Senate Reaches Deal To Give Illegals Amnesty

[Parlay Rey]

From Yahoo News

Senate Reaches Deal To Give Illegals Amnesty http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress;_ylt=Av5rCCh4t_V34FQY2GBC3sOs0NUE

Wow. Just Wow.

[doombug]

"Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, 'It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law.'"

[...]

"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

"They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S."

Restore the rule of law. As in, after the fact. As in, after the current batch of law breakers have been given their slap on the wrist. This implies that someone has both escaped punishment for violating a law and is being pardoned for doing so.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, it's amnesty.

[sean126]

"This will restore the rule of law.'"

Restore the rule of law. As in, after the fact. As in, after the current batch of law breakers have been given their slap on the wrist. This implies that someone has both escaped punishment for violating a law and is being pardoned for doing so.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, it's amnesty.

My feelings exactly Doombug.  What about restoring the rule of law....today??  For the life of me, I can't see how any politician can feel nothing but shame and idiotic over this.

This sounds just as ridiculous as Paris Hilton saying she shouldn't go to jail for violating her probation just because she is pretty and provides entertainment.

[william3rd]

HOWEVER- it does say that the fence, new border agents, and new jail space has to be in place BEFORE all the other amnesty stuff happens.

READ it all and then CALL your representatives to give your opinion.

Whining here does nothing for you.

[doombug]

I love today's Drudge headline:


'THIS IS AMNESTY'

Can you say, staged loyalty?

Every flag in that photo is fresh out of the wrapper. Same dimensions; same crispness; same black, bisecting band at mid-stem. As if they were distributed minutes before the photo was taken so as to sway the sympathies of the citizen and/or his political representatives. As if to make amends for the insult of flying Mexican flags over our post offices, schools, and during the "stolen land" rallies of last year.

What a charade.   Most of those flags will find there way into a trash bin by day's end--their utility having been met.

This sounds just as ridiculous as Paris Hilton saying she shouldn't go to jail for violating her probation just because she is pretty and provides entertainment.

And her mommy should have been charged with contempt of court for opening her trap during the proceedings.

[Frank Rizzo]

Sean, i agree with everything you said, except the thing about Paris Hilton.

SAVE PARIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kiltboy1]

Hey Shaun

Do not knock it. Paris is getting her time cut in half because of good behavior, and she only went to jail like 2 days ago, WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

KB

[doombug]

[Initial blood pressure reading: 112/77]

Food for thought:

Of the 231 million W-2s in IRS’s TY 2004 file, approximately 223 million had matching names and SSNs.  Some of these matches resulted from SSA’s successful use of their techniques for resolving mismatches. For the balance of approximately 8 million TY 2004 W-2s for which there was no valid match, IRS used several additional methods to match the numbers. We were able to match approximately 60 thousand more names with SSNs, leaving a balance of about 7.9 million W-2s where there is no valid name and social security number match.

[...]

It is important to point out that the SSA has no enforcement power, and cannot impose penalties on employers for failure to correct SSN mismatches.  IRS, however, does have enforcement power and can assess penalties.  Therefore, it might be helpful if I walk you through our legal authority.

[...]

As I indicated when I was before these two Subcommittees in 2004, because of the reasonable cause provision in the tax law, I am unaware of IRS sustaining any penalty against an employer for failure to provide an accurate SSN for an employee.  That has not changed.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=4707

************************Blood pressure reading: 132/82***********************************

Currently, an individual who improperly obtains a SSN from SSA or misuses another person’s SSN is not subject to civil monetary penalties and assessments under Section 1129, except in cases of SSN misuse related to the receipt of Social Security or SSI benefits.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:H3vR-PE30E8J:waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/hr2971/hr2971sidebysidek.pdf+%22penalty%22+and+%22fake%22+and+%22social+security+number%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

************************Blood pressure reading: 145/93***********************************

The IRS created a nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number in 1996 for foreigners who don’t have Social Security numbers but need to file taxes in the U.S. It is increasingly used by undocumented workers to file taxes, apply for credit, get bank accounts or even buy a home.

The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 — a 30-percent increase from the previous year. To obtain one, a person needs to submit to the IRS an application and a document that serves as proof of identity, such as a visa or driver’s license. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it’s widely believed most people using ITINs are in the United States illegally.

[...]

Although ITIN users don’t qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which could give a break to an American earning in the same bracket, they can get other tax credits and can use ITINs to claim dependents in Mexico.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2007/apr/16/illegals-filing-taxes-more-ever/

************************Blood pressure reading: 163/105***********************************

A tale of two crimes:

There's an oft-used argument that undocumented immigrants pay into a system (Social Security; Medicare) that they'll never receive benefits from. Further, that their contributions help prop up this system, thus extending its solvency.

Imagine, for a moment, that I'm a bank robber. I hit BofA for $20,000 and then take this money and deposit it across town in a Wells Fargo account. Wells Fargo says I can keep the money with them, but that their policy is to not pay interest on accounts funded with stolen proceeds. Instead, the interest will be paid out to the BofA victims whose funds I pilfered during my holdup.

See where this is going?

Illegal aliens may never draw from Social Security, but they did break a variety of laws leading up to their eventual contributions into the account. And, yes, your grandchildren are expected to be grateful for this when they reach their own retirements. 

[Ray]

Yes, this is just another stupid AMNESTY bill. Anyone who tries to tell you that it isn’t amnesty is either a dishonest lawyer or a dishonest politician (or both). DID YOU HEAR THAT GW?

My God man, how stupid do they think we are?

This country is being sold down the toilet by the open border Democrats and a few of their wimpy-ass Republican enablers (Hello Arlen Specter! Hello John McCain!).   

I saw this interesting poll on Michael Malkin’s Web site today, which probably reflects a pretty good view of most conservative voters.



Note: You aren’t going to hear a lot of complaints from the Democrats because they love this piece of crap bill.

[daytrader]

William3rd wrote - HOWEVER- it does say that the fence, new border agents, and new jail space has to be in place BEFORE all the other amnesty stuff happens.

Sorry to disagree with you William3rd --
- Factor in Klinton-appointed Federal Judges that will make mincemeat of any enforcement provisions as "unconstitutional"

- Once Bush signs the bill (hopefully it will never happen), all illegals are then "legal"....they are in a special legal category that is on a glide path to amnesty, irrespective of any of the law's details.  All existing immigration laws classifying these lawbreakers as felons is rendered moot and they are then 'above the law'. 

- Between the Klinton Judges and future Democrat Presidents/Congresses, all the enforcement procedures will be repealed as "unfair" or "unconstitutional"

- The Wall will NEVER be built.  It was supposed to be 750 miles, now it is half that and the money is not appropriated to fund it + Klinton judges will require EPA impact statements and local meddling to stop construction around population centers. 

- The Border Patrol is another toothless political albatross that ignores the scores of Middle Eastern terrorists coming across the border regularly and won't back up the Sherriffs along the border that are tangling with the Mexican Army and armed-to-the-teeth smugglers. 

Kiss America as we know goodbye if this becomes law.  The GOP will never win another national election - Klinton judges will allow voting privileges for this special class of noncitizens, and 75% of them will vote Democrat. 


DayTrader

[Ray]

Kiss America as we know goodbye if this becomes law.  The GOP will never win another national election - Klinton judges will allow voting privileges for this special class of noncitizens, and 75% of them will vote Democrat. 

Yep! Why do you think the Democrats are solidly behind this piece of garbage? Out West we have already kissed California good-bye since the last amnesty joke and now the nation is next.

I think Bill O’Reilly had it right when he said this law will be the end of the Republican Party and our two party system. But then he wimped out and said he was supporting the proposed law because it was the best we were ever going to get. Huh? The death of our two-party system is the best we are going to get? Horse crap!

The Wall will NEVER be built. It was supposed to be 750 miles, now it is half that and the money is not appropriated to fund it + Klinton judges will require EPA impact statements and local meddling to stop construction around population centers.

Yep! That’s exactly what happened here in San Diego. The new border fence was so successful in stemming illegal aliens and drug smugglers (80% drop) that the libs used every tool in their bag of tricks to stop completion of the last few miles of fence near the coast. They have held it up for years in the courts because they said it would be a disaster to the environment. Bull crap! The polluting and littering illegal aliens have been a disaster to our environment! Tijuana'a sewage overflows have been a disaster to our environment!

Since the border fence law was passed last year, the law that REQUIRES construction of 700+ miles of fence, a total of 2 miles have been built. Extrapolate that out to 20 years and we’ll have what, 40 miles of new fence? But by then the new illegal-alien voted congress will have passed a new law to tear it all down anyway.

Once Bush signs the bill (hopefully it will never happen), all illegals are then "legal"....they are in a special legal category that is on a glide path to amnesty, irrespective of any of the law's details. All existing immigration laws classifying these lawbreakers as felons is rendered moot and they are then 'above the law'.

- Between the Klinton Judges and future Democrat Presidents/Congresses, all the enforcement procedures will be repealed as "unfair" or "unconstitutional"

Yep! Any idiot can see that real immigration enforcement will never happen. The open-border whackos tell us on one hand that we can never deport the illegals because it is “impossible”. Then they turn around and explain that this new legislation will require everyone that came here since Jan 1, or who doesn’t have a job, to be "asked to leave". Asked to leave? Horse crap! NOBODY will ever be deported by this wimpy administration or this leftist congress!

The world is laughing at us and NOBODY believes that we have the balls to deport anyone. We have leftist mayors and city councils that have declared their cities "sanctuaries" for illegals! If you can get your arse in here, you will be allowed to stay, whether it is by this stupid amnesty bill or the next one, or the next one, or the next one, or the next one, …

[utopiacowboy]

One item that I don't see mentioned very often is the almost complete elimination of family based immigration. For most Latinos that is a real deal-breaker.

[G Bala]

Quote from Christopher Hitchens when called upon by the Vatican to argue against the beatification of Mother Teresa as "Devil's Advocate":

"I am the person chosen to represent the Devil pro bono."

Anyway, here's the Devil's Advocate's position here:

(By the way, AILA is actually against the proposed law because it works contrary to the cornerstone of immigration since 1965, family re-unification.)



http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/TemporaryGuestWorkerVisa.html

[william3rd]

I dont see anybody liking this bill for one reason or another.

IF we go back to the original amnesty law and ENFORCE what was there, that would be a nice start.

I would much prefer to bring in those that have been waiting for years to lawfully emigrate than to reward even one of the illegal aliens.

I do like the idea of the end of "catch and release" and providing more jail space.

[doombug]

The world is laughing at us and NOBODY believes that we have the balls to deport anyone. We have leftist mayors and city councils that have declared their cities "sanctuaries" for illegals!

One well-known pathogen that leads to the shrunken-balls condition you mention above: White guilt. (Not to be confused with the less destructive, "Mother Teresa Syndrome.") Undoubtedly, it infects the minds of many in Washington. From affirmative action (1961 to current) to affirmative amnesty (1986 to current)--and a slew of little affirmatives waiting in the wings. 

When you don't have a backbone, when you abandon principles, when you don't apply laws in the spirit intended, when you impose punishment selectively--then your creed is un-American, and the deed is, indeed, white guilt.

Here's an analogy. It's a letter from a university professor to his superior:

"That citizens must be treated equally, without regard to race or national origin and without discrimination or preference, is the fundament of the American experiment. That is the proposition, Lincoln rightly said, to which our nation is dedicated.

"[W]hites in authority are often trumped by their own consciousness of guilt. They hunger to show themselves redeemed.

[...]

"'Threatened with a stigmatization that can gravely injure businesses and ruin careers, whites can be pressured into treating the merest accusation of racism as virtual proof.'

[...]

"'The race card always works in our country because, where the atmosphere is one of pervasive racial guilt, the accusation of racism leveled at a person or an institution sticks like glue, and needs no proof to do its damage.'"

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2006/10/04/TheStatement/Why-Racial.Preferences.Are.A.Product.Of.White.Guilt-2330567.shtml

[Those last two quotes belong to Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at the Hoover Institution.]

Two other post-affirmative action examples of white guilt in the realm of higher education. (What will these people do with their lives when the supply of ethnic "victims" runs out?):

"Immigrant tuition bill finds support. Undocumented students would pay in-state costs"

"Tuition bill demise aids immigrants"

Just as amnesty for illegals is a slap in the face to immigrants who wait their turn in line, in-state tuition for illegal aliens is a kick in the nutsack to the U.S.-citizen student who gets stuck paying out-of-state tuition.

Resentment is the inevitable consequence of favoritism.

[Ray]

(By the way, AILA is actually against the proposed law because it works contrary to the cornerstone of immigration since 1965, family re-unification.)

Don’t fall for that line folks!

AILA is only opposed to anything that would limit the number of visa cases that they could file for their clients. Less family visas for ILLEGAL alien amnesty recipients = less money for AILA members.

If AILA was REALLY concerned about reuniting ILLEGAL aliens with their families, then they would be pushing for deportation so those poor ILLEGALS could reunite with their families back home where they belong. But then of course that would be a tragedy because they could not soak more money out of all those potential clients.   

[Ray]

IF we go back to the original amnesty law and ENFORCE what was there, that would be a nice start.

                   

[william3rd]

Hey Ray- Please do not paint us all with the same brush.

I am an AILA member and I can tell you that well over half of the membership does not agree with the party line. The majority of us are members because we get the best and most current information on the law and not because we agree 100% with the activism that they promote. We interprete and guide our clients based on what the law is.

I have attended several AILA conferences and listened to the Kool-Aid drinkers speaking. Back in the audience, there is serious disagreement with their opinions.

AILA supports maximizing the numbers of emigrees. I do not agree and many immigration attorneys do not agree.

Whatever the law is, there is work for us. An amnesty will mean that alot of notarios/paralegals  will get rich misfiling cases and then we get to soak the "misled" clients when they end up in removal proceedings.

Taking a walk down memory lane- the 1986 amnesty as sign by reagan provided for severe sanctions on employers as the trade off. Neither reagan or Bush the 1st did anything about enforcement.

During clinton, we had enforcement in LA and other areas only because of the El Monte Slave Factory making the news. I had involvement in 3 enforement related cases in those days.

Bottom line- none of the last 4 presidents have done jack about immigration other than wring their hands.

Since nobody in public can palate this bill as it stands and it is doubtful that anybody will agree to vote on anything less, I am hoping that this bill will be roundfiled.

If not, then vote out the scumbags who vote for it whether they are republican or democrat. Call your senators and Congressmen, write letters, let them know what you are thinking.

[utopiacowboy]

Less family visas means that your wife will not have an opportunity to bring any other members of her family here so it affects people who are here legally not illegals. Illegals can't petition for anyone but people who played by the rules are also going to be penalized. Hell members of my wife's family may as well come here illegally if they are going to take away legal family based immigration.

The whole slant of the proposal is tilted towards big business and accomodating their needs. Of course they're the same corporations who are busy exporting American jobs as fast as they can and importing everything they can from China. There is nothing in the proposal which helps the average US citizen. Wake up and vote these morons out of office. I've written my congressmean and senators that unless they start listening to us they are history next election.

[Ray]

Sorry William! I didn’t mean to include you with the Kool-Aid drinkers.   

The point I was trying to make was that AILA is not a disinterested party here only concerned with family reunification. Family reunification is just a buzzword for “bring in even more Democrat voters”.

I imagine that a lot of AILA members made a killing off of the 245i mess a few years back and the ones specializing in that angle of the business are eagerly awaiting another amnesty fiasco.

[Ray]

Cowboy, I agree with your concerns.

I am guessing that the proposed new restriction on petitioning family members is part of a compromise on the stupid amnesty bill. Some lawmakers were concerned that all of these millions of newly legalized aliens would start petitioning everyone back home once they gained permanent residency/citizenship. That 12 million number could easily turn into 50 million or more down the road.

I guess the price you are supposed to pay for the illegals’ amnesty is that your wife cannot petition her parents automatically like she can now if she becomes a citizen.

That’s another reason why this stupid amnesty idea is a slap in the face to those who followed the law like we and our wives did. Well, I’m getting sick and tired of being slapped in the face by a bunch of whiny-assed liberals who’s main concern is consolidating their power with another 30 million Democrat voters. They could at least come clean and be honest about their REAL motivation instead of all this family reunification BS.

[doombug]

>>>> http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/TemporaryGuestWorkerVisa.html <<<<

Polls. Both a blessing and a curse. A clear picture and an abstract portrait. And it doesn't help any when some polls are (selectively?) cited to convey a national consensus on an issue.

From the link above. A single poll, with a single question: 

May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 Adults Nationwide with Margin of Error ± 3.

"Would you favor or oppose ...

"Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes"

FAVOR%
80

OPPOSE%
19

UNSURE%
1

Eighty percent! Hot damn!! Fully 80 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants deserve amnesty. At least, that's the conclusion we're being lead to believe.

Were this the only poll, however, and the only poll question, then those of us who oppose any form of amnesty--no matter how dressed up it is (coincidently, dressed up just like this poll question)--would be left to question our stance on the issue. Again, I think this was the intention above. Otherwise, why not quote a broad spectrum of polls. Fair and balanced, right?

Thankfully, this poll, with its (intentionally?) inexplicit question, isn't the sole purveyor of national consensus.

Here are a few competing polls that chip away at this 80 percent pro-amnesty figure. All can be found at PollingReport.com:

Quinnipiac University Poll. Nov. 13-19, 2006. N=1,623 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.4 (for all adults).
 
"Currently illegal immigrants cannot apply for citizenship. If the law were changed to allow illegal immigrants to register into a guest worker program, should that program offer them the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years?"

Yes: 69%
No: 27%
Unsure: 4%

   

It doesn't mention whether illegals can remain here or not, but it still qualifies as an amnesty question for the sake of this debate.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 2-4, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?"

Deport All: 24%
Remain for Limited Time: 15%
Remain if Meet Certain Requirements: 59%
Unsure: 2%

 

That's a sizable difference--from 80 to 59 percent, pro-amnesty.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). April 20-23, 2007. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.4.
 
"As you may know, President Bush has proposed to allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States to apply for legal, temporary-worker status. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?"
 
Strongly Favor: 14%
Somewhat Favor: 30%
Somewhat Oppose: 18%
Strongly Oppose: 33%
Depends (vol.)/Unsure: 5%

No option of a path to citizenship is mentioned in the question. Still, that brings pro-amnesty down to 44 percent.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 13-15, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Now thinking about immigrants who come to the United States illegally -- Which comes closest to your view about what the government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and not allow them to return. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time. OR, Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." [Emphasis added for clarity.]
 
Leave, Not Return: 14%
Leave, Temporarily Return: 6%
Leave, Return and Become Citizens: 42%
Remain and Become Citizens: 36%
Unsure: 2% 

     
Down to 36 percent, now, of those favoring illegals remaining in this country with a chance at citizenship.

That initial 80 percent pro-amnesty figure has a way of suddenly melting into the backdrop. Sort of like an illegal melting into the backdrop of a California barrio.

One final poll question, unrelated to the matter above.

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 5-9, 2007. N=1,373 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Generally speaking, do you think that illegal immigrants help or harm the nation's economy, or do you think they neither help nor harm the nation's economy?" [Emphasis added for the benefit of our MEChA readers.]

Help: 24%
Harm: 54%
Neither: 17%
Unsure: 5%

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

Until some other poll comes along to bandage things up.

[doombug]

Less family visas means that your wife will not have an opportunity to bring any other members of her family here so it affects people who are here legally not illegals. Illegals can't petition for anyone but people who played by the rules are also going to be penalized. Hell members of my wife's family may as well come here illegally if they are going to take away legal family based immigration.
 

That is an excellent point!

Illegals influencing reform in a direction that hurts those who've played by the rules.

I love it!

I really, really wish legal immigrants--the immigrants that truly deserve respect in this whole affair--would rise up and express their views. The must know that the American citizen backs them.

[william3rd]

Point taken Ray

I had over 250 cases come in in less than 4 months when 245I closed back in the late 90s.

Make your voices heard by letter and telephone calls. The powers that be have a formula about how many votes can be extrapolated from each letter and telephone call that comes in.

Naturally- this new amnesty came straight from the White House. SO that says something about the plan. Its gotta be good since everything else that el Presidente has touched has come out so well.

[doombug]

The more I read up on this, the more antacids I consume.

For one, I'm beginning to think that this $5,000 ($1,000 immediate; $4,000 when they adjust) penalty was simply thrown in to mollify the amnesty theorists. I could find no mention of a penalty in the Immigration and Reform Act of '86. There's even talk of reducing this fee so as not to burden the criminals financially.

"Mr. Martinez also said he expects an effort to try to reduce the $5,000 top fine when the bill goes to the Senate floor next week."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070519-121242-2090r_page2.htm

But this is not the only fee exemption illegals might win.

"According to the Boston Globe, the Bush administration insisted on the removal of a provision in the initial version of the bill, proposed by Kennedy (D-Mass.), requiring payment of back taxes and any related fines to the Internal Revenue Service as part of the road to citizenship.

[...]

"Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, expressed surprise the requirement had been removed. While acknowledging the difficulty of accurately determining tax bills for illegals, he estimated the figure would be in the tens of billions of dollars with a similar amount for penalties.

"'I can tell you, most law-abiding taxpayers would find that provision totally distasteful,' Sepp said . 'I doubt that many citizens are willing to swallow that special treatment.'"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55786

I'm also beginning to side with Ray's theory that this would be a political bonanza for the Democrats, as they'd garner millions of potential voters. This is proving to be more irresistible to them than the consequences of selling out the very states which suffer, and will continue to suffer, as a result.

One such state has conducted a thorough review of the costs pre- and post-amnesty. Here's an executive summary:

Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites

Executive Summary

The illegal alien population residing in New Jersey is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly $2.1 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. This estimate is derived from analysis of public expenditures on just three of several areas of expenditures for about 372,000 illegal alien residents. That annual tax burden amounts to about $800 per New Jersey household headed by a native-born resident. Even if sales, income and property taxes that may be collected from illegal immigrants — estimated at $488 million — are subtracted from the fiscal outlays, the net costs to New Jersey’s taxpayers still amount to nearly $1.6 billion per year.

The three cost areas discussed in this analysis (education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration) are the major cost areas. They are also the same three program areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, and that earlier study provides a useful baseline for comparison. Other studies of the costs of immigration — both at the state and national level — that have been conducted in the interim, support the conclusions of this report.

Even without accounting for all of the numerous other areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by New Jersey taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.

The nearly $2.1 billion in costs incurred by New Jersey taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:

• Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in New Jersey and documented costs of K-12 schooling, New Jerseyites spend more than $1.85 billion annually on education for the children of illegal immigrants. This estimate does not include programs for limited English students, remedial educational programs or breakfast and lunch programs available to students from low-income families. An estimated 11.7 percent of the K-12 public school students in New Jersey are children of illegal aliens.
• Health care. Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to an estimated $200 million a year.
• Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating deportable illegal aliens in New Jersey’s state and local prisons amounts to about $50 million a year. This estimate includes only prison personnel costs and not short-term or other detention costs, related law enforcement and judicial expenditures, or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to incarceration.

The fiscal costs of illegal immigration borne by state taxpayers do not end with these three major cost areas. The total local cost of illegal immigration would be considerably higher if other cost areas were also calculated, such as preventive health programs, special English instruction, interpretation services in courts and hospitals, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers.

If illegal immigrants obtained legal work status, and eventual permanent residence and possible citizenship, as currently advocated by the Bush administration and passed in the U.S. Senate in 2006, state income tax collections might increase, but this likely would be outweighed by increased eligibility for public services available to low-income families. In addition, the possibility for family members of the current illegal alien population to come to the United States to reunite families would increase the size of the poverty and near-poverty population likely to use public services.

The PDF of the full report is located here: The Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites

Under the current bill, illegal aliens will avoid the normal course of prosecution/conviction/punishment for their law breaking, and instead be conditionally forgiven for their crimes. As our reigning Peanut King would define it, this is amnesty:

"It was left to President Jimmy Carter, in 1977, to issue a broad amnesty to draft evaders. Carter argued the distinction that their crimes were forgotten, not forgiven. This qualification makes clear the purpose of an amnesty: not to erase a criminal act, nor to condone or forgive it, but simply to facilitate political reconciliation.

"Though an amnesty can be broad or narrow, covering one person or many, and can be seriously qualified (as long as the conditions are not unconstitutional), it cannot grant a license to commit future crimes. Nor can it forgive crimes not yet committed."
http://www.answers.com/amnesty&r=67

Still, the White House insists otherwise:

MYTH: This is amnesty.

FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/

A final word on that mysterious "Z" visa:

• Provides that Z visas last for 4 years and may be renewed indefinitely.
• Waives numerous criminal provisions for eligibility purposes and no medical exam is needed up front.
• Requires state and local governments are required to assist illegal aliens in providing documentation to support a Z visa application as a condition of receiving state impact assistance money.
• Immediately grants probationary benefits (including work authorization, protection from removal, and a social security number) based only on an application and a 24-hour wait on a background check. Probationary benefits are not affected by the “trigger” in Title I of the bill.

http://bearcreekledger.com/