Beating el Caballo Muerto
From the AP wire:
Highlights from the Senate immigration bill
Quick, what's wrong with this sentence? Remember, this is the Associated Press we're talking about.
"Illegal immigrants"???
But, but, I thought they were merely "undocumented" workers. How dare the AP describe these poor, oppressed people as "illegal"! This is hate speech! Whatever happened to the more politically correct, warm n' fuzzy terminology the illegal alien sympathizers in the MSM (and the U.S. Congress) have grown to love so well?
Could it have anything to do with that fact that as "undocumented" immigrants, it would stand to reason that they do not have any legitimate "documentation" to "document" how long they've actually been in the country? Or how much they would theoretically owe the U.S. Government in back taxes? Nope, wouldn't want to draw attention to those pesky little details. Better go with "illegal immigrants" this time.
This provision, like so many others on this topic being bandied about, is simply laughable in its unfeasibility.
Let's continue...
Rewarding those who have been in violation of the law the longest. Makes perfect sense to...um...someone, apparently. Be sure to bring your phony social security number with you, and forged work history documents showing you didn't just get here last month (and maybe a note from your Mom for good measure). You'll need all that "documentation" to "properly" fill out your paperwork.
What? You mean, we can force illegal aliens to go back from whence they came after all? Or does this plan just entail asking them (pretty please with sugar on top) to return to their homelands of their own volition?
Raise your hand if you see this being enforced to any degree in the near (or distant) future.
It's taken them until NOW to think about this? Also, this piss-poor attempt at placating the law-and-order types seems to give a pass to any and all criminal offenses committed prior to jumping the border.
As I said earlier this month:
Another potential sticking point:
I'm all for allowing people to come into our country to work, provided it's done on the up-and-up.
But, assuming these "guest workers" will be required to report their income to the government for the purposes of paying their "fair share" of taxes on said income, can we then assume that these workers will (theoretically) not be paid "under the table", and that their wages will be the same as those of an American citizen doing the same work?
Seems to me this will result in an increase to the operating costs of the produce farmers hiring the immigrants, which would then be passed on to the consumer.
Am I missing something here? Because the Open Borders Brigade has been trying to convince me for years that we need immigrant labor to keep the price of lettuce down.
And, speaking of fraudulent documentation:
Paying illegal aliens social security benefits "earned" using bogus social security numbers - ain't that just fan-fucking-tabulous? Can someone please explain to me the wisdom being this? I must not be enlightened enough, 'cause I am just not seeing it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta finish printing up my new concealed carry permit and machine gun license. Sure, they won't necessarily be as authentic as those issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but they'll be close enough.
Senators Kerry and Kennedy will understand.
Highlights from the Senate immigration bill
Quick, what's wrong with this sentence? Remember, this is the Associated Press we're talking about.
_Allows illegal immigrants who have been in the country five years or more to remain, continue working and eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying fines, back taxes and learning English.
"Illegal immigrants"???
But, but, I thought they were merely "undocumented" workers. How dare the AP describe these poor, oppressed people as "illegal"! This is hate speech! Whatever happened to the more politically correct, warm n' fuzzy terminology the illegal alien sympathizers in the MSM (and the U.S. Congress) have grown to love so well?
Could it have anything to do with that fact that as "undocumented" immigrants, it would stand to reason that they do not have any legitimate "documentation" to "document" how long they've actually been in the country? Or how much they would theoretically owe the U.S. Government in back taxes? Nope, wouldn't want to draw attention to those pesky little details. Better go with "illegal immigrants" this time.
This provision, like so many others on this topic being bandied about, is simply laughable in its unfeasibility.
Let's continue...
_Requires illegal immigrants in the U.S. between two and five years to go to a point of entry at the border and file an application to return.
Rewarding those who have been in violation of the law the longest. Makes perfect sense to...um...someone, apparently. Be sure to bring your phony social security number with you, and forged work history documents showing you didn't just get here last month (and maybe a note from your Mom for good measure). You'll need all that "documentation" to "properly" fill out your paperwork.
_Requires those in the country less than two years to leave.
What? You mean, we can force illegal aliens to go back from whence they came after all? Or does this plan just entail asking them (pretty please with sugar on top) to return to their homelands of their own volition?
Raise your hand if you see this being enforced to any degree in the near (or distant) future.
_Illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors would be deported no matter how long they have been in the U.S.
It's taken them until NOW to think about this? Also, this piss-poor attempt at placating the law-and-order types seems to give a pass to any and all criminal offenses committed prior to jumping the border.
As I said earlier this month:
Meanwhile, we have people in this country today calling for our government to grant citizenship to Juan from Mexico, who's carrying a five-dollar fake ID that says he's Julio from Honduras, and who's been working under a social security number that belongs to some guy named Steve from Minneapolis.
"But, it's OK. We'll run a criminal background check first, as called for by the plan put forth by the U.S. Senate."
Yeah, good luck with that.
Another potential sticking point:
_Creates a special guest worker program for an estimated 1.5 million immigrant farm workers, who could also earn legal permanent residency.
I'm all for allowing people to come into our country to work, provided it's done on the up-and-up.
But, assuming these "guest workers" will be required to report their income to the government for the purposes of paying their "fair share" of taxes on said income, can we then assume that these workers will (theoretically) not be paid "under the table", and that their wages will be the same as those of an American citizen doing the same work?
Seems to me this will result in an increase to the operating costs of the produce farmers hiring the immigrants, which would then be passed on to the consumer.
Am I missing something here? Because the Open Borders Brigade has been trying to convince me for years that we need immigrant labor to keep the price of lettuce down.
And, speaking of fraudulent documentation:
The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
Paying illegal aliens social security benefits "earned" using bogus social security numbers - ain't that just fan-fucking-tabulous? Can someone please explain to me the wisdom being this? I must not be enlightened enough, 'cause I am just not seeing it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta finish printing up my new concealed carry permit and machine gun license. Sure, they won't necessarily be as authentic as those issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but they'll be close enough.
Senators Kerry and Kennedy will understand.
