Thread: First 10 Senate Bills: No. 9 is Immigration Reform (amnesty)

The source of this is apparently from notorious pro-illegal alien advocate Frank Sharry.
-----

January 7, 2009
First Ten Senate Bills: Number 9 is Immigration Reform
From Frank Sharry of America's Voice:

First Ten Senate Bills: Immigration Reform is Number 9

S.1—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “To create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America�s middle class through measures that modernize the nation�s infrastructure, enhance America�s energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, and for other purposes.â€

Here's NumbersUSA take on this:

Reid Signals Intention to Push INCREASE in Foreign Workers
Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 10:40 AM

On the first day of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Reid introduced the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act" (S. 9), suggesting his intention in the first months of the new Congress to push through some version of amnesty and immigration increases.

Exactly what the bill will do is left open. Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) introduced the bill as a shell to serve as a place holder until he decides what the legislation will be. But this does not bode well for American workers who must compete against imported authorized foreign workers and against uninvited illegal workers. For weeks, Reid has told the news media that he intends to push for an amnesty for 11-19 million illegal aliens in the country and to greatly increase the number of foreign workers legally brought into the country.

The filling of S. 9 on Tuesday shows that Sen. Reid is serious.

Perhaps one piece of good news is that Reid introduced 10 placeholder bills and that the immigration one was No. 9. Since three bills are about economic recovery, one on mortgages, one on energy, one on national security, one on health care and one on reviewing Bush's "midnight regs," we can hope that immigration won't be first up to bat.

On the other hand, American voters may want to push Reid and others in the Democratic leadership to fill their "shell bill" with immigration reform that suspends the illogical importation of 140,000 foreign workers each month.

numbersusa.com

S.9—Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009. Seems to be a placeholder for comprehensive immigration reform, including stronger border and employment security to crackdown on illegal immigration while “reforming and rationalizing avenues for legal immigration.â€

When i read about all the spending on "infrastructure" I have no wonder who will get those jobs in construction -- and roadwork. You know WHO will get them. They will be handed to them on a silver platter.

Our country ought to be rising up and storming our Capitol with pitchforks -- our treasury is being RAIDED.

Everyone is too busy getting "bargains" at the mall, I guess.

Hopefully it will wait longer. We need to have MORE devistation in our economy to get lazy American pissed off at the Government. That will be more of us to fight the Marxist Socialist Government we are enjoying.
I'm seeing a turn in Maine and boy are people up in arms over who get General Assistance. Look at the comments at the end. LOL

City will request tighter General Assistance rules
By Scott Taylor , Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
LEWISTON - The city will ask legislators to tighten some General Assistance rules as a way to save state and city revenues.

Proposals would end situations in which people qualify for both federal aid and General Assistance, said GA Administrator Sue Charron.

For example, people who qualify for federal food stamps can also request food support from the city. The city has no choice but to grant the General Assistance, she said.

One proposal would tie General Assistance to food stamps. General Assistance would be used as a supplement for people who didn't qualify for other aid, but people wouldn't be able to double their benefits.

"When the economy gets tough and things get cut, General Assistance tries to be more than it's intended to be," Charron said. "This proposal here is not to hurt anybody, but to close some of the loopholes."

The city is required by the state to pay General Assistance to help people buy food, pay for heating oil or rent or repair cars. Once the city has paid that money out, the state reimburses the city for half of it.

Charron said the city would also like the state to adopt a residence limit for people who move to a new community. They would have to wait 120 days before applying for General Assistance if they abandoned government aid of some kind somewhere else, whether it was another Maine city or another state. (This one is about all the Somali's that move to Maine because of our "generous" welfare!)

Councilors liked that idea.

"It seems that Lewiston is the dumping ground for every other community," Councilor Denis Theriault said. "I would rather we take care of our own people first."

Another proposal would limit General Assistance benefits for renters who get a credit through the state's Property Tax Refund program.

"If they get a benefit from that program, they should use it for life and health, food and shelter" Charron said. "It doesn't seem fair that they should be able to use it on anything they want."


City Administrator Jim Bennett said his office would present the proposals to Lewiston's legislative delegates.

"There will be opposition to this," he said. "But we are expecting the governor's budget this week and it will likely have many cuts. We think the cuts here would be less drastic than any the governor might propose and wouldn't hurt anybody."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLICK HERE To Show/Hide Discussion Thread - (19 Comments)
Comments

Posted By:helga at January 7, 2009 7:32 AM (Suggest Removal)
Way to go Lewiston, now if every other city and town did the same thing, people might start getting the clue to go out and do something for themselves.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Gary at January 7, 2009 7:52 AM (Suggest Removal)
This is exactly what the City and State have to do to stem the un-ending tide of welfare seekers into this state. These folks claim to come here for the quality of life, like low crime rates, etc., but in actuality, they have moved to Maine because we offer immediate access to every welfare program known to man, and it never expires. I would like to see a lifetime cap added to the proposal as well. Public assistance should be a temporary hand up, not a career.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Cindy at January 7, 2009 8:21 AM (Suggest Removal)
ITS ABOUT DANG TIME!!!!!!!! Every town needs to do the same!

| Add your comments

Posted By:Jaba at January 7, 2009 8:33 AM (Suggest Removal)
HEY!!!! Did a conservative sneek into the city council? Or are people finally just fed the *%#^ up? It's way past time for this sort of measure. I don't know if a lifetime cap is the right idea, maybe a time limit, six months or a year. Or only while you are going to school, learning a skill, to get a job. Or, or...only if you get yor butt out of bed every day and show up some place at 9:00 am, looking for work.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Jen at January 7, 2009 8:54 AM (Suggest Removal)
Ok...help me out here. Currently, those who get food stamps can get money from the city for food too? What are they doing with their food stamp money?

| Add your comments

Posted By:bethany at January 7, 2009 8:55 AM (Suggest Removal)
ok what about the people that do work everyday and just need a little extra to eat? their are alot of differant situations out their!

| Add your comments

Posted By:SURE at January 7, 2009 9:05 AM (Suggest Removal)
now to make tougher guidelines on this fuel assistance too, why would a person with three to four roommates even need it? well they get it, year in and year out, and brag about spending it. and i work two jobs and can't and could never get it!

| Add your comments

Posted By:helga at January 7, 2009 9:07 AM (Suggest Removal)
bethany, thats the exact problem!! Towns and the state need a drastic over haul on how money is doled out. They dont want to help people who help themselves, they want to cater to the lazy. That way they get more federal money. Governments from towns to federal need to start DEMANDING personal responsibility.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Robert61 at January 7, 2009 10:31 AM (Suggest Removal)
Jen, State law does not allow the city general assistance program to even consider what they get in food stamps when providing what services they qualify for from the city - city staff hands are tied and do a darned good job given some of these limitations and the volume of folks who need help. The whole point on many of these recommendations to the state is change the rules, make sure everyone is treated the same - we can't look at food stamps and a few other things such as LIHEAP or the rent rebates - even when LIHEAP is given to e renter which is given int heory to help pay rent which is covering someone else heating the building. Shouldn't we be able to discount what we given in heating or utility assistance if they got LIHEAP. Shouldn't we take into account any other possible avenues they can go to for help such as food banks (even when the personr efuses to take those items).

| Add your comments

Posted By:SURE at January 7, 2009 10:41 AM (Suggest Removal)
that fuel assistance program does need looking into, why would an apartment with four to five renters need assistance with anything? food stamps too, and whatever else they have, all work too.

| Add your comments

Posted By:just me at January 7, 2009 10:52 AM (Suggest Removal)
I went to apply for general assistance in Lewiston, exactly ONCE. I was hungry and was seeking a food voucher for me and my son. I was turned away by the city, and told to go to a foodbank. I never understood why general assistance even existed; no one I know has been given help by the city.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Auburn Resident at January 7, 2009 12:29 PM (Suggest Removal)
It is unlikely that the problem will ever be fixed now that we have raised another generation of welfare babies. If the assistance is cut off entirely (only food stamps remaining) then I think that we would see some dramatic improvements.

| Add your comments

Posted By:SURE at January 7, 2009 2:29 PM (Suggest Removal)
auburn resident, i think your right, and why don't they come out and say who they are giving it to, we all know

| Add your comments

Posted By:OK at January 7, 2009 2:38 PM (Suggest Removal)
I say end all assistance...survival of the fittest

| Add your comments

Posted By:richard at January 7, 2009 3:57 PM (Suggest Removal)
Hey I've been on a lay off for a month now.Took home $500.00 a week with no overtime.My unemployment is $344.00 a week,that is $156.00 a week less then what I'm used to.I have a house payment,car payment,heat with K-1,plus all the other bills I have.My normal job pays $14.20 an hour which is not too bad for the Auburn area. I have bladder cancer and I'm 57 years old,but I'm expected to be out looking for a job...AS IF ANYONE WOULD HIRE ME AT THE PAY RATE I WAS MAKING. I cant get any help because my unemployment is too much.....So I say this is a great idea...Get the lowlifes off the system......iF i MAKE IT THROUGH THE WINTER,I'LL BE LUCKY....

| Add your comments

Posted By:Robert61 at January 7, 2009 4:10 PM (Suggest Removal)
Sure, why not come out and say who you think it is if you agree with him....what are you afraid of?

| Add your comments

Posted By:SURE at January 7, 2009 4:15 PM (Suggest Removal)
just didn't want to start another war out here, but you can just imagine can't you, that is probably why he said it the way he did too.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Chris at January 7, 2009 4:39 PM (Suggest Removal)
Well, well, well! 'bout time! All it took was a Depression for towns to "smarten up" and give GA just to Mainers. Illegal immigrants should be weeded out too. I like the 120 days wait period but would like to see 6 month to 1-year before they suck us dry. Political Correctness is bringing down this once great nation. Take Back America! I stikll think we need to go further and therefore I welcome more cuts. If that's what it takes, I'm willing to camp in the middle of my livingroom longer!

| Add your comments

Posted By:J at January 7, 2009 5:56 PM (Suggest Removal)
These programs were designed to help the needy and were based on honesty and need. The problem is too many folks who are greedy and lazy have seen a way to,like parisites penetrate and suck the system dry. Add to that the DHS attitude of job security in giving people what they ask for without any detailed investigation hasw given us the mess we now have great cost to the productive TAX PAYERS in our society.

I like the title, "Stonger Economy, Stonger Borders". I sends the message that one cannot happen without the other. I am sure the pro-illegal will flip.
This bill may have an amnesty hidden, the fact that the bill has a pro-enforcement name says alot about how senators know that Americans want secure borders. Very reveiling.

Related:
-----

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION
Jan. 7, 2009 – 8:29 p.m.
Senate Democrats Outline Sweeping Agenda With First Set of Bills
By Bart Jansen, CQ Staff

Senate Democrats outlined their priorities for the 111th Congress in their first bills, highlighted by the economic stimulus package, a health care overhaul and climate change legislation.

As is traditional at the start of a new Congress, all of the bills are mere shells, awaiting legislative language. The stimulus package received the symbolically important designation of S 1, while a health care overhaul was designated as S 4 and climate change legislation as S 5.

Tax priorities include doubling the child tax credit, expanding the dependent-care tax credit, increasing the college tuition credit and creating a tax credit for families caring for an elderly relative who no longer lives with them.

“We are going to focus like a laser on middle class families,â€

From "Lonewacko" Blog
Please see source to access internal link.
http://24ahead.com/comprensive-immigrat ... -economy-s

"Comprensive immigration reform" returns: S.9, the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009"

Comprehensive immigration reform - aka an amnesty for illegal aliens - is back. Yesterday, Harry Reid introduced S.9, the "Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009" ("SESBA"). What's there now is just a placeholder (link), however the remarks made by Patrick Leahy at introduction show exactly what it is. Those remarks and the list of co-sponsors are below. Note that this is a repeat of how it started in 2007, right down to the bill number.

If you want to cut this bill off at the knees, write to your representatives and let them know your opinion. However, for those who want something that would be dramatically more effective, ask politicians tough questions about this issue on videotape and then upload their responses to video sharing sites. Discrediting one national politician over this issue would send a very loud and clear message to the rest.

Note that allowing illegal aliens to become citizens is left open, perhaps as a bargaining chip:

I am confident that our country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to citizenship.

Note also that the remarks oppose immigration enforcement, at the same time as SESBA presumably will include ramped-up enforcement as an inducement to those who support our laws:

Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated millions of people currently living and working in the United States without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other than harsh penalties and more enforcement.

So? That would work, and it would restore the natural order of things where people stay in their own countries until we decide we want to admit them. Apparently Leahy et al are afraid that it would work. But, don't worry: he's thinking of you:

We must protect the rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need.

OK, the American worker isn't at the top of Leahy's list. Rather, he's more concerned with the riding on the coattails of racial power and helping cheap labor employers have a ready workforce.

The remarks also support "family reunification", aka chain migration rather than our historical policies which encouraged people to make a clean break. They also oppose the "wall" on the southern border.

As for this, I'm not sure what exactly it's referring to:
We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United States in armed conflict.
Co-sponsors: Ted kennedy, Mark Begich, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Pat Leahy, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Claire Mccaskill, and Charles Schumer.

Introductory remarks from Leahy:
It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the President should sign, legislation to strengthen the economy, recognize the heritage of the United States as a nation of immigrants, and amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) by--

(1) providing more effective border and employment enforcement;

(2) preventing illegal immigration; and

(3) reforming and rationalizing avenues for legal immigration.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, as we begin the 111th Congress, we will try, once again, to enact comprehensive immigration reforms that have eluded us in the past several years. With an administration that understands the critical necessity of meaningful reform and that understands the policy failures of the last 8 years, I am hopeful that the new Congress can finally enact legislation consistent with our history as a nation of immigrants.

The majority leader has included immigration reform as among the legislative priorities for the new Congress. I look forward to working with him, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and others interested in working toward the goal of immigration reform.

In 2006 and 2007, Congress attempted to pass practical and effective reforms to our immigration system. In 2006, the Senate did its part and passed legislation, only to be thwarted by those in the House of Representatives who opposed dealing with the issue in a meaningful way. In 2007, the House passed legislation only to have it blocked in the Senate by Republican Members opposed to effective reform.

If our immigration policies are to be effective and play a role in restoring America's image around the world, we must reject the failed policies of the last 8 years. We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United States in armed conflict. We must not tolerate the tragic and needless death of a person in our custody for lack of basic medical care. We must ensure that children are not needlessly separated from their parents and that family unity is respected.

We must move beyond the current policy that is focused on detaining and deporting those undocumented workers who have been abused and exploited by American employers but does nothing to change an environment that remains ripe for these abuses. We must protect the rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need. We should improve the opportunities and make more efficient the processes for those who seek to come to America with the goal of becoming new Americans, whether to invest in our communities and create jobs, to be reunited with loved ones, or to seek freedom and opportunity and a better life. We must also live up to the goal of family reunification in our immigration policy and join at least 19 other nations that provide immigration equality to same-sex partners of different nationalities. And I believe we would be wise to reconsider the effectiveness and cost of a wall along our southern border, which has adversely affected the fragile environment and vibrant cross-border culture of an entire region. Such a wall stands as a symbol of fear and intolerance. This is not what America is about and we can do better.

Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated millions of people currently living and working in the United States without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other than harsh penalties and more enforcement. The policies of the last 8 years, which have served only to appease the most extreme ideologues, must be replaced with sensible solutions. I am confident that our country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to citizenship.

As President-elect Obama's administration considers immigration issues, I look forward to working closely with them and with the Senate's leadership to find the best solutions. President-elect Obama's nominees to lead the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor understand very well the importance of sensible border policies and the importance of workers' rights. The American people look to all of us to forge a consensus for immigration reform that rejects the extreme ideology that has attended this issue and prevented real progress.

Originally Posted by LawEnforcer

I like the title, "Stonger Economy, Stonger Borders". I sends the message that one cannot happen without the other. I am sure the pro-illegal will flip.

Do you actually believe this is what the Demons want? Actually they want us to believe giving illegals amnesty will make our economy stronger!! I can hardly wait for the nearly bankrupt NY Times to tell us that!!

I refuse to believe that it either "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Semitic" to point out that 10 of the 12 co-sponsors of S. 9 are either Catholic or Jewish, two religious groups which comprise roughly 20-25 percent and six percent of the entire U.S. population, respectively.

The Roman Catholic Church has launched an open war on the civil laws of the Western nation-state called "The Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform" (a.k.a. "Justice for Migrants"), which teaches open sedition against the laws of immigration of the United States of America.

(For some information on this, see http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-142307.html )

U.S. Jews, no matter how comfortable their own upbringings, evidently are still taught that they must somehow "bring justice" to long-dead ancestors who were mistreated "as immigrants" in places far away from the United States.

Those sponsoring U.S. Senators are:

CATHOLICS:
1. Begich (D-AK)
2. Durbin (D-IL)
3. Kennedy (D-MA)
4. Kerry (D-MA)
5. Leahy (D-VT)
6. McCaskill (D-MO)

JEWISH:
1. Boxer (D-CA)
2. Levin (D-MI)
3. Lieberman (I/D-CT)
4. Schumer (D-NY)

Harry Reid himself is a Mormon, another influencial international religious group which is well represented in the U.S. Senate and which advocates actively for illegal alien amnesty. However, Mormons themselves comprise perhaps a smaller group than Jews within the U.S. population as a whole.

My question is, Why should 100 percent of U.S. citizens agree to legislation representing the wishes of such small, specialized minority groups, each of which is centered internationally rather than nationally?

Related:
"Labor, Religious Leaders Push for Immigration Overhaul"
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-830414.html#830414