Senate Democrats Want Felons As Citizens
Reality is worse than fiction. If Tom Wolfe had put this sort of thing in a novel critics would have complained that it was unbelievable and too much of a stretch.
Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of an amendment yesterday that would bar illegal aliens convicted of felonies from obtaining U.S. citizenship.
Democrats said the amendment would "gut" the immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and refused to allow a vote on it.
"It hurts the bill," said Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit" of the legislation.
Yes, Harry Reid, it does hurt the spirit of this legislation. The spirit of this legislation is so bad that trying to make it just the least bit good does undermine it.
Senators Jon Kyl and John Cornyn argued that the amendment is necessary.
Mr. Kyl came to the floor and listed the crimes he said would not be included without his amendment, such as burglary, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun, kidnapping and alien smuggling.
How about an even better idea? How about no amnesty?
Why does Reid think the Kyl-Cornyn amendment goes against the spirit of Frist's immigration legislation? Restrictions on immigration by criminal record are especially problematic for HIspanics.
Nationally, Hispanics are on average 3.7 times as likely as whites to be imprisoned.
Brenda Walker puts this story in a more grisly context.
Bryanna Bevens reports on Senator Frist's supposed superior replacement for Senate Judiciary's bill:
- Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English. According to Senator Frist, 60 percent of the illegal aliens fall into this category.
- Those who have lived here for two to five years would have to leave the country before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. There are roughly three million in this category. They are allowed to apply for citizenship but if they are denied, they must leave after six years.
- The remaining one million (roughly), those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave although they are eligible to apply for a temporary work Visa.
More good coverage at the VDare blog.
Steve Sailer argues that no immigration bill should be passed now and instead immigration should be a 2006 election issue.. Also check out Jorge W. Bush waving a Mexican flag. Here are reconquista advocates protesting US immigration laws with Mexican flags.
This illustrates the pattern of advocates of illegals being for freedom for aggression. As government power grows over many years, factions develop which are interested mainly to increase the level of aggression in society. If you live by aggression on the net taxpayer, you become more and more an enemy to him, and his other enemies, such as illegal aliens on net public subsidy, become your implicit allies.
What a farce. How the hell are we going to be able to verify how long illegals have been in the country? Ask them? When the obvious benefit exists in saying you've lived in-country for over five years, who is going to say otherwise, even those making a beeline from Peru as we speak?