It's now a civil rights issue!!!!

[okie52]

Democrats Pressure Boehner to Permit Immigration Vote
Sunday, 23 Jun 2013 07:47 PM

Washington may again be the site of massive civil-rights rallies, this time pressuring the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives to approve a pathway to U.S. citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, a key Democrat said on Sunday.
With the Senate set to approve its White House-backed bill this week, Senator Charles Schumer, an author of a bipartisan bill that would allow about 11 million immigrants to eventually become U.S. citizens, said he expects House Speaker John Boehner will soon have "no choice," but to let pass a Democratic-backed immigration bill.

However, if Boehner tries to bottle up a bill that includes eventual citizenship, Schumer said, "I could envision in the late summer or early fall ... a million people on the mall in Washington," demanding action.

"This has the potential of becoming the next major civil rights movement," Schumer told CNN's "State of the Union," conjuring up memories of rallies in the 1960s that resulted in landmark anti-discrimination and voting rights legislation for African Americans. Schumer is the third ranking Democrat in the Senate.

Boehner's Republican Party has said it needs to support comprehensive immigration reform to make the party more attractive to Hispanics, the fastest growing U.S. voting bloc.

Yet Boehner, facing pressure from many of the House's most conservative members, said last week that he would not bring any immigration bill up for a vote unless most Republicans back it.

A Senate test vote is set for Monday, with passage of the bill expected on Thursday.

Strong bipartisan Senate support was assured last week when a $40 billion deal was reached to double to about 40,000 the number of federal agents on the U.S.-Mexican border, and obtain a crush of additional high-tech surveillance equipment, including planes, drones and radar.

Up to 70 or more of the 100 senators are expected to vote for the bill, including all 52 Democrats, both independents and perhaps 16 or so of the 46 Republicans, according to aides for both parties.

HASTERT RULE

Rep. Joaquín Castro said Sunday that if Bowehner goes through with the so-called Hastert rule, which requires the majority vote of the House's majority to approve a bill rather than a simple majority, it will kill the bill.

"That means that 25 percent of the body can control 100 percent of the agenda and the legislation," said The Texas Democrat, appearing on ABC's "This Week."

While some insiders say Boehner wants the immigration legislation to receive bipartisan consideration, others say he is well aware of the future political impact of passing the bill without a majority of Republican votes.

Castro said Sunday that a 70-vote majority in the Senate would be "certainly a precondition" for the bill's passage in the House.

"It's got to pass with strong momentum in the Senate to have a chance in the House," said the Texas lawmaker. "“Nothing really original I think is going to originate in the House of Representatives. So that's really a precondition. If it does that, I actually think it has a good choice. I still believe that we can pass it in 2013.”

Immigration reform got more momentum in the Senate this past week after an amendment to toughen the nation's borders was negotiated by Republican Sens. Bob Corker, Tennessee and John Hoeven, of North Dakota.

Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, also appearing on "This Week," urged fellow lawmakers to consider carefully before endorsing immigration overhaul, reports The Hill.

"I don't understand the rush," Kelly said. "We saw what happened in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Any time you rush anything through that big -- this was up to 1,100 pages -- I doubt that anybody's really read it and been able to really get through every -- every piece of it."

© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.



An illegal's civil rights...Dem thinking is really amazing at times.

[rock on sooner]

I read someplace there is another procedure available to force
a vote on a bill...a majority of the House members can sign a
petition requesting a bill be voted on and the Speaker has to
schedule a vote...so if 218 members sign it the bill has to be
voted on.

The House reminds me of a bunch of children...everyone has
a different idea about what to do and can't agree on any thing.
Right or wrong, at least the Senate is doing something...a first
in Washington in a long time.....

[okie52]

Oh each chamber is fully capable of stupidity...the dem house in 2009 passed cap and trade and thank God the dem senate never voted on it.

From my perspective Boehner is doing what I want him to do. I obviously don't want this bill to pass but if it is going to pass it would really ridiculous for the pubs to not try to get "equal credit" (discredit in my view) for the passage of the bill so they can sell that deluded thinking to hispanics.

But rockon...civil rights issue now??? I mean how really stupid and laughable is that argument?

[okie52]

Schumer: Immigration Bill Still Lacks Crucial 70 Votes
Friday, 21 Jun 2013 08:15 PM
By Todd Beamon

Even though the "Gang of 8" senators have reached a deal on border security in their sweeping immigration bill, they still lack the 70 votes needed to approve the legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer said on Friday.

“We’re not there yet,” the New York Democrat said on the Senate floor, The Hill reports. “We’re climbing each day, but we’re not there yet. But I think we will get there.”

The legislation, which among other things doubles the length of fencing to 700 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, was endorsed by two more Republicans, Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota.

The bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators proposed the sweeping reform legislation in April. Republican members of the group include Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — both of whom believe the bill can attract 70 votes.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Schumer’s 70-vote goal was unrealistic. The Nevada Democrat said Schumer was the only one who thought it was possible.

“No one, no one [of] 100 senators; no one other than the senator from New York thought we could get 70 votes,” Reid said, according to the Hill. “I doubted he could get 70 votes. He knows I doubted that. No one in this body thought we could get 68, 72 votes except him.”

The Senate will vote next Thursday to end debate on the legislation, with the vote on final passage likely to occur later that day, the Hill reports.


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



This magical 70 senate votes is somehow supposed to shame the house pubs into voting for a bad bill? Much more shameful for any senate pub that shows a yes vote.

[rock on sooner]

Oh, I think that argument...civil rights issue...makes as much
sense as bringing a knife to an advertised gun fight and chose
not to even comment on it. Schumer can go off half cocked on
occasion...

[okie52]

For some strange reason I kind of like Schumer...even though we would often be on different sides. Can't explain it...

[rock on sooner]

Well, Schumer is no nonsense, tell it like he sees it and
usually a clearer thinker than to say the immigration bill
is going to become a civil rights issue similar to the 1960's
activity. If memory serves, the African Americans were
bonafide citizens wanting equal rights.

[okie52]

Well, Schumer is no nonsense, tell it like he sees it and
usually a clearer thinker than to say the immigration bill
is going to become a civil rights issue similar to the 1960's
activity. If memory serves, the African Americans were
bonafide citizens wanting equal rights.

Yep, that bonafide citizenship should seem to be a necessary distinction on civil rights...

[okie52]

Sen. Sessions warns Senate poised to vote on immigration bill 'no one has read'
Published June 24, 2013
FoxNews.com


Key Senate vote in battle over immigration reform...
A top Senate Republican sounded the alarm ahead of a major test vote on Monday that could clear the way for passage of a sweeping immigration overhaul, saying the chamber is about to vote on a bill "no one has read."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who for months has been fighting against the bill, accused the Senate of rushing to vote on the legislation amid a late push to modify it. At issue is a border security amendment being touted by supporters as a bipartisan compromise that could attract a large majority.
But Sessions accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of cramming the amendment into the rest of the "1,200-page" bill with the goal of advancing the legislation late Monday afternoon.
"The Majority Leader's motion will stifle amendments and accelerate the vote on final passage before anyone has vetted the modified legislation," Sessions said in a statement.
Tensions were high ahead of the vote, which is technically on the amendment itself. Reid needs to gather at least 60 votes to advance toward final passage, possibly before the holiday recess. Some conservative Republicans acknowledged the bill is likely to pass the Senate, but warned that the House is another matter.
"It's dead on arrival in the House," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on Sunday.
But the sponsors behind the border security amendment -- Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and John Hoeven, R-N.D. -- staunchly defended their effort ahead of Monday's vote.

"I've seen reports of a '1,200 page bill' no one has read or had time to read," Corker said in a statement, presumably in response to Sessions. "To be clear, the tough border and interior enforcement provisions that Sen. Hoeven and I offered on Friday make up 119 pages added to the 1,100 pages that have been public since May."
His office said the proposal would require an "unprecedented surge of security" on the border.

President Obama is also hosting a meeting Monday at the White House with eight CEOs, business owners and entrepreneurs to discuss immigration reform, and to push for support of the bill among the business community.

Obama is expected to emphasize a report released by the Congressional Budget Office last week that said the bill would increase the real GDP by up to 3.3 percent in 2023, and by 5.4 percent in 2033.
The group of senators that crafted the legislation is trying to get 70 votes to show the bill has widespread bipartisan support in the Democrat-controlled chamber and to give it momentum as it heads into the Republican-controlled House with a more uncertain future.

Last week, senators proposed the so-called Border Surge amendment, which included 70,000 additional U.S. border agents and 700 more miles of border fencing, to garner support from lawmakers who said the influx of illegal immigrants remains a problem and to put added political pressure on House conservatives.

But some conservative groups were skeptical. The Heritage Foundation on Monday warned that the amendment would allow illegal immigrants to "receive amnesty now," with the possibility of more border security "somewhere down the road."

Paul told CNN's "State of the Union" that lawmakers in the House "think border security has to come first before you get immigration reform."
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer -- a Democratic member of the bipartisan, so-called Gang of Eight that crafted the legislation -- also predicted the bill will get 70 votes and would "change the dynamic in the House."

Schumer told CNN the bipartisan support for the legislation that should result in the 70 votes also will put "huge pressure" on House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, not to block immigration reform.
If the bill passed the Senate, Boehner will be faced with honoring the will of the majority of House Republicans who don't appear to want to pass the legislation or honoring the majority of the chamber -- some Republicans and some Democrats -- that appears to want at least a full floor vote.

He also must consider what message blocking the legislation will send to Hispanic voters, who gave President Obama roughly 70 percent of their vote in the 2012 election.
Still, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah said passing the roughly 1,200-page bill is a mistake. He continues to argue that Congress should take a more step-by-step approach, starting with further securing the U.S.-Mexico border.

"It could take years to implement the border-security measures," he said.
Lee said the lawmakers crafted the bill with the "best intentions" but failed.
"They said it is tough and fair, but it's neither," he said.

The bill would provide a years-long path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S.
Lee was joined on Fox News by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Gang of Eight.
"We are very, very close," Graham said. "The amendment gets us over the top."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/24/sen-sessions-warns-senate-poised-to-vote-on-immigration-bill-no-one-has-read/#ixzz2X9GF6ewx.

Pass a bill and then read it...where have we heard that before?

[KantoSooner]

Civil rights exist even for undocumented/illegals in this country. But I don't believe they extend to the 'right' to be granted citizenship. I think we'd draw a lot of the emotion out of this issue by creating ways for the illegals to become legal residents, but not necessarily grant a 'pathway' to citizenship.

[okie52]

human rights maybe...but I don't think civil rights is applicable:


civil right-a legal right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress, including the right to legal and social and economic equality.

[okie52]

Immigration Bill Allows Napolitano to Veto New Fence Building
Monday, 24 Jun 2013 11:56 AM
By Jim Meyers

Supporters of the new immigration reform legislation now in the Senate tout the bill's call for the construction of 700 more miles of fencing along the United States' Southern border.

But a provision in the bill actually allows Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano or her successors to decide not to build the fencing at any location if she "determines" not to do so.

A paragraph in the bill states: "Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a strategy, to be known as the 'Southern Border Fencing Strategy,' to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing), infrastructure, and technology, including at ports of entry, should be deployed along the Southern border."

However, the bill also states in regard to that paragraph: "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location."

That means that illegal aliens would be granted legalized "Registered Provisional Immigration" status once Napolitano submits a fencing plan to Congress, even though she can subsequently choose not to put the fencing plan into full effect.

In an email to Newsmax, Rep. Ted Cruz declared: "This legislation makes the same mistake of the 1986 amnesty — legalization today for the false promise of border security tomorrow."

The Texas Republican also states: "It will encourage more illegal immigration and must be stopped."


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Lets see...Napolitano already defunded the fence in 2010 but we can rely on her to take care of the border this time.

[okie52]

Janet Napolitano halts funding for virtual border fence
The virtual border fence was supposed to revolutionize US-Mexico border security. But delays and glitches led Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to freeze its funding Wednesday.


By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer / March 17, 2010

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0317/Janet-Napolitano-halts-funding-for-virtual-border-fence

[KantoSooner]

human rights maybe...but I don't think civil rights is applicable:

i think your definition is overly narrow. We accord to persons present in our country a whole raft of 'rights'. But those do not include any 'right' to become a citizen. Call them what you may, they are legally enforceable. But, again, none of them include a 'right' to become a citizen.

[KantoSooner]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0317/Janet-Napolitano-halts-funding-for-virtual-border-fence

Careful what you wish for. The so-called 'virtual' fence has been an enormous boondoggle from the get go. We're better off with good, old agents on the ground.

And reduced chances for illegals to find employment here.

[okie52]

Not my definition...just one I got from the internet. We accord people rights as human beings but I would think "civil rights" would be limited to those rights conferred by the constitution to the citizens of the US.

[okie52]

Careful what you wish for. The so-called 'virtual' fence has been an enormous boondoggle from the get go. We're better off with good, old agents on the ground.

And reduced chances for illegals to find employment here.

It's not the fence itself that disturbs me although you would think by the ballyhoo accorded to some pubs the fence was an enormous breakthrough. What disturbs me is anything left to the discretion of Napolitano or any future DHS or executive administration regarding the enforcement of border security. Napolitano/Obama have chosen to disregard enforcement of just about any immigration law...in fact, Napolitano has stated the border is secure...NOW. That is why the border security element is so toothless in this bill...pathway NOW...border security LATER at the discretion of the DHS and/or executive office.

We're better off with landmines on the border and shoot to kill orders for our agents...a whole lot cheaper/more effective and wouldn't require near the expense that we are contemplating now...but that isn't going to happen so you would hope that we would require every administration to really SECURE THE BORDER...not at their DISCRETION.

[KantoSooner]

The ballyhoo was, I'm being cynical here, not unrelated to the price tag and the joy of the defense contractors who were lining up the contracts to design, build and operate it. Many billions of dollars were seemingly going to poured into the trough.

On the discretion issue, I hear you, but when you talk about 'really secure the border', you're simply substituting your judgement for someone else's. Hermetic closure of the border is simply impossible. First, because there are legal folks who will need to continue moving back and forth. Second, because even the East Germans couldn't absolutely seal their border. So, it'll be a judgement call for whoever is making that decision. And the very worst people are going to be the ones whose movement will be the last to be curtailed.

Again, if we can starve the market of jobs for the illegals, we'll shut off the vast majority of migrants and we'll be able to focus more attention on the serious bad actors. As I've said earlier, we need to implement whatever can be implemented now and then implement other items as soon as possible. I think everify could go into effect in a matter of months. We can increase border patrol almost immediately, I would think. We can also speed up ICE visa and immigration considerations almost immediately, as well. (they are dragging their feet because they don't agree with the laws as written now. There is no way it takes multiple years to background check a child or teenager.) Other items, like determining the individual cases of all 11 million folks here already? That'll take time. Building a 700 mile wall extension? That'll take time, too. Not saying we shouldn't start figuring out how we're going to do it and getting things rolliing; but, for example delaying Everify until after a wall is completed would be juvenile in the extreme.

[okie52]

I've already seen past presidents "border security" from Carter through Obama and it has never existed. I can't just point at dems on that issue...pub presidents certainly have their share of the blame which is why the American public must insist on verifiable border security. It shouldn't be a matter of my judgement or anyone else's...it should be a fact.

No reason to delay everify. I believe it is either 4-5 years for full implementation of everify. The 1st year or 2 will be for the larger businesses and then the latter years will be for small business owners. I see no reason to take 5 years. But, there shouldn't be a rush for legal residency, either, when there is not border security. If there is real border security then even those that would manage to slip through the border would have little hope of finding a job.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Civil rights exist even for undocumented/illegals in this country. But I don't believe they extend to the 'right' to be granted citizenship. I think we'd draw a lot of the emotion out of this issue by creating ways for the illegals to become legal residents, but not necessarily grant a 'pathway' to citizenship.We could just open the borders and have the government employees who work with Border Patrol and Customs find other jobs in government, or just put them on retirement pensions.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Lets see...Napolitano already defunded the fence in 2010 but we can rely on her to take care of the border this time.She's an expert on border stuff.

[okie52]

Don't know why anyone wouldn't trust her.

[5thYearSooner]

If this bill passes, its a practical joke on legal immigrant prospects waiting for their turn..I feel bad for Indian/Chinese prospects with advanced degrees from US universities who are being exploited by corporations in the name of h1b visa system.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Don't know why anyone wouldn't trust her.Her level of experience. She's been running Homeland Security under Obeary, and was democrat governor of AZ during the Si se puedes marches in '06, prior to democrats taking over the US congress, as well as winning reelection as governor down here during the first decade of this century.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If this bill passes, its a practical joke on legal immigrant prospects waiting for their turn..I feel bad for Indian/Chinese prospects with advanced degrees from US universities who are being exploited by corporations in the name of h1b visa system.After the new amnesty bill passes, it's entirely possible you will be thinking less about the poor talented US immigrant citizen wannabes than you do now.

[cleller]

My son-in-law mentioned his dad was once caught putting some invitations in a neighbor's mailbox by the mailman, and got a stern lecture on how that is illegal, a Federal Offense. Mr Dad immediately apologized, and ceased the practice.

See the irony?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

My son-in-law mentioned his dad was once caught putting some invitations in a neighbor's mailbox by the mailman, and got a stern lecture on how that is illegal, a Federal Offense. Mr Dad immediately apologized, and ceased the practice.

See the irony?

Was the mailman an illegal alien?

[cleller]

Was the mailman an illegal alien?

It was more along the lines of the stigma against the sanctity or the mailbox being greater than the sanctity of the border.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It was more along the lines of the stigma against the sanctity or the mailbox being greater than the sanctity of the border.

Come on cleller, 400,000 are deported each year. How many are convicted for breaking the cutting-out-the-middle-man mailbox rule?

[okie52]

Can you deport citizens juan?

[cleller]

Come on cleller, 400,000 are deported each year. How many are convicted for breaking the cutting-out-the-middle-man mailbox rule?

When people are told to stop violating the mailbox rule, they stop, and don't argue the point.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

If this bill passes, its a practical joke on legal immigrant prospects waiting for their turn..I feel bad for Indian/Chinese prospects with advanced degrees from US universities who are being exploited by corporations in the name of h1b visa system.

The backlog is cleared under the senate bill. Their waiting will lessen.


Also, how does the h1b visa system exploit Indian/Chinese prospects?

[okie52]

Rand Paul to Newsmax: Senate Immigration Bill 'DOA' in House
Tuesday, 25 Jun 2013 06:14 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter

The Senate's immigration reform legislation is "dead on arrival" in the Republican-controlled House, Sen. Ran Paul declares. "It has no chance."

The Kentucky Republican said on Sunday he wouldn’t support the immigration bill because it doesn’t do enough to address border security.

He tells Newsmax TV: "I've met with the conservatives in the House. They agree with me that border security should come first and any kind of immigration reform should be dependent on border security happening first.

"I had an amendment that would have done that.

"Also, Congress should decide when the border's secure, not the president. It's a huge mistake to let this president, or for that matter any president, decide when the border's secure.

"Congress should look into it. We look at it and we vote that it's secure before we do the immigration reform."

.

One can only hope...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

There's been revisionist history on Reagan's amnesty. There was never anything about border security mandated by law in order for illegal aliens to get green cards.

This senate bill, however, mandates five border security items: the 20,000 additional border guards, the additional fencing, the entry/exit tracking, the mandatory e-verify, and the border technology expenditures. If these five items don't get done, no green cards. And it is impossible to become a citizen without getting a green card first.

There were never border security contingency mandates in the 1986 bill. It's yet another big lie.

[okie52]

Well that was the problem juan...there was only the "promise" of border security. And if enforcement and verification of a secure border is left up Obama and Napolitano we will barely be better off than with Reagan's amnesty.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Can you deport citizens juan?

The gov't occasionally wrongly/mistakenly deports citizens. Other than that, I don't think citizens can be deported unless they lose their citizenship via denaturalization. That is possible:

http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

[5thYearSooner]

The backlog is cleared under the senate bill. Their waiting will lessen.


Also, how does the h1b visa system exploit Indian/Chinese prospects?

Its not the H1B system that exploits them..but the corporations do. Its specific for Chinese/Indians because of the backlog.
Usually companies don't start GC processing until its required to (4th or 5th year of h1b). Once the application is filed , these prospects are "stuck" with the company that is sponsoring and the companies know that. There shouldn't be a change of location or job responsibilities until GC is approved. So even after 8-10 years after graduating from US universities, and working all those years and paying all taxes they don't have an opportunity to grow in their careers or look for other jobs (without going back to square one-meaning restart clock on 8-10 year process)
Compare that to a graduate from Bangladesh or Nepal or Pakistan or any other country They get their GCs right away(approx 1 yr processing time) once applied for.

Some companies proudly put EOE disclaimers in job postings but still wont sponsor H1B...if they really are EOE, then any one who is legally staying in the country should be treated equal. By not sponsoring H1B they are discriminating the applicant by his/her country of origin.