What part of the new immigration bill sounds most controversial?
Answer:
Where do we start?
Reneging on the 700 miles of fence overwhelmingly passed and signed into law before the last elections?
Not even making the visa exit tracking system Homeland Security is STILL trying to put off one of the triggers?
Bringing in new temporary workers to overstay on top of a system nowhere designed to stop the current illegal immigration of a million or more per year already?
Saying they have a point system but having family ties give points?
Or the amnesty of millions, even millions more than last year's ill fated Senate bill proposed, without more than lip service to stopping the problem?
And heck, I haven't even read the bill yet. I'm sure that in its 700 pages there will be a lot to hate, given this promising start.
It's ridiculous! They say that they are not offering amnesty, but there is no other way to explain it. Geez, what's next? Why don't we just offer up the US as a "come and get it" piece of land and have a free for all.
One word Amnesty. If they are here illegally they should be sent home.
The worst thing is that Illegal aliens will be made legal and allowed to vote. Many do not even speak the language, how can they possibly make an educated choice at the polls. Also, it is bad policy to reward people that break the law. What about all the people waiting on the list to come here legally? Is it fair that the illegals will be put ahead of them in line just because they chose not to break the law.
All of it.First of all, these people are POOR.Where are they going to cough up $5,000? Secondly, once they do, then they have to leave the country? And then return..How can they afford to do this? Even for an ordinary citizen, coughing $5,000 and leaving the country would be close to impossible.They would leave, loose their jobs, I mean its ridiculous..Its not going to solve any immigrations problems, illegals will continue living in the shadows..True amnesty means PARDON.This is why we have an immigration problem..This govt. refuses to see the real issues and find real solutions.
The fact that our elected representatives are screwing the country instead of upholding the law like they should have been. The Dept. of Immigration should be fired.
Amnesty-war,end of subject.
Angela,if they are so poor then why do they pay coyotes to help them across the border?????? If you are concernerned about poor why dont you take a look at AFRICA?
head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee
100%? The U.S. Government has been telling us for over 20 years that it can't deport millions of illegal immigrants. The 1986 Amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants resulted in a 400-600% increase in illegal immigration to the present-day 12-20 million illegals. That means that the government had no intention of enforcing the 1986 laws that it passed. Therefore, how can we even remotely believe that the government will be able or will even try to enforce this law if it is passed? If they couldn't or wouldn't enforce the law then, why would they do anything other than pay lip service to enforcement now? And how are you going to deal with all the illegals who don't "come out of the shadows" and register? Does the government truly believe that these people want to be legal citizens? Boy are they misguided. And what happens when we hit the 12 million mark and there are still millions of illegals who haven't registered? How will the law be enforced? Will the government require identifications from everyone? Will the sanctuary cities still continue to harbor illegals? What is the moratorium period that will be given to the illegals to register? I'll just tell you. From the sounds of it, I think U.S. Citizens should get together and declare their cities and counties sanctuary cities for U.S. Citizens, build walls around them and guard the entry and issue special stickers and tags for entry and then secede from the United States. Our government is not loyal to the citizens. It's loyalties appear to be toward illegal immigrants and their supporters. How long before the government comes into our Sanctuary city and starts mowing down U.S. Citizens while allowing the Illegal Sanctuaries to continue in operation?
It appears that the illegal immigrant population has taken over the U.S. Government. Therefore, I hereby renounce my citizenship and declare myself a Native American -- I am, you know. I was born and raised in the USA as were my parents and my grandparents. I think I'll buy up land and establish a Native American Reservation that will require a treaty for the government to have any authority on it.
That it isn't amnesty.
It set the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill-level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine and returning to their home countries - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Kennedy earlier described Thursday as "D-Day" in the talks, saying it was likely the last chance for a compromise before senators scattered for a three-day weekend.
If no deal had emerged, Senate Democrats were to vote Monday evening to bring up an immigration measure that passed last year over the objections of most Republicans, who have said they will block it. That would be a highly partisan start to the immigration debate, which divides the two parties and exposes fissures within their ranks.
Note: Which is what they didn't want but still may happen if Americans write their senators and congressmen/women to tell them enough.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_in...
To continue article -
Even with the bipartisan agreement, the immigration debate could easily devolve into a free-for-all in the unruly Senate.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he wants to complete a bill before Memorial Day, and President Bush says he wants to sign one by summer's end.
Note - All the government does anymore is reward illegals, and criminals with no real plans to stop it. Besides Congress has no legal right to grant amnesty or asylum to any illegals. That is State by State option. So I don't know why you and the others think that Congress can legally pass such laws regarding this issue. And anchor babies are just a fable being spread through ignorance.
Congress Has No Jurisdiction Over Immigration or Asylum.
The US Constitution Only Delegates the Power Over Immigration or Asylum to the States.
When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
Answer: United States never did adopt it as it was practiced under common law, and instead, abandoned common law practice of jus solis.
After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like perpetual bondage (no citizen or subject could renounce their allegiance, i.e., expatriate), and was considered both a dirty phrase and offensive. To say America freely adopted common law rule of jus soli would be like suggesting America adopted Nazism after WWII.
Under jus soli, there was no personal choice. Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the nation in advance because the mere act of birth upon British soil conferred allegiance itself, no matter to who. Under common law, dual allegiance could easily be forced upon a child, something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.
Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
http://federalistblog.us/
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'
another example - Howard did not say virtue of "common law," but virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father.
Which is why Howard is singling out persons who are foreigners and aliens, and also persons who belong to "families of ambassadors" or "foreign ministers"? As we will soon see by further comments of Howard, only those who enjoy the same jurisdiction as citizens of the United States are the class of persons for whom he is speaking.
Here Sen. Kelly lays out exactly what our national law was on the subject of citizenship by birth and clearly removes all doubt to exactly what the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause means.
Sen. Howard left no doubt what the clause meant in 1868: "The Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country."
By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.
http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthri...
For all Americans against this proposal - write your state senators and congressmen/women.
The medicine information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.