Thread: THE FINE PRINT OF THE SENATE BETRAYAL

Sent to us from Theresa Harmon, TnRIP

The Fine Print of the Senate Betrayal
What’s In the Comprehensive Approach” To Illegal Immigration
An analysis of the Specter-Hagel S-2611 Immigration Bill
Marcus Epstein
Director of Research
All these facts, except those with an *asterisk* are in the text of the legislation. Because it is long and cumbersome to read, we included links to articles and studies that summarize the legislation. If you have the time and patience to read the bill, click here. The Federation for American Immigration Reform has summarized the Amendments and the Bill in slightly less technical jargon. Click here for Amendments, and here for the main text (this text is a PDF chart comparing several competing bills, the Senate just passed the one labeled Specter-Hagel)

Notice that the figures below are based on a number of 12 million illegals when when, according to Bear Stern, the figure is actually more like 20,000 + million and some of us believe as high as 28,000 million!

Amnesty

Amnesty for 85% of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens (10.2 million) 60% of illegals will be able to receive Amnesty immediately, while 15 percent must go to a foreign port of entry to apply for citizenship (Source: Heritage Foundation)
The remaining 15 percent ( 1.8 million) illegal aliens are expected to return home, but there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would facilitate that action! (Source: Heritage Foundation)
Employers who hire illegal aliens will also receive Amnesty (Source: The Arizona Republic)
Privileges for Illegals and Costs to Taxpayers
Illegal Aliens will be eligible for Social Security! (Source: Washington Times)
Illegal Aliens students will qualify for in State Tuition, a benefit not given to out of state American citizens! (Source: Asian Journal)
The increased welfare payments that illegals will receive once they receive Amnesty will cost American taxpayers 30 million dollars a year—The biggest welfare increase in 35 years! (Source: The Heritage Foundation)*
Guestworkers
66 million new immigrants over next 20 years an increase of 47 million under current trends (Source: Heritage Foundation)*
Guestworkers cannot “"terminated from employment by any employer . . . except for just cause." A right not given to American Citizens! (Source: Robert Novak)
Guestworkers also must be paid the prevailing wage, another right not given to American citizens! (Source: Robert Novak)
1.5 million agricultural workers may also apply for guest worker status! (Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform)
The so called “temporary” Guestworkers are allowed to apply for permanent residency (Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform)
Other Atrocities
Increases the visa caps for all countries (Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform)
An Amendment Proposed by Rick Santorum would greatly increase the number of countries whose citizens can enter the U.S. without a visa. (Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform)
Increases employment based green cards from 140,000 to 450,000 a year for the next 10 years! The number will then go down to 290,000 a year afterward. (Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform)
Doublespeak in the Bill
Bill states that Guestworkers cannot take the jobs of American workers, but the definition of "United States Worker" includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless. (Source: Robert Novak)
The law establishes English as the official language, but then makes it illegal to “punish” someone for not speaking English!
The law says if someone has been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors they will not be eligible for Amnesty and are supposed to be deported. However, it makes an exception for “hardship cases”. Also, anyone who claims they were not aware of their deportation order can appeal. (Source: Heritage Foundation)
What the bill does not include:
There is nothing in the bill that would require the 15% of illegal aliens who are not eligible for Amnesty to go home. Nor is there anything that would punish any of the illegal aliens for not doing what they are supposed to do. (Source: Heritage Foundation)

An Amendment requiring voters to show valid government issued identification when voting in federal elections was defeated. (Source: Associated Press
The Isakson Amendment stating that the Secretary of Homeland Security had to certify that the borders are secure before and border of the Amnesty or Guestworkers provisions were enacted was defeated (Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform)
*Note: These studies were done by the Heritage Foundation and are not in the text of the bill, but are based on their own estimates. While they are not the final word, other researchers have confirmed their findings, and they have not been widely challenged.

I'm sorry the links didn't show up, but there is valuable information here and it's very disturbing when you find out in finer detail what these senators did to us yesterday.

From:http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index...ual_protection
(maybe it's time we all start demanding our equal protections?)

equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... ntxiv.html). In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html).

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendmentv).
menu of sources
Federal Material
Federal Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... ntxiv.html)
Federal Judicial Decisions
U.S. Supreme Court:
Historic Equal Protection Decisions (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search ... lyhistoric)
Recent Equal Protection Decisions (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/sear ... protection)
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: Recent Equal Protection Decisions (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usca/search/ ... protection)
State Material
State Judicial Decisions
N.Y. Court of Appeals:
Recent Decisions on Equal Protection (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/searc ... iibulletin)
Commentary from liibulletin-ny (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/searc ... protection)
Appellate Decisions from Other States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/)
Other References
Useful Offnet (or Subscription - $) Sources
Good Starting Point in Print: John E. Nowak, Ronald Rotunda, Constitutional Law (http://west.thomson.com/product/22049662/product.asp), West Group (7th ed. 2004)
other topics
Category: Individual Rights Category: Constitutional Law
Retrieved from "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection"