Just captured this...but Im still looking for all the text.
Analysts at the Heritage Foundation have the current legislative text of the immigration deal and are alarmed at provisions they view as dangerous loopholes. They point out that once the bill is signed its language appears to create a "cease and desist" order on law enforcement given what looks like a prima facie assumption that any illegal alien is eligible for amnesty and can therefore be given preliminary legal status. Under the "Treatment of Application" section, once an application for the new "Z" visa has been filed, it appears that the government has only "one business day" to identity a disqualifying factor or the visa must be issued. And lots of provisions are apparently able to be waived by Cabinet secretaries so there's plenty of discretion for the next Clinton administration.
Related story, confirmed by snopes.http://<br /> http://michellemalkin...ves/004869.htm
Montebello High School in California
Last edited by bk94si; 05-18-2007 at 06:08 PM.
This is my huge, huge point of ire with Dubya. If Dubya had any chance to turn around his presidency, this would be it... but sure enough he'll throw that away. We need a real conservative in the White House who will have the balls to ship these guys back to Mexico where they belong.
PORTABLE: Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz | 4GB PC6400 DDR2 | 160GB 7200rpm HDD | ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570 | 8x DVD±RW/Blu-Ray | 15.6" UltraSharp TrueLife display
like saying if he was any closer the damn thing would bite himThis is my huge, huge point of ire with Dubya. If Dubya had any chance to turn around his presidency, this would be it...
Here's the deal. Actual text
[inject humor] Somebody had to do this...
^^I couldnt resist. Im reading the text of the deal..^^from above pdf. file.
And Im struck by one incorrect beginning assumption: That the government will ever to implement all this stuff.
Suddenly, well be able to find all these folks. Suddenly, they will come foward and sign on. A few too many "suddenly's" for me.
Im reminded of the adage: Dont legislate what you cant possible enforce.
So far Im leaning toward the same position I had last year.
Close the barn doors. Then worry about what to do about the 12 million horses.
Also give this a read and the original article he talks about. I read the WSJ piece earlier and had similar reactions.
The “restrictionist wing” of the GOP? We’re “restrictionists” because we want border security first, which we’ve not had for four decades? We’re “restrictionists” because we want the 1986 comprehensive immigration reform law enforced, the same law championed by the Journal back then? We’re “restrictionists” because we’re concerned about the costs to entitlement programs, public education, and the health care system? We’re “restrictionists” because we want Congress to go through the usual legislative process to examine the many, many details of this deal and ensure they’re carefully considered, rather than negotiating the deal in secret, giving certain groups veto power over provisions, and then ramming it through on the floor?
Last edited by jimzinsocal; 05-19-2007 at 11:10 AM.
^^^ Haven't read the PDF (probably won't read it all), but was kinda interested in a Tony Snow interview here.
His description of the 300-some miles of border fencing is something that tells me this is much ado about peddling bulldung. Read what he says... vehicle barriers. I get it. Concrete freeway dividers. We're being sold a bunch of bull.
Also, his descriptions of who's going to be doing background checks. Yeah, right.
Its all just a bit too much.
I go back to this, why not just enact what was done in 1986 first? Who needs a new bill besides the illegal immigrants? What's wrong with enforcing all of the available laws on the books we already have? Why does this need hundreds of pages to be corrected? Why no discussion?
Bull-puckey.... plain and simple. No need to thumb through the entire PDF... it does not pass the smell test.
"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."
All these years later and were supposed to believe "Ill be good now...Ive been misbehaving all these years...but THIS time I really mean it"
Same crap as Social Security. Another "grand plan" gone to the sewer.
Means as much to me as another famous Aunt Pansey promise to swear off the Smirnoff.
IMO? This issue will never be resolved as long as the actual criteria remains..."how are these folks going/likely to vote"
Last edited by jimzinsocal; 05-19-2007 at 01:26 PM.
I've strated to read the thing and am absolutely lost in the language... which means there is one other group that's going to benefit from this besides illegal aliens... lawyers.
This thing is so danged ful of legal mumbo-jumbo its simply pathetic.
I was watching CNN right after this came out and they were reporting that
many Senators were voting on something THEY HAVEN'T EVEN READ !
I heard someone state on the show that this new "bargain" calls for a
SHORTER fence. It's suppose to be a little over 800 miles long. This
"deal" the sell-outs came up with CUTS it down to a little over 300 !
It was reported that Senator's staffs had stayed up all through the night
to write this double talk. This have it so upside down, inside out that
it would take at least 2 WEEKS to even get through it to understand just
how much of a screwing the Nation is going to get.