1
   

The leaking southern border.

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2005 08:20 pm
au1929 wrote:
Baldimo

Don't quit your day job. :wink:


You really think I shouldn't. Shocked

I was just getting ready to hit the road and come to a club bear you! Razz
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 04:50 pm
Senate opens door to alien amnesty
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 1, 2005


WASHINGTON -- The Senate is bracing for its first fight over amnesty for illegal immigrants in nearly 10 years after the chamber's parliamentarian ruled that a debate over granting legal status to illegal agriculture workers will be allowed on the pending emergency spending bill.

The $81 billion spending bill covers costs associated with the war on terror, and the House already passed a version with provisions restricting asylum claims and cracking down on illegal immigrants' ability to use driver's licenses. The parliamentarian said those provisions open the door for Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, to offer as an amendment his bill, commonly called "Ag-jobs," to legalize the 500,000 to 1 million illegal immigrants now working in the agriculture industry.

"With the parliamentarian's approval it's looking more and more likely we'll offer Ag-jobs as an amendment," Craig spokesman Sidney Smith said. "That decision isn't set in concrete, but it's starting to shape up that way."

The spending bill will be before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, though Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Craig offers his amendment, it will be during the floor debate. But Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, chairman of the Judiciary immigration subcommittee, is opposed to the bill and says it will not pass.

"Not if Senator Cornyn has anything to do with it," spokesman Don Stewart said of the bill's chances. "Ag-jobs is an amnesty bill, and the president's not going to sign it. Second of all, it's not a comprehensive [immigration] bill, and it would slow momentum for getting a comprehensive bill."

The measure would allow any agricultural worker who is in the United States illegally and who has worked 100 days out of a year, during the 18 months prior to Jan. 1, 2005, to gain legal status.

"We want to stabilize the current agriculture work force -- workers who are trusted, who are already on the job, who are already putting food on our tables," said Damon Tobias, Mr. Craig's legislative aide on immigration. "We think it makes more sense to allow them to earn legal status than to try to replace a large part of the agriculture work force."

Although there have been votes on security issues, and the Senate recently passed a nonbinding amendment to the budget to add 2,000 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2006, Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, said Mr. Craig's amendment would be the first broad fight over illegal immigration in some time.

"The Senate has not had any real roll-call votes on whether to get tough on or reward illegal aliens since 1996, so this will be a defining moment," said Mr. Beck, whose group lobbies for stricter immigration controls. "A lot of these senators' constituents don't really know whether they favor illegal immigrants or oppose illegal immigrants."

Both congressional aides and lobbying sources said the Bush administration would prefer to see a comprehensive bill pass rather than Mr. Craig's bill, and Mr. Cornyn has begun a series of hearings aimed at producing such a broad bill later this year -- something Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, also would have preferred.

"Our preference would be to have this debate on some other vehicle, but if there's going to be a debate on immigration, we want all aspects of the debate to be included," spokesman Bob Stevenson said.

Mr. Craig's office says his bill isn't amnesty. "It's not; it's rehabilitation," Mr. Tobias said.

He said the bill would apply to 500,000 workers and another 200,000 to 300,000 spouses and children. Opponents say it would apply to 1 million workers and 2 million spouses and children.

Mr. Craig's measure, which achieved 62 co-sponsors in the last Congress, has only 43 this year.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, had signed on, but has since withdrawn his name as a sponsor. His spokesman said the real question was why his name was ever part of the measure. "He was never a sponsor this year. It was mistake on somebody's part," said Adam Elggren, though he could not say what changed from last year, when Mr. Hatch also was listed as a sponsor.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 05:04 pm
There was an article in yesterday's paper about the citizens of Arizona are going to protect their borders, because the INS is failing to do the job.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 05:08 pm
C.I.
Not failing but rather not given the wherewithall to do the job. The US can of course solve the problem by giving all Mexicans US citizenship. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 05:11 pm
Hmmmm, I guess that's one solution. Who's going to pay for the extra load in our schools and hospitals?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 05:13 pm
Give till it hurts.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:26 am
The New York Times has an interesting piece of trivia that will surprise the rejective side of the immigration debate: Because illegal aliens pay payroll taxes without being eligible to Social Security benefits, they are subsidizing the Social Security system to the tune of seven billion dollars a year.

Quote:
April 5, 2005
Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions
By EDUARDO PORTER

STOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.

Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide "the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security."

Source
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:57 am
Thomas,

Weaving tales like this is a constant ocupation of such "analysts'. Certainly to the extent that illegal immigrants pay their payroll taxes they may be subsidizing others. That, of course assumes they don't qualify for benefits before returning to Mexico or wherever. The fact is many do qualify, and do so with the minimum 5 year contribution (and collect benefits when they return home). Moreover they and their dependents are indeed eligible for most such benefits even while they are illegally here. Very hard to make a serious case that there is a net subsidey here.

More important though, is their contribution to the 'underground' or untaxed economy. I would guess that more than 75% of the income earned by illegals is unreported and untaxed. This is certainly true in the construction and agriculture industries.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:07 am
gb:-

It's the least you can do seeing as how much land and gold you stole off the poor defenceless creatures.

What was that malaprop stuff about.I got the "ground" bit but what about the skating.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:37 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Very hard to make a serious case that there is a net subsidey here.

It is. Notice that I didn't make this case. As you note in the beginning, it is easy to create political soundbites by selectively reporting some entries in the balance sheet but not others. Because both sides do it, they keep talking past each other and never get to the question that really matters: Whether the phenomenon in question is a net asset or a net liability. In the case of Mexican immigrants (legal or not), this question is easy to answer. To a first approximation, it's a wash for indigenous Americans; every income earned by a Mexican in the US takes a living away from indigenous Americans, and every income spent by a Mexican in the US crates a living (of equal dollar worth) for indigenous Americans. However true, this is boring, so the full balance sheet never gets reported in one piece. The reason I posted a link to this article is that it reports an entry from the non-scary side of the balance sheet, a side that generally is sadly underreported because people like to read scary better than reading good news.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:39 am
spendius wrote:
gb:-

It's the least you can do seeing as how much land and gold you stole off the poor defenceless creatures.

What was that malaprop stuff about.I got the "ground" bit but what about the skating.


Well, you were right about the land grab. There was little but greed to justify our 1846 war with Mexico. (Interestingly a large percent of the soldiers in the army we landed in Vera Cruz to retrace Cortez' route to Mexico City, were Irish immigrants, just off the boat, as we say. Many were surprised to find themselves fighting fellow Catholics and deserted in large numbers. They formed battalions in the Mexican army known to the Mexicans as 'San Patricios'. Our policy was to hang them if they were captured, and about fifty of them were lined up and hung at the moment the Mexican flag fell on the hill of Chipaultapec.)

An old Midwest (American) saying, "Your'e skating on thin ice". 'Ground here implies, soil. Other of his 'immortal' phrases included, "That's water under the dam", and "Two wrongs don't walk together". Funny we almost always knew what he meant.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 11:28 am
They may be here "illegally," but their children are naturalized citizens by being born here. They have all the previlidges of any American citizen including schooling and health care. What gets my goat is the fact that illegals can get medical care in this country, but many middle-class Americans cannot.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 02:58 pm
Mexican Migrants to Avoid Civilian Patrols

By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ
Associated Press Writer





AGUA PRIETA, Mexico (AP) -- The number of Mexican migrants trying to sneak into the United States through the Arizona border has dropped by half since hundreds of American civilians began guarding the area earlier this week, say Mexican officials assigned to protect their citizens.

But that doesn't mean the migrants have given up. Most remain determined to enter the United States and say they will simply find other places to cross.

Before Minuteman Project volunteers began patrolling, Mexican officials encountered at least 400 undocumented migrants daily. On Monday, the second day Minutemen were present, they spotted just 198, said Bertha de la Rosa of Grupo Beta, a Mexican government-sponsored group that discourages people from crossing illegally and aids those stranded in the desert.

"The fact that we're not seeing them here doesn't mean they are not trying to cross," said de la Rosa, the group's coordinator in Agua Prieta, a town across the border from Douglas, Ariz. "They say they will look for another place or wait awhile - but they are not giving up."

Continued

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_US_BORDER_VOLUNTEERS?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 03:59 pm
Quote:
Illegal entry by non-Mexicans rises

Those coming from Brazil, Central America, and 'countries of concern' could hit 150,000 this year.

By Kris Axtman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

HOUSTON – After decades of attempting to dam the flow of Mexican immigrants crossing into the United States illegally, federal agents say a new crisis is emerging along the southern border and they are helpless to stop it. Non-Mexicans are spilling over the border in record numbers - some from countries with terrorist ties - and most are set free soon after being captured.
Already this year, the number of non-Mexican apprehensions has far outpaced last year's total in just eight months. And while they are still a relatively small percentage compared with the number of illegal Mexicans, critics say the federal government's policy in dealing with them is far more dangerous.

Because OTMs, or "Other Than Mexicans" as the Border Patrol classifies them, must be returned to their country of origin, they cannot be simply sent back across the southern border, as most Mexicans are. Under US law, they must be detained (in the US) pending a deportation hearing. The problem is, immigration detention centers are packed, so most OTMs are given a court summons and told to return in three months. A full 85 percent don't.According to the Border Patrol, some 465,000 OTMs have taken advantage of this "catch and release" policy to settle here in the US. "It's an insane policy which encourages OTMs to come into the country illegally, and we shouldn't be shocked that they are coming in record numbers," says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents more than 9,000 agents.

In fact, he says, after crossing the border, many OTMs flag down agents or walk up to them and surrender, knowing they will be released. "The word is out," says Mr. Bonner. "They know that as soon as they are caught, they will be free to roam at will."

In a hearing in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security earlier this month, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said his agency has apprehended 919,000 illegal immigrants so far this year - 119,000 of whom were OTMs.

That puts the agency on pace to hit 150,000 such apprehensions by the end of the fiscal year, almost triple last year's high-water mark of 65,000 OTM apprehensions. In fiscal 2003, the numbers were around 40,000, and in 2002 and 2001, around 30,000 each.

"We should be greatly concerned because OTMs do not register, their travel documents are suspect, and they have no biometric records that can be checked to verify identity," remarked the appropriations subcommittee's chairman, Harold Rogers (R) of Kentucky.

Most are from Brazil and Central America, but Mr. Aguilar reported that last year 644 came from "countries of concern."

What's most disturbing, say immigration experts, is that the increase in OTM apprehensions comes on the heels of the US war on terror.

"We are not protecting Americans against the next terrorist attack," says Michael Cutler, a former special agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. "There are so many holes in the system."

He points to the OTM loophole as one example. Another is the Visa Waiver Program, which allows residents from 28 countries, including Canada, to enter the US without getting a visa in their home country.

Mr. Cutler believes everyone entering the US, no matter what their country, should have to obtain a visa that documents personal information, the purpose of the visit, and contact information once they arrive. Shoe bomber Richard Reid, for instance, was born and raised in London and boarded a plane for the US with only a passport.
"We are all fixated on his shoes, and now passengers are required to take off their shoes, yet nobody wants to deal with the issue of how he was able to enter the country in the first place," says Cutler.

Other critics say the guest-worker proposal, which is being touted as a way to know who is here, ultimately leaves the door open for document fraud and illegal entry. In the end, says Cutler, "the number of OTMs coming in is a barometer of how effective we are at deterring illegal immigration."

To help combat the increase in non-Mexican crossings, two US cities have been participating in a pilot initiative, known as the "expedited removal" program.

Border Patrol agents in Laredo, Texas, and Tucson, Ariz., are able to make decisions without the help of immigration judges in deciding whether a person has a valid case to fight deportation. And agents in the Rio Grande Valley sector, where the majority of OTMs cross, are being trained in the program.

Still, even under the expedited process, agents are finding a familiar problem: There is nowhere to house the immigrants while they wait to be deported.

Border-state politicians have been clamoring for years for more funding for detention centers, and some worry that if apprehended Mexicans began requesting immigration hearings instead of taking "voluntary departures," the problem would become even more dire.

Already, says former INS agent Bonner, the recent surge in OTM apprehensions is tying up precious time and manpower along the border. In some areas, like the Rio Grande Valley, some 75 percent of the sector's resources are devoted to dealing with the problem.

Border Patrol agents, he says, know that most OTMs have no intention of returning for the court hearing - and that is incredibly frustrating for them. "It's more than a little demoralizing," he says. "They feel like social workers. They are not enforcing the law; they are simply enabling people to break it - and that goes against the grain of any law enforcement officer[/B]."
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 04:18 pm
Exposing our boarders to terrorist and selling the country out is no match for cheap labour. Besides the working class flips the bill and competes for lower wages. Washington won't confront this. they know what side there bread is buttered
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 04:23 pm
It makes a farce out of homeland security.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 04:33 pm
You might want to ask your junior Senator from NY why she voted against amendments to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would have paid for more border agents and more detention beds in fiscal 2006.

Remember that Washington Post story that quoted her as saying she was "adamantly against illegal immigrants"? That was in December, 2004.

Just last month she made a speech to a group of Hispanics, promising them that she'll work hard to support measures guaranteeing high-school students (illegal aliens) free college tuition as well as amnesty to some 65,000 illegal immigrant students who graduate from U.S. high schools each year.

Yep, that's your junior Senator from NY.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 04:44 pm
I am not a revolutionary, but I think mojor reforms need to happen before there is one. The people need to take the lid off of Washington and say "What the f**k is going on in here." Bush called the right wing group "minutemen" vigilantes. The leader of the group said all he wanted to do is bring attention to unchecked emigration. They would just as soon see the situation become a bloody mess then fix it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 05:05 pm
JustWonders

You are side stepping the issue. The responsibility for the control of our borders is not the Jr. senator's from NY. It lies with the administration. You know your pal in the white house [when he is not on vacation] Any comment in that regard?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 06:09 pm
"It makes a farce out of homeland security."

What homeland security? There's a director of homeland security, and there's a president responsible for homeland security, but homeland security is an oxymoron.

You know the security checks at the airport? They are a waste of time and money, and the real effort should be put into Homeland Security. This administration's first name is "incompetence."

When 90 percent of the bulk shipments to this country is not even checked for WMDs and other conventional weapons, checkijng people at the airport is just plain stupid.

When illegal immigrants come through our borders by the thousands every year, checking people at the airpot is just plain stupid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 06:13:24