"The three House bills would:
-Impose prison terms of up to 20 years for those who knowingly construct or finance an unauthorized tunnel under a U.S. border. People who permit the construction of such a tunnel could face 10 years in prison. Sensenbrenner said 50 tunnels, used to smuggle narcotics and illegal immigrants, have been discovered along the Mexican border since 1990, and 36 in the last five years.
-Allow the Department of Homeland Security to hold illegal immigrants detained for crimes or as threats to national security beyond the current limit of six months, and set up expedited procedures for deporting these people. The bill also would make it easier to detain and deport illegal immigrants found to be part of criminal street gangs. It passed 328-95.
2006-09-21 08:42:34 · 14 answers · asked by DAR 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
The National Immigration Forum voiced opposition to the provision, saying it "gives the attorney general the ability to designate any group as a gang and then punish an individual for belonging to that group, regardless of whether the individual committed a crime."
-Reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to arrest, detain and transfer to federal custody illegal immigrants. It would ask the Justice Department to increase the number of attorneys prosecuting immigrant smuggling cases. It also would close loopholes that have led to "catch and release" policies in which illegal immigrants, mainly non-Mexicans, are released because they cannot be immediately deported."
Specter, in the Senate, is saying agreeing to these would take away leverage to make the House negotiate on other terms, later. However, in my view, we won't believe they intend to secure our borders until we see it, and need that first.
What do you think?
2006-09-21 08:44:55 · update #1
http://www.examiner.com/a-301713~House_Working_Through_Immigration_Bills.html
2006-09-21 08:54:49 · update #2
Mimi - these are separate bills, I think so that if there is opposition to one part, others can pass. However, while the bill 'reaffirms local law enforcement authority' I haven't seen the actual bill, and that one may have the most trouble at the Senate, precisely because it would be the most effective. Senators may feel that if they vote 'yes' on several of these but vote no on the ones that would really work, they can speak out of both sides of their mouths. All I can say is..... research before you vote.
2006-09-21 09:00:44 · update #3
Good! But more still needs to be done.
2006-09-21 08:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by hisgirl 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, time will tell, with this stuff..when we start seeing buses headed south on national TV, then we'll know they got it going on...until then it's all just a paper tiger.they say that currently there's only about 75 miles of the fence actually built, well, that leaves 1,925 miles left to go, give or take 500 yards. Get that herculean project finished, and the rest of the measures just might have a snowball's chance of working. BUT: the counterforce to good border enforcement is the liberals, and their lawyers, and you'll get the whole waterworks guaranteed before this entire mess is sorted out.
I'm all for ideas like guest worker plans, eventually. But, not this year, and maybe not for as long as 5 years. Everyone wants to make money, right? No law against it. That is, as long as it's legitimate money, and not the proceeds of years of grand larceny
or drugs, or the rest of it. This is 2006, 21st century and all,
if they can count how many turds a fly left on a window in Iraq or whatever, then there's no mysteries at the border either.
People gotta support themselves, it's that simple. And, that means local farms, or even home gardening. It doesn't get any fresher than a blueberry you picked with your own 2 fingers, for example. This whole globalization mess has people getting all kinds of ambitions to do stuff, they don't think consequences as long as the money's right. I just wish to god that countries like Mexico would go crazy with local and domestic development, and fill in the blanks for their own people. You know there's hungry people there, people that could honestly use the help,
and could likely help themselves sufficiently if someone took the time to teach em. But, before that happens, a lot of people gotta turn around and face the problem, and that means the illegal immigration has to stop. 'No' isn't cutting it, hence the need for the border fence. The alternative is to build 10 more prisons in every state, and I don't think anyone wants to see that. Locking more people up isn't going to fix this one...
My personal opinion is, if they've got enough industry and ingenuity in Mexico to build tunnels under our border, they're at the point where they really don't need a lot more 'help'. What Mexico needs is some 'me time'! LOL And, in 10 years or so, when they have their **** together, then we can do other stuff, maybe...?
2006-09-21 16:03:50 · answer #2 · answered by gokart121 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we're headed in the right direction. Now we need to have the Senate pass it....and do you suppose President Bush will sign it?
Beyond all of this...will our enforcement authorities be given the latitude to enforce the laws, or will they be cobbled?
Additional thought:
It appears to be sound...and appears to be headed in the direction America is demanding....so...I will pass this on to those on my mailings, and
I will spend more time contacting my Senators as well as those of my former "southern" states....
Thank You for the Post!
Everyone who has not investigated
www.numberssusa.com
should check it out! You can send "free" faxes to your congressional leaders...
2006-09-21 15:55:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It'll be poluted with attachments from the left by the time it reaches the senate and will be voted down like all the other bills related. Our system is screwed up and we do need line item veto. It'll stop the pork and puke!
2006-09-21 15:54:00 · answer #4 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fantastic. Does this bill apply to illegals who are currently here?
2006-09-21 15:46:49 · answer #5 · answered by The Hell With This Constitution 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'll believe it when it passes. Until then, I view it as an election strategy.
2006-09-21 16:03:36 · answer #6 · answered by the_wall 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's a start
2006-09-21 15:54:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that's what I'm talkin about. A bill with some teeth in it, finally.
Did you know that at Polls during elections they have not even been asking for proof of citizenship? WTF?
2006-09-21 15:45:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
its about time. drugs, terrorists and illegal use the tunnels all time time.
2006-09-21 16:01:45 · answer #9 · answered by scififed 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bravo!!!, just hope it isn't too little too late.
2006-09-21 15:46:27 · answer #10 · answered by bobemac 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋