Illegal alien immigrant, just trying to follow the example of our Congress critters and a President who's apparently fallen off the wagon. Judging from the continuously revised text being developed in the back alleys of the U.S. Senate, their method of dealing with the matter is to merely use different words. Oh to be sure, they will spend probably 1,000 pages (currently near 400) making it look like they're doing much more than that.
But even before a final text is available to Congress, let alone the public, we have disturbing changes from the original proposal.
The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said.
An independent analyst estimated the decision could cost the IRS tens of billions of dollars.
A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes. (source Thanks to HotAir)
Too difficult to figure out? And we're supposed to believe that our border security will be enhanced when the following is proposed:
(1) IN GENERAL —An alien who files application for Z-nonimmigrant status shall, upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs (f) and (g) and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks, to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible
(A) be granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application;
B) may in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to re-enter the United States pursuant to existing regulations governing advance parole;
(C) may not be detained for immigration purposes, determined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alient is determined to be ineligible for Z nonimmigration status; and
(D) may not be considered an unauthorized alien (as defined in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3))) unless employment authorization under subparagraph (A) is denied.
As Mark Steyn notes at the Corner:
Is that This-background-check-will-self-destruct-in-24-hours clause for real? If the entire "undocumented" population of, say, Falls Church, Virginia wanders into the local immigration office at 4pm on Monday, the clerks have got till 5pm on Tuesday to find anything on the guys or they've got no choice but to issue the Z visa? For the agency that takes the best part of a decade to process nanny applications and which sent Mohammed Atta his visa six months after he'd died, this is, to say the least, a massive cultural change.
So it's going to be too difficult to determine who owes back taxes, but our already over burdened system will find bad guys in 24 hours? I really need an eyeroll emoticon right now or one with gritting teeth and hair pulling.
Don't be fooled by the claim that security benchmarks will have to be reached before this nonsense is triggered. The "benchmarks" have nothing to do with demonstrating actual results in reducing the number of illegal border crossings. Heck, we've only built 2 miles of the 700 mile fence passed by Congress in 2006.
Mark Steyn covers the foolishness more here:
Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty -- if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.
Be sure to read it all. It would be quite hilarious if it were not for the fact that politicians are actually serious about this.
In various past conversations, I've defended the President, to some extent, for trying to at least do something to change the current system, noting the political difficulty and complexity in doing so. Unfortunately temper tantrums, thrown at the GOP in the last Congressional election, have only delivered a Congress that seems hell bent on delivering a disaster for this country, to a President much too eager to sign, something, anything, that can be spun as a positive.
Sorry, he and the GOP lost me on this one. What's the point in voting Republican when all they do is add meaningless language to an amnesty program?
Even Captain Ed, who has counseled being realistic:
As CQ readers know, I stressed the importance of keeping an open mind about the new immigration-reform compromise. With a minority in Congress and a legalization advocate in the White House, we would be lucky to get something that included any kind of border security at all.
is having second thoughts as details emerge.
These problems amount to deal-killers, in my opinion. I'm on board conceptually, but this compromise needs a lot of work and amending in the Senate. National security requires that we find a solution as quickly as possible, but we need to peruse every single clause in this bill to make sure it matches the description given to the American public last Thursday. So far, it appears to fall short.
Be sure to follow his links to Hugh Hewitt who is examining the language of the draft very closely in multiple posts on the issue.
This will certainly have serious, negative and well deserved repercussions for the GOP at the next elections. Until then, Ace has an excellent Action Alert to make our voices heard:
Every Republican who considers this a sell-out should, within the next week (the quicker the better) change his party affiliation from "Republican" to anything else.
I would participate in this, if years ago, I had not registered as an independent. It would appear my youthful cynicism was rather prescient. Ace has details and links at his post to help people work this out as well as follow-up in more recent posts.
Here's a litmus test. I will not vote for any Presidential candidate that supports this bill. I don't care if Hillary! or any other Democrat gets in. It's obviously only a difference in some ineffective wording, inserted into bills, on matters of incredible importance to the nation.
Considering how important I view judicial nominations and getting Scalia types on the U.S. Supreme court, and include this in my calculations as to what I will tolerate on other issues, in the short term, the GOP should consider how far they've drifted (gleefully run?) from what many voters can tolerate.
If they want to destroy the chance for Republican majorities in government offices throughout the country, for many years, just push this crap legislation through.
Filed under: NewsPolitics
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Stageleft, , stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Colloquium, , Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.