KEEPING THE FAITH - In The News
June 27, 2007
UPDATE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM
- AMNESTY BILL
AND
U.S. SUPREME COURT SIDES
WITH FREE SPEECH
Today, the U. S. Senate voted to revive debate on the
so-called immigration reform bill. The vote was 64-35.
Both Georgia Senator’s Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson
voted against cloture, which was the correct vote. If only 41 Senators had
voted against cloture, the bill would have died in the Senate.
The amendments to the bill will now be considered and the
final version, if it passes the Senate, will go to the House for
consideration. There is a (very) remote possibility the bill, in its final
version, will not pass the Senate.
According to
NewsMax.com, President Bush upon hearing of
this “success,” said “We’ve got a couple of days of hard work ahead of us to
get the bill through the first stage of the process. And then, of course,
when it’s successful in the Senate, we’ll be reconvening to figure out how
to get the bill out of the House.”
Senators Chambliss and Isakson have both offered
amendments. A brief description of each:
Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
To ensure that Congress plays a greater oversight role
with respect to totalization agreements and to protect our Social Security
system, the Chambliss Amendment No. 1318 will ensure that totalization
agreements only go into effect after explicit approval from both the House
and the Senate. The measure also requires the Social Security Administration
to provide regular reports to Congress that examine both the original
projected cost and the actual cost of all totalization agreements. The
Chambliss Amendment is identical to the Social Security Totalization
Agreement Reform Act (STAR, S. 43).
Key details:
Requires the President to notify the House of
Representative and the Senate of the intention to enter into a totalization
agreement at least 90 calendar days in advance and publish notice of intent
in the Federal Register.
Requires the President to transmit to the House of
Representatives and the Senate the legal text of the totalization agreement
and a report which includes: (1) an estimate of the effect of the
totalization agreement on Social Security receipts and disbursements in both
the long and short-term; (2) an evaluation of the integrity of retirement
and records of the other country that is subject to the agreement; and (3)
an assessment of the ability of the other country’s ability to track and
monitor recipients of benefits under the agreement.
Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
Senator Isakson’s amendment puts federal preemption
language into the bill to say that whatever employee verification that
Congress puts in place preempts employee verification programs on the state
level. States are passing their own employee verification laws because the
federal government has no uniform standard. For companies that operate in
all 50 states, this results in those companies having to comply with lots of
different employee verification programs. The preemption language would
ensure that companies would have to comply with the federal program.
The amendment also seeks to address a concern companies such as Home Depot
and other companies have been facing in which a local government requires a
business -- as a condition of receiving a business-oriented permit -- to
build and maintain a shelter for day laborers on their property. In some
cases, Home Depot has been required to build a shelter with restrooms and
air conditioning. One city went so far as to tell the company that it had to
contribute money to the city to provide English classes for day laborers.
Senator Isakson believes these requirements represent an unwarranted
interference by the government with the rights of businesses to use and
operate their property. He also feels it is wrong for local governments to
force businesses to solve the day laborer problem. In addition to these
requirements being very costly, there is no protection from liability for
the company that has to build the shelter on its property.
If you want to read any of these amendments in their entirety go to
http://thomas.loc.gov and put in the bill number number.
Other amendments to be debated are as follows:
Democrat Amendments
- Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual
cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
- Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
- Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s]
to REAL ID.
- Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that
have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these
companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would
not be reduced by these lay-offs.
- Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to
obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund
border and interior enforcement.
- Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family
points in merit system
- Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can
be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific
job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
- McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal
contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat
violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
- Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to
apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
- Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been
persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs,
scholarship, or identity.
- Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social
security cards
- Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y
workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
- Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department
of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has
become a U.S. citizen
- Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal
aliens granted amnesty]
- Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies
that prevent public officials ¬ including police and health and safety
workers (except for emergency medical assistance)¬from inquiring about
the immigration status of those they serve if there is a probable cause
to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
- Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
- Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for
current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship
status
- Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
- Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces
Title III on employer enforcement
- Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the touchback
requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it
currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying
for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to
touchback
- Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from
[being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
- Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for
overstays
To read more about what the bill will do to our country if
passed, click on the links below.
White House Report Hides the Real Costs of Amnesty and
Low Skill Immigration
- The Heritage Foundation; June 26, 2007
The Senate Immigration Bill: A National Security
Nightmare
- The Heritage Foundation; June 19, 2007
*****
U. S. SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH FREE SPEECH
Yesterday, the U. S. Supreme Court overturned one of the more egregious
parts of the McCain-Feingold bill. By a vote of 5-4, the Court decided that
it was unconstitutional to deny advocacy groups from running issue ads prior
to an election.
In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) planned to run
several ads encouraging their two U. S. Senators to oppose the filibustering
of federal judicial nominees. Under the McCain-Feingold bill, aka
“Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, those ads were considered
“electioneering communications.” WRTL filed suit and argued that, to the
extent that McCain-Feingold applied to such ads, the law unconstitutionally
limited their free speech.
Upon hearing of the Court’s decision presidential
candidate Senator John McCain (one of the authors of the bill) reportedly
said it is “regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow
exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to
target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election.”
But he said the decision “does not affect the principal
provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal
officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to
spend on their campaigns,” and said the law will still help “put an end to
the corruption bred by soft money.”
Really? Wonder if he has talked to George Soros with
MoveOn.org about “putting an end to the corruption bred by soft
money?
Thank you for Keeping The
Faith.
Sadie Fields
