UPDATE: Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform
This thing needs to be killed.
See: Immigration Bill Stumbling Before Finish Line
I thought the "terrorists" would have killed it, but....
"Ala. senator calls legislation for immigration ‘dangerous’
Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who may be the most determined and energetic opponent of an immigration overhaul bill now before the Senate, said Friday that the legislation is ‘‘dangerous’’ for US workers, and he vowed to offer amendments in coming weeks to ‘‘confront the fundamentals of the bill’’ and slow its progress.
He is absolutely, 100% right. The bill is designed to replace them with cheaper foreign labor.
On a conference call with reporters, Sessions made it clear that he hopes to reprise the leading role he played in 2007, when he helped rally popular resistance that defeated a similarly sweeping immigration bill by President George W. Bush.
The senator warned that the bill would bring ‘‘explosive growth’’ in immigration, providing work authorization and legal status to more than 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years. Sessions said it would also ‘‘drastically increase low-skill chain migration.’’
Yeah, well, we know what this is all about.
He pointed to a fast-track, five-year path to citizenship in the legislation for more than 2 million young immigrants brought here without authorization as children, who call themselves Dreamers. Sessions said that after they gained permanent legal status, those immigrants would be able to bring any of their family members, adding as many as 2 million more immigrants in future years.
So the family provisions are still in effect despite the economic focus?
--more--"
The agenda-pu$hing upside:
"Debating the upside of amnesty for immigrants; Questions over whether benefits outweigh costs" by Nelson D. Schwartz | New York Times, May 06, 2013
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. — Nearly 20 years after he arrived penniless from Mexico, Moises owns two restaurants, with a third on the way. He has five employees, an American wife, and a stepdaughter. His food has a following on Yelp.com.
What Moises does not have is US citizenship, or even a green card permitting him to reside legally in the United States. So he inhabits an economic netherworld, shuttling between his establishments on the bus and train because he cannot get a driver’s license and making do without bank loans or credit cards even as he files for zoning permits and incorporation papers.
Also see: LA to Issue ID Cards to Illegal Immigrants
$ee who wants it and why?
The estimated 11 million immigrants here illegally are often portrayed as dishwashers, farmhands, gardeners, and other low-paid workers. But increasingly they are also business owners and employers. That’s why economists say opening the door to entrepreneurs like Moises, as well as others with talents and skills, could give the US economy a much-needed shot in the arm.
Yeah, now the illegals are going to save the economy. How f***ing shamele$$.
The most prominent feature of the proposed immigration bill introduced by a bipartisan group of senators last month would provide residents of the United States who overstayed their visas or arrived illegally before Dec. 31, 2011, a path to citizenship, one that would probably take more than a decade to complete.
Is it the most prominent feature, or is that just my ma$$ media telling me that?
But less noticed is that the legislation would offer such residents much more immediate provisional status, enabling them to work and travel legally.
Even less noticed are all the new job visas and new work programs.
That would make it easier for immigrants here illegally to open businesses, buy homes and cars, and negotiate raises.
I guess there is nothing wrong with "illegal" anymore.
While there is considerable debate about whether increased immigration depresses wages on the low end of the pay scale, most experts say allowing more new immigrants and offering a more secure legal footing for workers who are currently in the country illegally would bring the nation broad economic gains.
There is no debate. It's a fact.
‘‘We need more legal immigration,’’ said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an economist at the conservative Manhattan Institute. ‘‘Additional human capital results in more growth.’’
This is becoming hurtful.
Lawrence F. Katz, a more liberal Harvard professor of economics who is among those who say that immigration can push down pay for workers directly competing with new immigrants, nevertheless supports the argument that a freer flow of people from other nations would foster growth. ‘‘No doubt some individuals are harmed,’’ he said, ‘‘but the benefits outweigh the costs.’’
But some conservative skeptics see a steep price in a broad amnesty, from increased social services and entitlements.
And not just in social services (at a time when Americans are seeing theirs cut in the name of austerity. Un-f***ing-believable). The goal is to REPLACE AMERICAN WORKERS with cheaper, non-complaining foreign labor.
The pluses and minuses are evident in Port Chester, a working-class village of 29,000 about 30 miles north of Midtown Manhattan that shares a border with affluent Greenwich, Conn.
Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, have transformed downtown Port Chester, which fell on hard times in the 1980s and ’90s. Today, 59 percent of the population is of Hispanic origin, said Christopher Gomez, director of planning and development. Between 1990 and 2010, Port Chester’s population jumped 17 percent.
The immigrant influx, he added, has become the lifeblood of the town.
In other words, it's been taken over by illegals.
Mexican and Peruvian restaurants dot the streets. Immigrant-owned stores offer goods from Ecuador and services like money transfers.
Money transfers?
That means MONEY LEAVING the American economy, and yet the corporate agenda-pu$hers in the paper say that is a GOOD THING!
The predominance of Spanish-speaking customers has forced older businesses to adapt. Chris Rubeo, owner of Feinsod Hardware, hired Spanish-speaking workers to help him compete with a nearby Home Depot and lure Hispanic contractors and builders.
I used to be one who didn't care; now I say English should be the official language of the United States.
Even as Moises has prospered, the influx of cheap labor has depressed wages among certain types of workers.
Well, there is supposed to be "debate" about that.
That benefits business owners, giving them plenty of people to hire. But it underscores research by Katz and other economists that shows increased immigration can reduce wages slightly for some native-born workers, especially lower-skilled ones.
Tran$lation: This government that serves corporations and the wealthy elite, but claims to love and protect you, doesn't give a f*** about you, average American.
There are other side effects: Port Chester’s schools are overcrowded, and longtime residents complain that houses are occupied by many more residents than zoning laws permit. And with one resident in 10 below the poverty line, social services have felt a strain.
And more tax money has to be poured into teaching english language skills.
Still, at street level, the economic impact of the immigrant wave has largely been positive.
Yeah, let's go out and get an anecdote from the $treet.
Immigrant-owned restaurants have drawn patrons from wealthier areas, and more upscale options like Mario Batali’s Tarry Lodge have moved into the community. Several new real estate developments aimed at affluent renters have opened or are in development; at the Mariner, rents for a one-bedroom exceed $2,000 a month.
--more--"
There are not any questions at all:
"Group’s report sets off immigration bill squabble; Heritage asserts it would cost US $6.3 trillion" by Erica Werner | Associated Press, May 07, 2013
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan Senate immigration bill would cost the government a net $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years to provide benefits for millions of people now living in the United States illegally, the Heritage Foundation said in a report Monday, setting off a fierce dispute with fellow conservatives who attacked the study as flawed and political.
The Heritage study said immigrants granted new legal status under the bill would eat up more than $9 trillion in health, education, retirement, and other benefits over their lifetime, while contributing only around $3 trillion in taxes.
I don't doubt it.
Republicans and conservative groups who support the bill quickly countered that the study failed to measure broader economic benefits from an immigration overhaul, including a more robust workforce that would boost the gross domestic product.
They don't mean you, American.
‘‘The Heritage Foundation document is a political document; it’s not a very serious analysis,’’ said Haley Barbour, former governor of Mississippi and a Republican who is part of a task force with the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center that supports the bill. ‘‘This study is designed to try to scare conservative Republicans into thinking the cost here is going to be so gigantic that you can’t possibly be for it.’’
This will be instructive. This will tell you which Repuglicans are truly in corporate pockets.
Jim DeMint, former senator and Republican of South Carolina, the Heritage Foundation’s new president, dismissed such criticism.
‘‘It’s clear a number of people in Washington who might benefit from an amnesty, as well as a number of people in Congress, do not want to consider the costs,’’ DeMint said. ‘‘No sensible thinking person could read this study and conclude that over 50 years that it could possibly have a positive economic impact.’’
He's right.
The brouhaha developed as both sides prepare for the landmark bill to undergo its first tests later this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin voting on amendments Thursday.
It underscored the high political stakes for supporters and opponents, as each jockeyed to define the legislation. And it laid bare splits within the Republican Party, where business-oriented leaders such as Barbour and antitax activist Grover Norquist are pushing for immigration reform, while more ideologically focused lawmakers and groups are voicing increasingly loud opposition.
Well, there you go. Good old Grover nothing but a corporate $hill.
The Heritage report was a reprisal of a study the group released at the height of the last congressional debate on immigration, in 2007, which said the bill being considered then would have cost $2.6 trillion. That figure, too, was disputed, but it carried weight with Republicans and helped lead to the legislation’s eventual defeat in the Senate.
That and the 90+ percent phone calls against.
This time, supporters of the bill are determined not to let opponents wrest control of the debate. Anticipating Heritage’s release of its new report, bill supporters responded quickly with conference calls and talking points criticizing its methodology and the foundation’s agenda.
The Heritage authors acknowledged their report does not attempt to offer a comprehensive analysis of the entire 844-page immigration bill, which would boost border security, change legal immigration and worker programs, require all employers to check their workers’ legal status, and offer eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally.
Notice the MINIMIZATION of all the NEW WORK VISA PROGRAMS and the forced unemployment of American workers?
Btw, anyone actually going to read the thing?
Instead, the Heritage study focused almost exclusively on the added costs the government would incur in providing benefits to immigrants here illegally once they gain legal status. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, health care, welfare, public education, and services like police and fire protection, highways, and parks.
The study said an average adult now living in the United States illegally would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over a lifetime than he or she would pay in taxes.
‘‘It becomes extraordinarily expensive,’’ the lead author, Robert Rector, said at a news conference near the Capitol.
Costs are higher for this bill than the last one in 2007, Rector said, partly because government spending has grown more generous.
Heritage is not the only conservative voice opposing the bill. A number of lawmakers led by Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, have also been working to defeat it.
Some talk radio hosts, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, have begun to voice deep unease despite the efforts of the bill’s conservative standard bearer, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, to sell the legislation to them and other conservative opinion leaders. Talk radio was instrumental to the bill’s defeat in 2007.
Oh, now it was talk radio and not the 90+ percent of Americans that opposed it.
Meanwhile, supporters have assembled a wide and diverse coalition in support of the bill.
Several groups in that coalition criticized the Heritage report’s assertions Monday, including an assumption that most newly legalized immigrants would remain in households that consume more government benefits than they pay in taxes, discounting the possibility that many would become upwardly mobile, move into higher tax brackets, pay more in taxes, and use fewer services.
At the same time you are downwardly mobile, American.
--more--"
But it will boost Social Security, or so my agenda-pu$hing paper tells me:
"Immigration bill may boost Social Security, study finds" by Erica Werner | Associated Press, May 09, 2013
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan immigration bill pending in the Senate would strengthen the Social Security trust fund by adding millions of workers to tax rolls and provide a boost to the overall economy, according to an analysis Wednesday by the Social Security Administration.
I'm sick of $elf-$erving government studies.
The finding came in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who requested the analysis, from Stephen C. Gross, chief actuary for the agency.
It could provide a boost for the immigration bill, which has been attacked by some conservatives as overly costly, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to take up the legislation for amendments and votes beginning Thursday.
What that sentence is telling you is this thing is LOSING STEAM because people KNOW WHAT IS IN IT!
Meanwhile, a separate dispute loomed as religious leaders warned that adding a gay rights provision to the immigration legislation could cost their support.
You guys NEVER STOP PUSHING, do you?
Gross’s analysis said the immigration bill would boost Social Security’s coffers by more than $240 billion over the coming decade and add $64 billion in new tax revenues to Medicare. It also would increase the size of the economy by a full percentage point by 2017, and increase employment....
For who?
--more--"
Yeah, insourcing cheap foreign labor is going to save Social Security.
Related: U.S. Government Stole Social Security Surplus
See why Social Security needs saving? That must be what the SWAT teams are for.
"Changes to bill on migrants blocked" May 10, 2013
WASHINGTON — The bipartisan coalition behind a contentious overhaul of immigration laws stuck together on a critical early series of test votes Thursday, turning back challenges from conservative critics as the Senate Judiciary Committee refined legislation to secure the borders and grant eventual citizenship to millions living in the United States illegally.
In a cavernous room packed with lobbyists and immigration activists, the panel rejected numerous moves to impose tougher conditions on border security before immigrants who entered the country illegally could take the first steps along a new path to citizenship.
Then this really is all about replacing American workers.
Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — part of a bipartisan group that helped draft the measure — joined all 10 Democrats in blocking the changes. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who has yet to announce a position on the overall legislation, opposed one and supported the others.
Assuming the core political alignment remains intact, the committee is expected to approve the measure within two weeks and clear the way for an epic showdown on the Senate floor in June.
White House aides watched from the sidelines as the committee began its work on a bill that President Obama has made a top priority.
Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who helped draft the bill, said it would ‘‘change our policy so that the people who are needed to help our economy grow can come into this country, and at the same time we will note that when families are divided the humane thing to do is bring those families back together. Because we so dramatically stop the flow of illegal immigration, we can do both. And we do, and do it fairly.’’
So the family focus stays as well, huh?
Let's just hope they don't have a terrorist brother like in Boston.
Republican critics made no claim they can defeat the bill in committee and concentrated instead on casting doubt on assertions that it will secure the US -Mexican border before it allows immigrants illegally in the United States to take their first steps toward legal status.
‘‘The triggers in the bill that kick off legalization are weak,’’ said Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, referring to a series of requirements that must be met before immigrants who are in the country illegally can apply for legal status. ‘‘No one can dispute that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later.’’
Otherwise known as AMNESTY!
--more--"
