arguments that we make in defense of the 2A apply to medical pot use. (No proof the law works, no proof the product is bad for you, criminalization only puts the product in the hands of criminals, the product was valuable and necessary in colonial life, many other states allow use of the product, so why not us, etc.)

I say decriminalize, tax the heck out of it, then use the $ to help secure the borders. Kill two proverbial birds (remember, I'm not a hunter, so I don't kill real birds) with one with one big stone made from the finest Mary Jane Mexico has to offer.

Ah the irony, taxing a product often made south of the border to help secure our borders. The symmetry is almost poetic! But then I suppose the WTO would sanction us for import tariffs...

[The Rabbi]

My issue with legalizng marijuana is that if you "tax the hell out of it" you create enormous incentives to cheat. NYC found this out when they taxed the hell out of cigarettes. Enterprising people got vans, drove to NC, loaded up with cartons of cigarettes and drove back to NYC. They sell them there for something like $4 a pack while the "official" price is over $6. It is so bad cops dont even issue tickets for it.

And lets face it, marijuana is a lot easier to grow, process, and distribute than Marlboros.

But otherwise you make good points about deciding policy: is current policy effective? Is the thing itself inherently harmful? What incentives do you create one way or another?

[molonlabetn]

Hypothetical situation...

You own a business, and have a summer job opening to fill, there are 2 candidates, both freshly graduated from high-school:

One is an admitted marijuana-user, the other is clean and would pass a drug test. Otherwise they are equal.

Which one would YOU hire? Would you stake the productivity of your business on someone with an addictive behavior, by choice? I'll buy that there may be no permanent, proven, harmful physical effects of the drug... but that doesn't mean that there are no effects at all.

I agree that there are similar arguments for the freedom to use drugs, alcohol, firearms, etc... All can be used improperly to the detriment of the user, or those around him/her. People should be judged by the choices that they make, and the responsibility which they bear for them.

I should be free to drive 120mph... but if I cause an accident and loss of life or property by doing so, I should be held 100% accountable for that... and should lose the right to drive again.

I should be free to own any type of weapon I choose, and can afford... but if I use it negligently or destructively without cause, I should be held 100% responsible, and lose the right to have access to such weapons again.

Same arguments for anything else one can think of, including drugs, which I personally have no desire to partake in... Alcohol perhaps... But whatever I choose to do cannot be pre-judged and restricted from me without some cause to believe that I am disposed to abusing it.

Illegal alien insurgents are a different matter, they are nationals of another country, and bear no respect for us. The whole purpose for IMMIGRATION is to allow people to become a part of this country, and start a new, prosperous life. These people do not wish to identify themselves as American, that is clear. Why should we give them a pass to break our laws, thumb their nose at our country, and use us like a cheap whore to satisfy their temporary needs until they choose to return with their ill-gotten gains to their home-country? Their existence is not beneficial in any way to any other Americans, in the long run, when they have made no commitment to using their labor to forward the prosperity of this country. This illegal insurgency has become a festering sore upon our society, creating a sub-class amogst us which is no better than slavery. I have no problem with any human bettering themselves, but to allow an entire culture to subvert themselves in this manner is evil. There is a right way to become a part of American society, and there is a right way to temporarily work in this country which does not rob the rest of us. If the proper order had been followed, there would be more room for those who want to do so. As it is, the immigrants who try to come in the right way are delayed, while those who have skipped the line, out of disrespect for us and their own countrymen who have the dignity to follow our laws, are working (literally) against all of us.

[The Rabbi]

So you are opposed to all temporary workers in this country, including Indian and Pakistani engineers working for Microsoft, etc?

They are obviously contributing by working here. That is evident from the fact that they hold jobs. Whether they want to be "Americans" or not is largely irrelevant.

But you bring up another point: we had fewer problems when the borders were even more porous than they are now. In older days, workers could come across and then when they were done could go back home. When crossing became much harder, there was a huge disincentive to return and so they were forced in a sense to settle here.

My solution is to issue anyone who wants to come here a Z visa. The visa should have definite individual identification connected to it, such as fingerprints or other biometric data. The visa should cost at most $100. It should be issuable immediately on application. Anyone holding it could be hired for any job he wants but subject to all the normal taxation. The visa would also allow free passage back to the country of origin (but no other place). Anyone committing a serious crime has his visa revoked and is ineligible for another, in addition to being deported of course.

[dkd83]

Very well stated, molonlabetn. The rule of law has been the premiere hallmark of Western society from the Greco-Roman period. Why would we abandon it now?

In ancient Athens resident aliens could become powerful and productive members of Athenian society but they or their children could NEVER become citizens and Athens was a true democracy.

The problems faced by the later Roman Empire only became more aggravated with the expansion of citizenship to all those living in the confines of the empire. Ironically the Romans did this to increase tax revenues.

If we look to history we can find very similar situations to our current one and if we study these situations we find that devaluation of law and citizenship have only exacerbated the problems.

[molonlabetn]

I never said that I oppose all temporary foreign-national workers.

"There is a right way to become a part of American society, and there is a right way to temporarily work in this country which does not rob the rest of us..."

America is still one of the easiest countries to enter and work in, but there simply needs to be a way to avoid importing dangerous criminals, who are a large portion of those who come here illegally. And, cut off their access to free health-care and other public benefits paid by taxpayers.

[dkd83]

Rabbi,

Why should a Z visa cost less than a US citizen's passport?

I believe molon is opposed to illegal "temporary/permanent workers" not those who went through our system to come here and prosper.

[The Rabbi]

America is a very difficult country to enter, much less work in. I found this out trying to get a visa for a German friend of mine. He had to go to Canada first.

By contrast, if you live in any EU country, you have the ability to move freely to any other country and get a job there. So Germans (with an unemployment rate over 10%) go to Denmark where jobs are much easier to get. And no one complains about loss of national sovereignty either.

As to why a Z-visa should cost less than a US passport, why should it cost more than a US passport? What does the cost of a US passport, a drivers license or a pack of cigarettes have anything to do with it. The cost needs to be low so that people can afford to pay for it easily enough. Otherwise you encourage cheating.

[molonlabetn]

I don't think that becoming a citizen should require any amount of money, other than the cost of getting here, and being self-sufficient. Setting a price simply encourages those who cannot afford it to cheat. I agree with that.

All I want is some accountability with those who come here, they should be screened for communicable diseases, they should have a background/criminal check performed. If those are clear, come on in, work, pay your taxes, and go home when your Visa expires! I have no problem with that.

It is the folks who side-step that process, and unnecessarily endanger those around them to come here to take advantage of the benefits which everyone else has the decency to PAY FOR... and they don't go home, they stay here and breed, raising a new generation of people who have no respect for the people around them. And they have the gall to promote their citizenship of the country which they were so quick to leave, and so reluctant to return to! I don't want to pay for the health-care, unemployment, incarceration, and higher insurance premiums caused by such scum. If they are so determined to remain Mexican citizens, but refuse to support their own country's economy (since we do it for them), I have no pity for them.

[The Rabbi]

Then I dont think we fundamentally disagree.

[dkd83]

I cannot for any reason see why the US would want to model itself after the EU. In a real sense it is the EU that has modeled itself after the US.

We have an immigration process in place that our government and citizens have chosen to ignore until we now have the present problems. Instead of changing a system that has only failed because of a failure to enforce; we should have full enforement of the law as it stands and only then make changes if necessary.

[The Rabbi]

As I pointed out above, we have spent billions of dollars on enforcement and the problem is worse, not better. The defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result this time.

The only way to solve the problem through enforcement alone is to issue national ID cards with biometric info since it is impossible to tell who is legal and who isnt just by looking at them. Couple that with random checks ("papers, please!") at work and other places and voila, effective enforcement.

But I dont want to live in a country like that. I doubt anyone else here does either.

[molonlabetn]

You could say the same thing about any other form of law-enforcement. We spend billions on police, prisons, court systems, etc... But crime still occurs! The solution is not to give up on enforcement, the solution is to untie the hands of those who dispense justice, so they can do more than just haul repeat offenders before a judge, or across a border, with no way to prevent the cycle from repeating.

As long as the crime is worthwhile, there will be those who will risk it.

The solution is to escalate the cost of committing crime above the level which the average criminal can tolerate.

[The Rabbi]

Deterrence depends on two things: how likely is the perpetrator to get caught; and what is likely to happen to him if he does. Drunk driving incidents went way down once states started to step up enforcement and give out serious sentences. It still happens, of course, but less I suspect.

Coming here illegally a person is almost guaranteed NOT to get caught, unless he runs afoul of the system in some way. And if he does get caught, he will merely be deported and will likely start all over again.

So how do you increase the likelihood of his getting caught? I think you can't without subjecting every citizen in this country to unacceptable searches or other infringements on civil liberties.

[Guest dpeneguy]

An Immigration Shipwreck in Sight

by Newt Gingrich

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20815

[molonlabetn]

Deterrence depends on two things: how likely is the perpetrator to get caught; and what is likely to happen to him if he does. Drunk driving incidents went way down once states started to step up enforcement and give out serious sentences. It still happens, of course, but less I suspect.

Coming here illegally a person is almost guaranteed NOT to get caught, unless he runs afoul of the system in some way. And if he does get caught, he will merely be deported and will likely start all over again.

So how do you increase the likelihood of his getting caught? I think you can't without subjecting every citizen in this country to unacceptable searches or other infringements on civil liberties.

All I ask is that the authorities quit this 'catch and release' program of refusing to deal with the hassle of processing many of the illegals which they come across. Unless ICE is actually involved in an operation, the local LEOs more often than not simply let them back out onto the street if they are arrested for some reason. I want to see there be some incentive for every type and position LEO to round these illegals up wherever they turn up. They won't have to do door to door searches, it's simply a matter of actually taking them to jail when caught drunk driving, causing an accident, selling drugs, etc... just like you or I would if we engaged in the same activities. The number of illegals engaged in crime (other than being here) is huge, part because they don't know our laws, and part because they obviously don't care. But, again, all I ask is that once one of these low-life scum makes his/her way into the 'system', that they not, under any circumstances, be released back into American society... whether that means a long period of time in a prison, or immidiate deportation. I'd love to hear about trucking home a few bus-loads every day from each major city. That would be a step in the right direction.

These people already cost the American people several tens of billions of dollars, net, per year... if we spent that on border control and enforcement for a few years instead, it would pay begin to pay off. Simply cut off all social benefits to non-legal residents, and enforce the prevention of employers hiring them. Get sick? Can't work? Tough S**t! ...GO HOME! I WANT it to be bad for them to be here... maybe then they'd get the picture. Obviously appealing to their reason has been futile, so far. go figure...

[Guest jackdog]

The new legislation is 100% BS.

Example. Once an illegal requests is visa the government will have 24 hrs to run a background check.(Hey thats quicker than a carry permit).

They will not be required to pay back taxes, but they will be qualified federal tax benefits.

This is 1986 all over again.

Oh and Rabbi your wrong about enforcement. From 1986 on we have gradually stopped any real enforcement in this country. Guess thats why we have 20 + illegals running around.

The way to end this crap is simple.

No free health care

no section 8 housing

no food stamps

and jail and fine the crap out of employers who give these people jobs.

[Guest jackdog]

for any who are interested.

May 23, 2007

Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law

by Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil., J.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

WebMemo #1468

The most controversial component of the Senate's Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is Title VI, euphemistically entitled "Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status." It would create a new "Z" visa exclusively for illegal aliens. This title would change the status of those who are here illegally to legal, essentially granting amnesty to those "previously in unlawful status." This seriously flawed proposal would undermine the rule of law by granting massive benefits to those who have willfully violated U.S. laws, while denying those benefits to those who have played by the rules and sometimes even to U.S. citizens.

Flawed Provisions

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

1. A Massive Amnesty: Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens. It is also a larger amnesty than that proposed in last year's ill-fated Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Indeed, the Senate's bill imposes no cap on the total number of individuals who could receive Z-visa status.
   To initially qualify for a Z visa, an illegal alien need only have a job (or be the parent, spouse, or child of someone with a job) and provide two documents suggesting that he or she was in the country before January 1, 2007, and has remained in the country since then. A bank statement, pay stub, or similarly forgeable record will do. Also acceptable under the legislation is a sworn affidavit from a non-relative (see Section 601(i)(2)).
   The price of a Z visa is $3,000 for individuals—only slightly more than the going rate to hire a coyote to smuggle a person across the border. A family of five could purchase visas for the bargain price of $5,000—some $20,000 short of the net cost that household is likely to impose on local, state, and federal government each year, according to Heritage Foundation calculations.
   Expect a mass influx unlike anything this country has ever seen once the 12-month period for accepting Z visa applications begins. These provisions are an open invitation for those intent on U.S. residence to sneak in and present two fraudulent pieces of paper indicating that they were here before the beginning of the year.
   That is precisely what happened in the 1986 amnesty, during which Immigration and Naturalization Services discovered 398,000 cases of fraud. Expect the number of fraudulent applications to be at least four times larger this time, given the much larger applicant pool.
   

1. The Permanent "Temporary" Visa: Supporters of the bill call the Z visa a "temporary" visa. However, they neglect to mention that it can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies, according to Section 601(k)(2) of the legislation. This would be the country's first permanent temporary visa. On top of that, it is a "super-visa," allowing the holder to work, attend college, or travel abroad and reenter. These permissible uses are found in Section 602(m).
   A law-abiding alien with a normal nonimmigrant visa would surely desire this privileged status. Unfortunately for him, only illegal aliens can qualify, according Section 601©(1).
   And contrary to popular misconception, illegal aliens need not return to their home countries to apply for the Z visa. That's only necessary if and when an alien decides to adjust from Z visa status to lawful permanent resident ("green card") status under Section 602(a)(1). And even then, it's not really the country of origin; any consulate outside the United States can take applications at its discretion or the direction of the Secretary of State.

1. Hobbled Background Checks: The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist. Unless the government can find a reason not to grant it by the end of the next business day after the alien applies, the alien receives a probationary Z visa (good from the time of approval until six months after the date Z visas begin to be approved, however long that may be) that lets him roam throughout the country and seek employment legally.
   The problem is that there is no single, readily searchable database of all of the dangerous people in the world. While the federal government does have computer databases of known criminals and terrorists, these databases are far from comprehensive. Much of this kind of information exists in paper records that cannot be searched within 24 hours. Other information is maintained by foreign governments.
   The need for effective background checks is real. During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud "The Red" Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center. Using his new legal status after the amnesty, he was able to travel abroad for terrorist training.

1. Amnesty for "Absconders": Title VI's amnesty extends even to fugitives who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge but chose to ignore their removal orders. More than 636,000 absconders are now present in the country, having defied the law twice: once when they broke U.S. immigration laws and again when they ignored the orders of the immigration courts.
   The Senate's bill allows the government to grant Z visas to absconders. Though the bill appears to deny the visa to absconders in Section 601(d)(1)(, Section 601(d)(1)(I) allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials to give an absconder the Z visa anyway if the absconder can demonstrate that departure from the United States "would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent or child."
   This is a massive loophole because so many things can be construed to constitute "extreme hardship." This might include removing a child from an American school and placing him in a school in an impoverished country, or deporting a person with any chronic illness. Attorneys representing aliens would also argue that if any member of an absconder's family is a U.S. citizen, then the other members must remain in the United States, because the separation of family members would constitute extreme hardship.
   This would also be a reward to those who have defied U.S. immigration courts. Those who have successfully fled justice could receive the most generous visa ever created, but those who complied with the law and have waited years to enter legally would have to wait longer still. (Indeed, the massive bureaucratic load caused by processing Z visas would undoubtedly mean longer waits for those who have played by the rules.) Further, those who have obeyed the law and complied with deportation orders would not be eligible for Z visas.
   The effect of this provision may already be felt today. Why would an illegal alien obey a deportation order while this bill is even pending in Congress? If the alien ignores the deportation order, he may be able to qualify for the amnesty; but if he obeys the order, he has no possibility of gaining the amnesty.

1. Reverse Justice: The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.

1. Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws: The bill would transform Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law enforcement agency into an amnesty distribution center. Under Sections 601(h)(1, 5) if an ICE agent apprehends aliens who appear to be eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain them. Instead, ICE must provide them a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. Instead of initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.

1. Amnesty for Gang Members: Under Section 602(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."

1. Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens: The Senate bill incorporates the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). The DREAM Act effectively repeals a 1996 federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623) that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. Ten states are currently defying this federal law. Section 616 would allow these and all other states to offer in-state tuition rates to any illegal alien who obtains the Z visa and attends college.
   The injustice of this provision is obvious. Illegal aliens would receive a taxpayer subsidy worth tens of thousands of dollars and would be treated better than U.S. citizens from out of state, who must pay three to four times as much to attend college. In an era of limited educational resources and rising tuitions, U.S. citizens, not aliens openly violating federal law, should be first in line to receive education subsidies.
   Further, legal aliens who possess an appropriate F, J, or M student visa would not receive this valuable benefit. Nor would they be eligible for the federal student loans that illegal aliens could obtain by this provision.

1. Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens: The Senate's bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens' lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

1. Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers. Proponents of the Senate approach have consistently claimed that it would allow delayed amnesty only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The text of the bill, however, tells a different story. Section 1(a) allows provisional Z visas to be issued immediately after enactment, and Section 601(f)(2) prohibits the federal government from waiting more than 180 days after enactment to begin issuing provisional Z visas.
   These provisional Z visas could be valid for years, depending on when the government begins issuing non-provisional Z visas, according to Section 601(h)(4). Moreover, the "provisional" designation means little. These visas are nearly as good as non-provisional Z visas, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and the ability to exit and reenter the country (with advance permission). These privileges are listed in Section 601(h)(1).

Conclusion

What becomes unmistakably clear from the details of the Senate's bill is that it is not a "compromise" in any meaningful sense. Indeed, the sweeping amnesty provisions of Title VI cripple law enforcement and undermine the rule of law.

Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil, J.D., professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, served as counsel to the U.S. Attorney General in 2001-2003 and was the attorney general's chief adviser on immigration law. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Heritage In Focus

Cost of Low-Skilled Immigrants

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=4AzQDk7vz4g]View Larger Version[/ame]

Recent Heritage Studies

Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law by Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil., J.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

May 23, 2007

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer by Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim

May 22, 2007

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers by Robert E. Rector

May 21, 2007

Contact An Expert

MEDIA INFORMATION LINE:

(202) 675-1761

Fax: 202.544.6979

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Matthew Streit

Senior Media Associate

E-mail

desk: 202.608.6156

cell: 202.439.0271

Aerica Kennedy

International Communications Associate

E-mail

desk: 202.608.6153

cell: 202.439.6175

Elizabeth Fulk

Senior Media Associate

E-mail

desk: 202.608.6157

cell: 202.445.4041

Israel Ortega

Senior Media Associate

E-mail

desk: 202.608.6176

cell: 202.345.9130

Audrey Jones

Media Services Associate

E-mail

desk: 202.608.6159

FOR OP-EDS:

Paul Gallagher

Manager of Editorial Services

E-mail

desk: 202.608.6151

cell: 202.439.6687

Sign up to receive PolicyWire

function checkEmail() { var retVal = true; if (document.frmEmail.email.value.length == 0) { retVal = false; alert('Please enter your e-mail address.'); return false; } if ((emailCheck(document.frmEmail.email.value,"") == false) && (retVal == true)){ document.frmEmail.email.focus(); retVal = false; return false; } if (retVal = true){ return true; }else{ return false; } } #emailsignup {width:300px;border:1px solid black;position:relative;} #emailSignupForm {text-align:center;margin-top:5px;} #emailsignupForm form {margin:5px;} #emailSignupButton {color:#006600;font-size:9px; border: 1px solid; width:30px; border-color: #006600;} Email:

RSS Feeds | Careers | Directions | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Copyright

©2007 The Heritage Foundation General Inquiries: 202.546.4400

Media Relations: 202.675.1761