or we could just start implementing a biometric social security card which dems have repeatedly opposed
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
or we could just start implementing a biometric social security card which dems have repeatedly opposed [/quote]
That would be a complete waste of money. Just using US Passports is much faster and cheaper – since it requires no new investment from the Government – and equally effective. We could start implementing it tomorrow.
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
or we could just start implementing a biometric social security card which dems have repeatedly opposed [/quote]
And Christian conservatives:
[quote]doogie wrote:
And Christian conservatives:
Is the coming National ID the prophesied “mark of the beast”?
There is a prophecy in the Bible that foretells a time when every person will be required to have a mark or a number, without which he or she will not be able to participate in the economy.
The prophecy is 2,000 years old, but it has been impossible for it to come to pass until now. With the invention of the computer and the Internet, this prophecy of buying and selling, using a number, can now be implemented at any time. Has the time for the fulfillment of this prophecy arrived?
http://nonationalid.com/
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO! Thank you for that!
Suffice to say, in most countries in continental Europe everybody has had National ID Cards for ages. Portugal is possibly the most modern example: Portuguese ID Cards have a fingerprint – and a copy is kept in the central archives. This has existed there for 30 years and nobody ever complained.
I guess the Rapture has already happened in Portugal 30 years ago and nobody noticed… Maybe that’s why the population is overwhelmingly Catholic (only 4% are Protestants) – all the born-again Christians who were saved were “raptured” in 1976… 
[quote]hspder wrote:
ROTFLMAO! Thank you for that!
Suffice to say, in most countries in continental Europe everybody has had National ID Cards for ages. Portugal is possibly the most modern example: Portuguese ID Cards have a fingerprint – and a copy is kept in the central archives. This has existed there for 30 years and nobody ever complained.
I guess the Rapture has already happened in Portugal 30 years ago and nobody noticed… Maybe that’s why the population is overwhelmingly Catholic (only 4% are Protestants) – all the born-again Christians who were saved were “raptured” in 1976…
[/quote]
We should really try to get this ID card thing on track fast. If we can get it done in a couple of weeks, we can really freak them out:
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
"Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place. "
[/quote]
Two lines kinda admonishing Big Business for causing this entire problem, the rest about some jackass asking me, “Papers, please.”
This is about brown people for the Republicans, not business. It’s never business’ fault for anything.
All we have to do is pass some more dumbass laws stating that America speaks English and we’ll be golden.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
"Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place. "
Two lines kinda admonishing Big Business for causing this entire problem, the rest about some jackass asking me, “Papers, please.”
This is about brown people for the Republicans, not business. It’s never business’ fault for anything.
All we have to do is pass some more dumbass laws stating that America speaks English and we’ll be golden.
[/quote]
I tihnk you are missing the point here. Under current law, and setup it is VERY hard for employeers to verify if someone is legal or not. If they suspect someone of having a fake SS# they risk lawsuits from discrimination, and the verification system, while it works, is only a pilot program and not capable of handling the numbers of everyone that employeers would want to verify…this isnt to say that there isnt tons of buisnesses that knowingly hire illegals because no doubt there are, but verification is a legitimate problem that has stopped even the do gooder coroporations from checking peoples status
[quote]hspder wrote:
Let them go into a tizzy. It’s not like we haven’t made decisions that didn’t piss off a part of the population before…
[/quote]
That’s funny, I think Cheney and/or Rumsfeld has probably uttered the same words about the Iraq war.
And it’s good to see a ‘liberal economist’ proposing unilateral action and figuring out how to ‘brand the servants’ rather than fixing NAFTA and working out the minimum wage disparity that lies so close to the heart of this problem. Maybe you need to check a different box on your voter registration? 
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Two lines kinda admonishing Big Business for causing this entire problem, the rest about some jackass asking me, “Papers, please.”
This is about brown people for the Republicans, not business. It’s never business’ fault for anything.
All we have to do is pass some more dumbass laws stating that America speaks English and we’ll be golden.
[/quote]
You’re just mad the cards are going to be printed on white plastic.
legal immigrant here, neem in the states since 1999, june 20th makes it 7 years exatly. Got my green card last year, took us twice as long as some of our south african friends (they got theirs in '02), but it is totally worth it. We have struggled, busted our asses, done everything possible to make ends meet, and to do it legally (besides my kid brother and I picking up odd jobs here and there for cash). It always pissed me off seeing the illegals working, knowing I couldn’t cos if I got kicked out, game over.
Kick them out, they don’t have a “right” to work here. Its an honor and a privilege, and something I am eternally grateful for. Hell, I am pissed I have to wait a couple more years to take my citizenship test, would take it tomorrow if I could.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Kick them out, they don’t have a “right” to work here. Its an honor and a privilege, and something I am eternally grateful for. Hell, I am pissed I have to wait a couple more years to take my citizenship test, would take it tomorrow if I could.[/quote]
I’d personally give you citizenship right now if I could.
It is more people like you we need.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Kick them out, they don’t have a “right” to work here. Its an honor and a privilege, and something I am eternally grateful for. [/quote]
Sure, but will you bend over 12 hours a day in a dusty field and pick onions in 103 degree heat for $3/hr?
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
harris447 wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
"Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place. "
Two lines kinda admonishing Big Business for causing this entire problem, the rest about some jackass asking me, “Papers, please.”
This is about brown people for the Republicans, not business. It’s never business’ fault for anything.
All we have to do is pass some more dumbass laws stating that America speaks English and we’ll be golden.
I tihnk you are missing the point here. Under current law, and setup it is VERY hard for employeers to verify if someone is legal or not. If they suspect someone of having a fake SS# they risk lawsuits from discrimination, and the verification system, while it works, is only a pilot program and not capable of handling the numbers of everyone that employeers would want to verify…this isnt to say that there isnt tons of buisnesses that knowingly hire illegals because no doubt there are, but verification is a legitimate problem that has stopped even the do gooder coroporations from checking peoples status [/quote]
So, why didn’t the president mention that in his speech about the “problem?”
Why the big photo-op afterwards of him playing dress-up on the border?
Why didn’t he come out and say, “We must change the laws that make verification of peoples’ staus more transparent?”
Oh, that’s right: because this isn’t a real problem. This is all to distract from everything else he’s fucked up. This is the gay marriage of '06: some “Other” to scare the middle class white men with and no one in government wants to do a thing about it.
I forgot that for a second.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Oh, that’s right: because this isn’t a real problem. This is all to distract from everything else he’s fucked up. This is the gay marriage of '06: some “Other” to scare the middle class white men with and no one in government wants to do a thing about it.
I forgot that for a second.
[/quote]
I agree. Another fake “social issue” to make you look away from bigger things…like magicians, it’s a slight of hand and a distraction, and by the time you realize it, the trick is done.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Oh, that’s right: because this isn’t a real problem. This is all to distract from everything else he’s fucked up. This is the gay marriage of '06: some “Other” to scare the middle class white men with and no one in government wants to do a thing about it.
I forgot that for a second.
I agree. Another fake “social issue” to make you look away from bigger things…like magicians, it’s a slight of hand and a distraction, and by the time you realize it, the trick is done.[/quote]
yes the 13 million people living in our country illegally right now are a made up social issue…you guys hit it spot on.
btw, you could not be any more wrong on the politics of this. Bush, Melmann and the rest of the RNC dont want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. All this action is coming from house republicans who want to see something done with the issue because they are afraid they are sick and tired of their conservative voters yelling at them for not doing anything. In my office by far the most vocal and prodigious group of constituents is the anti illegal immigration constituents. Add in the natural problem for security that illegal immigration poses and you have the reason why this is becoming an issue now. Bush’s speech/plan is not really any different than the one he first introduced in 2001. THe only difference is that now, citizens, and the House are serious about forcing action on the issue sooner rather than later.
biltrite,
Is it true that the Senate version of the bill has stripped out all the employer penalties versus the House bill – and also that the Senate bill is proposing making certain crimes, such as tax evasion, inapplicable to illegal aliens?
Those are the latest swirling rumors…
[quote]harris447 wrote:
This is about brown people for the Republicans, not business.
[/quote]
If that’s the motivation for the Republicans, I wonder what’s the motivation for Mexico to actively discriminate against non-native-born individuals within its borders?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_limiting_immigrants
There are lots of brown people there – harris, do you think it’s not black or white, just shades of brown? Ironically, that’s what I think of your purported reasoning…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Is it true that the Senate version of the bill has stripped out all the employer penalties versus the House bill – and also that the Senate bill is proposing making certain crimes, such as tax evasion, inapplicable to illegal aliens?[/quote]
I SINCERELY hope those rumors are either untrue, or the bill doesn’t get passed like that – or a lot of people – myself included – will be royally pissed off.
[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Is it true that the Senate version of the bill has stripped out all the employer penalties versus the House bill – and also that the Senate bill is proposing making certain crimes, such as tax evasion, inapplicable to illegal aliens?
I SINCERELY hope those rumors are either untrue, or the bill doesn’t get passed like that – or a lot of people – myself included – will be royally pissed off.
[/quote]
yah BB i havent heard that…if so i imagine its a poison pill ammendment by the dems to ensure that the bill never gets passed. There are enough people in the house that are already opposed to the senate version that i dont even know how they will be able to conference on the senate basis at all .
A look at a few amendments to the Senate bill that were passed, tabled or rejected over the past week, from an article by John O’ Sullivan:
Let?s take the amendments passed, rejected or tabled in the last week:
-
Two valuable amendments were passed early on: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R. Ala.) who has been a hero of commonsense in this debate, proposed the building of a 370 mile fence on the border; and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.) proposed an amendment to reduce the intake of guest-workers from 320,000 to 200,000 annually. Valuable though these amendments are, however, their impact is modest. Four-fifths of the southern border will still be fenceless and the number of immigrants admitted to the U.S. over the next twenty years will still be 66 million. And after those amendments it was all downhill.
-
Republican Senators Cornyn (Tex.) and Kyl (Ariz.) had originally proposed an amendment to make criminals ineligible for either amnesty or U.S. citizenship under the proposed new law. That had been overwhelmingly rejected by the Democrats who then asked Cornyn and Kyl to negotiate a compromise with Kennedy. The two sides agreed?the Republicans reluctantly?that a criminal would now be eligible for amnesty and citizenship if he had committed only one felony or three misdemeanors except that he could commit any number of immigration-related felonies or misdemeanors and still pass muster. This smelly little compromise passed 99-0.
-
An amendment from Sen. Johnny Isaakson (R., Ga.) sought to ensure that the reform would be genuinely ?comprehensive? and not simply camouflage for amnesty and a guest-worker program. He proposed that the bill?s amnesty and guest-worker provisions would come into effect only after the president had certified that its border security measures were in place and its required detention space (for illegal border-crossers) available. It was defeated 55-40. Logical conclusion: the border security provisions in the bill and the president?s speech last week are camouflage.
-
Sen David Vitter (R., La.) proposed an amendment to prevent illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for a mere two years from ?earning? citizenship?the legislative euphemism for amnesty. His amendment was defeated 66-33.
-
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.) proposed an amendment to strip the guest-worker provisions from the bill. By 69 to 28 votes the proposal was ?tabled??i.e., the senators agreed not to bring the proposal to a vote. Tabling is a useful political device. It enables senators to defeat a proposal while claiming later that they never opposed it?and even that they had actually supported it.
-
Sen. Cornyn (R. Tex.) returned to the fray with an amendment to ensure that guest-workers could become permanent hires only after both the potential employer and the U.S. Labor Department had certified that no American workers were available to fill the positions. That modest safeguard currently exists for H-1B highly skilled legal immigrants?where it is widely evaded. Still, it was better than nothing, and it passed by the surprisingly narrow margin of 50-48. Hurrah! Not so fast, however . . .
-
Sen. Kennedy (D., Mass.) now proposed an amendment to remove the Cornyn safeguard and replace it with a provision that the temporary worker could permanently fill a U.S. job simply by virtue of having been legally hired as a temp for the previous four years. No checking that American workers might be available would be necessary. This passed by 56-43.
-
Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.) offered an amendment to disallow those immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally (a felony)?as opposed to those who overstayed their visas (a misdemeanor)?from claiming credit with the Social Security Administration for payments made under false names and false social security numbers while they were living and working illegally in the U.S. This was tabled (i.e., covertly defeated) by 50 to 49 votes. Uncle Sam?s accountant, the General Accounting Office, says that the Social Security administration?s estimate of the cost of this giveaway to the Fund is way wrong?but can?t offer an estimate of its own. Nobody knows what this will cost. But since the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 40 per cent of illegals have been in the U.S. for more than five years, you can make your own estimate.
-
Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) proposed a simple amendment to make English the official language of the U.S. This would have weakened bilingualism and effectively compelled federal, state and local governments to conduct most of their business in English. It passed 63-34. No one who is up for election soon wants to vote in favor of making the U.S. a bilingual republic. Not so fast again, however . . .
-
For Sen. Salazar (D., Colo.) promptly proposed to replace the Inhofe amendment with one that certified English as America?s ?common language??a motherhood-and-apple-pie amendment with no practical or legal effects. That passed 58-39. So 58 Senators who voted for continued official bilingualism can now tell their electorate that they voted against it.
-
Senators Kyl and Cornyn came back fighting for the third time with an amendment to prevent ?temporary? the 200,000 annual guest-workers turning themselves into permanent ones with a green card, etc. That was an attempt to hold President Bush to his promise in several major speeches that ?temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.? It looked like it would pass, whereupon the White House intervened to urge rejection of the amendment. It was promptly ?tabled? by 58 votes to 35. If I were an intemperate Move-On type, I might say something like: ?Bush Lied, The Nation Died.? But the U.S. will be harder to kill off than that.