Notice! Care2 will go offline for site maintenance July 28 at 9pm PST. Thanks
START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
The Gang of Eight Bill’s Big Lie
1 year ago

By Peter Kirsanow, May 27, 2013

Among the many misrepresentations, falsehoods, deceptions, and outright lies told by supporters of the Gang of Eight bill, the biggest involve border security.

Put simply, there is no border security in the bill. It’s a mirage. The bill only requires the DHS secretary to present a plan to secure the border. Meanwhile, the amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants isn’t merely a plan, it’s a reality.

The bill’s various border-security “triggers” are little more than “boob bait for the bubbas,” providing no guarantees whatsoever that any steps will be taken to secure the border. In fact, the enforcement mechanisms are far weaker than the security requirements in previous immigration bills. The border promises to be an even bigger sieve after passage of the bill than before.

Consider: The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated that the DHS secretary “achieve and maintain operational control over the entire land and maritime border of the United States.” The law directed DHS to install 700 miles of double-layer fencing along the 1,930-mile southern border to keep out “terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other terrorism.” By 2011, only 36.3 miles of fencing had been erected, yet President Obama declared that border security is “now basically complete.”

The administration’s contention that 36.3 miles of fencing along a 1,930-mile bolder renders the border secure is bad enough. But under the Gang of Eight bill it gets worse. The bill’s border-security metrics are so nebulous and invest so much discretion in the DHS secretary as to be utterly meaningless. As Senator Ted Cruz told Secretary Janet Napolitano during the April 22 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill, “Madame Secretary, it seems to me that if border security is to be measured by an amorphous, multifactor subjective test, that this Committee knows to a metaphysical certainty that DHS will conclude that border security is satisfied.”

Exactly right.

The bill, after amendments, is now over 1,000 pages long. They could’ve easily reduced it to just a single page with one word: “Amnesty.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/349371

 

1 year ago

Securing the border is going to be the most costly and difficult assignment that the government faces and I don't know how that will be accomplished; it certainly won't be accomplished in a year, two years or even probably five years.  So in the meantime what are we to do with those already here and those that will comtinue to come? 

Do we continue to pay their way and ignore the situation waiting for our demand that the borders be secure before we talk amnesty, etc.?  Or do we implement a program where they come in, register, have criminal checks, get their fingerprints and pictures for future identification purposes, and give them a work visa whereby we are then able to collect taxes on their earnings, have them paying into social security and all other taxes including health care and medicare and at least have something to help with the expense of their being here?

I guess that is the real question.  No on denys that we need to secure the borders, that is a priority.  There does need to be a concrete plant for this.  But having lived in a state that borders Canada, I can tell you that there are areas that are impossible to secure but yet would afford someone who wants to enter the US bad enough, a means to do so.  There is no possible way to patrol the entire border of Canada, either.  

Now we can use drones and kill those trying to cross the border if that is what people would want; but a drone is not going to stop them unless we use it that way.  We can't patrol the entire border at any given time; some of it we can't patrol at all (speaking of the US/Mexican border as well just as much).  

I guess that I don't see it as amnesty in the true sense that Obama wants.  He would just grandfather them in and leave it there.  At least the Bill has provisions for them to get employment, stay working, limiting the amount of time they can have the work permit before they either return to their own country and apply for citizenship.  To me that is not the same as open amnesty at all.  

Further, without this sort of incentive there is very little chance of rounding up the illegals and sending them home.  That is largely due to the fact that those that are employing them are not going to bother to enforce this as they already know that Immigrations officials are not going to be coming around and policing it.  It took a safety inspector to find out that 2 of the Hispanic workers where I was working had expired Green Cards and then only one of them actually returned to Mexico as required,  The other one was still there and still is; and he was told he had to return in 2006.  So, if they can't enforce the restrictions on green cards, how do we think they will return the illegals.


I wish there was an answer and the fact that those of us can't come up with a suggestion tells me that we need to be a little more kind to the Congressmen/women that are dealing with this as it is not going to be easy and then they are also having to deal with Obama which makes it that much worse.  

We might not come up with a solution, but we sure can put the word out and pressure on our Congressmen/women, the GOP and DNC and Supreme Court to get Obama under control.

Does anyone realize that he has successfully used Amnesty and Same-Sex Marriage to sway attention away from the scandals?  So why are we letting him do that?  A few more months of leaving those two items on the table would not have mattered; dealing with the scandals is the first step toward solving all the other issues; we have to do something about those things, too.

I am not mening to be the devil's advocate here; I do share the same frustration.  Borders do need to be under better control at least.  We are not going to get help from the Mexican government, so it is all on us.  Does anyone have any suggestions?  I do think that the use of the Military is a possibility; these people are coming home, getting out of the military and finding jobs very hard to obtain unless they want to work at Walmart.  So, why not encourage them to stay in the military and put them to border patrol to help the Immigration services and our civilian law enforcement.  That is just one possibility I would think. 

1 year ago

I was born & grew up in Buffalo, NY, directly on the Canadian border, and family in Michigan near the border and have driven in Canada, so I am very familiar with it, too, & the vast amount of border that is unguarded.  While there have been problems with terrorists crossing the border (e.g. Lackawanna 6), the majority of our problems lie south of the border.  I'm developing a severe lack of confidence in anything promising being accomplished by the gang of eight.   There is no plan to secure the border, only promises of doing it in the future.  Is it expensive?  Yes and it is expensive not to.  Will it keep all illegals out whether fences are used, border security, etc., of course not, but it needs to be greatly improved upon over what we have now.   I also think self-deportation is another way of approaching the problem and take away all the freebies.  Amnesty without first controlling the border (even if it takes a few years) is necessary.   Otherwise, it's more of the same. "Thank you" gang of 8. Here comes the Dream Act.

1 year ago

Sandra: The Eight Gangsters, the Demagogue Party, the RINOs that run the GOP, many business groups, and a host of left leaning groups like LaRaza have no desire to close the southern border or in any way deter illegal immigration. Nor do they want to address issues like a visa tracking system, internal border enforcement (look at all the criminal illegals that were released because of the "sequester"), and lackadaisical enforcement of the E-verify system. This is the administration that can spy on citizens, hassle groups they don't like using the IRS and other agencies, gather medical records via force, spy on farmers and ranchers via drones, use SWAT type teams to collect Indonesian wood from guitar makers or collect student loans for ex-husbands, create all kinds of databases of info on citizens for a variety of phony reasons, and demand tons of info to enforce ObamaCare but can't track terror suspects going and coming even when tipped off by other governments or informants, doesn't have a clue that something may be wrong if 2400 "taxpayers" at one address are getting $46 million in refunds or others seem to have 30 kids for tax credits. Controlling illegal immigration will be like controlling ObamaPhone or Medicare fraud, a huge joke! Ya gotta remember what Smucky Schumer said that this is the new "civil rights movement" like "gay rights" has been. Forget Constitutional rights like religious freedom via the 1st Amendment, gun ownership via the 2nd Amendment, or freedom from government intrusion on you personal business via the 4th Amendment, government granted "civil rights" for special interests are the new American "rights". NO TO AMNESTY period! Been there, done that, and it failed! The Gangsters are a pack of eight liars and four fools on the GOP side.

1 year ago

"...AMNESTY... Been there, done that, and it failed!"

Worked well for Reagan, didn't it?!

Kris Kobach on his record: My immigration efforts work
1 year ago
June 30, By KRIS KOBACH, a  Republican, is Kansas’ secretary of state. Special to The Star

The Star recently printed a column by Steve Rose that attacked me personally. It was a nasty column even by Rose’s standards. He called me “stupid,” “dangerous,” “mean spirited,” and “a simmering pot of hostility,” among other things.

While Rose’s column was long on emotional name-calling, it was short on facts. [ Rose’s column @ http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/22/4306439/kris-kobach-so-smart-and-so-very.html ]

Rose claimed that the state and local laws that I have drafted to stop illegal immigration “have often been struck down” in court.

Of course he didn’t mention any court decisions to back up his claim.

In fact, those laws have done remarkably well in court. The current score is 2 wins — 0 losses — 2 draws. (A case is not “won” or “lost” until all appeals are finished.)

 

1 year ago

The two wins were Arizona’s 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, which the Supreme Court upheld (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 2011), and the Valley Park, Mo., ordinance that prohibited employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld (Gray v. Valley Park, 2009).

Both laws took a tough stand against the employment of unauthorized aliens, and both survived every argument that the ACLU could throw at them.

The two “draws” were cases in which some parts of the law were upheld, and other parts were struck down.

The first was Arizona’s SB 1070 (U.S. v. Arizona, 2012). The Supreme Court upheld the central provision, which required police to contact federal immigration authorities when they apprehend illegal aliens in the course of enforcing other laws.

That was the core of the law — and the provision that attracted so much opposition from the open-borders crowd.

The minor provisions that the court struck down received hardly a mention in the media.

The other draw involved Alabama’s HB 56 (U.S. v. Alabama, 2012). In that case, which went to the Eleventh Circuit, the majority of the law was upheld. Only a few provisions were struck down.

Rose also declared that the policy of attrition through enforcement, sometimes called self-deportation, is “highly impractical, even absurd.”

Did Rose offer any evidence? Of course not.

Attrition through enforcement is simply the policy of increasing the enforcement of existing immigration laws and thereby encouraging aliens to obey the law. When it becomes harder to work illegally in America, many illegal aliens leave on their own.

There is empirical proof that it works.

During 2008-2011, the national illegal alien population decreased 1 percent, according to Center for Immigration Studies analyst Steve Camarota, using numbers from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. However, in Arizona, where massive state and county enforcement efforts were underway, the illegal alien population decreased 36 percent over the same period.

It has also been proven to work on the federal level. After Sept. 11, 2001, while serving at the Department of Justice, I designed the national entry-exit program to track aliens from terrorist-associated countries.

During 2002-03, those extra enforcement efforts induced about 15,000 illegal aliens from Pakistan to leave America on their own. Not surprisingly, when the law is vigorously enforced, people change their behavior.

The bottom line is that enforcing the law works when it is actually tried.

Rose can call me names as much as he wants. But he is not entitled to skimp on facts.


http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/30/4319723/my-immigration-efforts-work.html

1 year ago

KUdos to you, Sandra.  You do know what you are speaking about.

I'm not familiar with Star, but he is like most other "butt head" leftist journalist - they need to look in the mirror.

1 year ago

I agree with you Sandra, this is the prelude to Dream Act. 

This country cannot financially sustain this amnesty.

Also, the GOP is getting duped by the democrats.

 

If the republicans don't run a real conservative team in 2016, then this country is going to continue the same path as Obama has designed.

 

Jeb Bush or Rubio are progressives and they will just do same thing as democrats but not as fast and not large scale.  It is voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

why can't we vote for the right reasons, to restore America and live by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of rights and make sure the citizenry is safeguarded in these rights.

 

A strong conservative candidate who is smart is needed; not a phoney and that will be a rerun of more people sitting home and not voting.

 

Look at MA senate race, no one came out to vote and the democratic machine won.

Gomez was the lesser of two evils but he lost to the environmentalist who used fear in this campaign.

 

If Gomez was more of a true conservative, he would have got more people voting for him.

Instead, many sat home and the inevitable happened.

 

This is just another example of running weak candidates. 

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.