Thread: Kennedy, The Village Idiot Speaks Again

FAIR Immigration Update:

Read Kennedy's Response to McConnell's idea for a voter ID card. Where the hell does Kennedy get this crap?

Who voted for, and kept voting for Kennedy all these years?

The Senate reconvened at 8:30 am on May 24, 2006 to renew debate on
S.2611, the guest worker amnesty legislation authored by Senators Specter,
Hagel, and Martinez. A variety of votes were taken, including a vote
to end debate, which passed 73-25. The following is a summary of the
day's events.

Senator McConnell began by offering amendment #4085, which would
require all persons to present a photo ID that meets the REAL ID standards
before being allowed to vote. It also includes a grant program to states
to help fund IDs for indigent people who can't afford them. Senator
McConnell explained his amendment was based on the recommendations of the
bipartisan commission on election reform, co-chaired by former
President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. That
commission recommended using a photo ID to ensure that individuals presenting
themselves to vote are in fact the same as individuals listed on the
voter lists.

Senator McConnell argued that his proposal has bipartisan support and
the support of the American people. He noted that in a Wall Street
Journal poll, over 80% of Americans approved of using photo IDs to
establish eligibility for voting and only 7% opposed the idea. The Senator
added that presenting photo IDs to vote is not a new concept. At least 24
states have passed such a requirement.

Senator Kennedy strongly opposed the McConnell amendment. He said that
this amendment was only tangentially related to the immigration bill
and that there had been no hearings or debate on Senator McConnell's
proposal. The Senator said that 25 minutes of debate is insufficient for
such an important matter.

Senator Kennedy argued that the McConnell amendment was similar to
imposing literacy tests and poll taxes, both of which were struck down as
unconstitutional. He stated that Senator McConnell hasn't even shown
that voter fraud is a problem in the United States. There hasn't been
any evidence. The Senator noted one 12-state study by a nonpartisan
organization on election fraud which concluded that voter fraud is very
rare.

The Senator continued by arguing that the McConnell amendment doesn't
truly follow the Carter-Baker Commission recommendations. He said that
the Commission recommended that new photo ID requirements be
implemented in 2010 so states have time to adjust. However, the McConnell
amendment requires photo IDs to be displayed by 2008-the year of a
presidential election. The Commission also recommended that the government
ensure that poor people are able to get photo IDs free of charge, but the
McConnell amendment doesn't actually achieve this because it gives money
to states only to "promote the issuance" of IDs free of cost. Finally,
the Commission recommended that a "back-up" method of voting be
implemented for instances where there are problems with photo IDs, but the
McConnell amendment doesn't address that. Based on this, he said, the
amendment violates the 14th Amendment by denying equal protection and also
violates the 24th Amendment because it is equivalent to a poll tax.

Senator Obama strongly opposed the McConnell amendment. He said there
is no more important right than the right to vote. He said history had
not been kind to certain groups and referred to poll taxes, literacy
tests, and property requirements. The Senator said that considering the
delicate balance of the immigration bill, this amendment could not have
come at a worse time. He stated that this language would impose the
most restrictive voter ID bill ever enacted. Senator Obama said he knew
there was a certain simplistic appeal to the amendment, but argued that
there was no showing of a significant problem of voter fraud and that
the result of the amendment is to hurt those who have historically been
disenfranchised-the indigent, elderly, disabled, and minorities. He
said what studies had been done on voter fraud showed that statistically
one was more likely to be killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent
vote.

Senator Dodd also opposed the McConnell amendment. He said that the
amendment not only imposed the requirement that an individual present a
photo ID when voting, but that the photo ID meets the REAL ID standards.
He argued that most states haven't even enacted legislation to conform
to the REAL ID Act and that if the ID requirements were imposed by
2008, there is potential for 142 million voters to be disenfranchised
because they are not able to get a REAL ID. He reiterated the argument
that there was no evidence of a voter fraud problem and argued that
historically we have always erred on the side of access.

Senator Bond rose in support of the McConnell amendment. He said there
had definitely been studies in Missouri showing problems with voter
fraud. He argued that if your legitimate vote is cancelled out by a
fraudulent vote, then your vote is meaningless.

Senator Kennedy argued that if we are going to pass language that has
the potential to impact every voter in America, we ought to take more
than 50 minutes to consider it. This is a major rewriting of our
national voting laws and we should have hearings and a debate.

Senator Dodd quoted the Carter-Baker Commission as stating there is no
evidence of extensive voter fraud. It could occur but it hasn't yet.
The Senator stated that the amendment essentially provides that if a
voter does not have a REAL ID by 2008 he/she cannot vote, no matter what.
He also said he felt it was unwise to open up the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) on the immigration bill.

Senator McConnell stated that there was Democratic support for
requiring photo IDs for voting. The Senator said voter fraud is a significant
problem in America and with many more people entering the country under
this bill, we should address it. He asked whether Congress cares about
the franchise and said it is nonsensical to suggest that a photo ID
should not be used to protect one of our most sacred rights.

Senator Dodd moved to table the McConnell amendment. The motion
failed, 48-49.

Senator Byrd continued the immigration debate by proposing amendment
#4127, along with Senator Gregg, Senator Thomas and Senator Cantwell.
This amendment would add a source of funding to help secure the borders.
He began by pointing out important facets of S. 2611, as well as various
statistics. Senator Byrd discussed that of the 12 million illegal
aliens here, 1 in 4 of these aliens was lawfully admitted, but overstayed
their visa. He pointed out that this is important to note, as out of the
19 terrorists that committed the 9/11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens
who overstayed their visas.

Senator Byrd said that 400,000 illegal aliens have been ordered to be
deported, but they have disappeared. He stated that this has occurred
because "law enforcement agencies have consistently received fewer
resources that are necessary to do their job." The pending bill would grant
amnesty for up to 12 million aliens by rewarding them with working
status, and eventually allow them legal permanent status. In terms of
enforcement, he stated that the bill authorizes appropriations of $25 billion
over the next 5 years, but he doubts such funds will ever be made
available.

Senator Byrd discussed how President Bush has "consistently
under-funded border enforcement," and has consistently opposed replacing those
funds in the appropriations process. It has been neglected so much, that
the President has had to employ the National Guard to the border. He
pointed out that if this amnesty proposal is carried out, national
security will be very bad, and that funds are critical to back enforcement.
The proposed amendment would require illegal aliens who would benefit
from the amnesty bill to help pay for its costs, by requiring them to pay
a fee of $500 in addition to other fines and penalties already proposed
in this bill. He said that this fine is not so costly considering how
much the aliens would benefit from S. 2611.

Senator Byrd stated that these fines would make available almost $3
billion over the next 2 years. This would provide monies to make sensor
technology available, as well as to increase air and marine intervention,
fund various construction projects, train law enforcement personnel,
increase maritime activities, and improve customs. All of these have been
neglected for too long, and continue to be neglected. He said that the
fees of this amendment are reasonable because it is the illegal aliens
that have created the needs for these funds in the first place, so they
should help finance them. He said that this amendment would help carry
into effect the law enforcement amendments of this bill.

Senator Byrd stated that "it is not enough to authorize border
security, it needs to be funded." He went on to say that the Senate must ensure
that aliens who are supposed to leave are made to leave, and that the
agencies responsible for that have enough funds to do so.

Senator Gregg rose in support of the Byrd amendment, pointing out that
the fees proposed by this amendment will not actually be called upon
unless the Appropriations Committee says that it needs the money to
improve border security, although this would most likely occur. He
continued, saying that "this money is still only a small portion of what will be
necessary." He described the different areas that need large amounts of
funding, including the $2 billion needed to implement technology
sensors, another $2 billion for a fully integrated communication system, and
an additional $2.4 billion to update the air fleet, which is ancient
and outdated.

Senator Gregg continued to say that there is a "great need for funds to
adequately secure the border." He noted the consensus of the American
people- the first effort should be to secure our borders, especially the
Southern border. He argued that if illegal aliens are to obtain earned
citizenship, an element of that earning, since they are already here
illegally, is to pay a fine for violating the law. He outlined that the
current fine is $2750 (including the Cornyn amendment). He said that the
additional $500 proposed in the amendment would increase the total fine
to $3250-$500 of which would go to securing the border. He stated that
"this is a reasonable fee to pay to be an American citizen," especially
if they already have a job and want American benefits. He went on to
say that "if all good intentions and words aren't backed up by resources,
you simply cannot accomplish the goal of securing the border." The
Senator described the necessary factors such as electronics, boots on
ground, aircraft, Coast Guard utilized for enforcement, and explained that
all these factors take dollars.

Senator Specter thanked Senators Byrd and Gregg for offering
amendments, but voiced his concern on whether it will be counter productive to
put "such an increased burden on the undocumented immigrants" that they
will not want to come forward. He said that the fines in S. 2611 as is
have been "very carefully calibrated." The Senator explained that for
those illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over 5 years,
$1600 out of the total $2000 fine would be used for border security. For
those who have been here between 2-5 years, and will be required to
leave, $800 of the total $1000 fine would be allocated for border security.

Senator Specter opposed the Byrd amendment. He stated that while he
believes it is always a good idea to find another source of revenue for
security, it should be a priority to bring the undocumented immigrants
out of shadows, and not create a new fugitive class.

Senator Kennedy applauded Senator Byrd's concern over funding for
security, as well as areas of detention, and legal enforcement. He went on
to "reluctantly oppose" the amendment, because he believes that
significantly raised fees on immigrants would be a huge burden. He stated that
those who will be adjusting their status have nothing to do with border
security because they are already here, so it is not fair to impose
these fees on them. In addition, he explained that S.2611 as is would
raise $18 billion, the Cornyn amendment adds $5-6 billion, and Byrd's would
be another $3 billion on top of that.
The Senator said that while he opposes this amendment, he will give
personal assurances to keep in close contact with Byrd about funding.

Senator Byrd replied by saying S.2611 as is, authorizes $25 billion
over 5 years in appropriations, and that his amendment funds only $3
billion dollars of that amount. He said that "this is a modest sum and a
modest amendment." The Senator argued that the pending bill would provide
amnesty for illegal aliens, and would provide them with a path leading
to U.S. citizenship, and access to taxpayer funded benefits, such as
unemployment compensation, Medicare, and other benefits. He continued,
saying that illegal aliens would benefit and gain much more than what is
asked of them from the system. He stated that it is not much to ask of
them to help fund a system that they undermined. He explained that the
purpose of the amendment is to provide a source of funding for border
security, and to do it as quickly as possible, because we can't afford
to delay this critical funding any longer.

Senator Gregg rose to bring up amendment #4114, which he co-sponsored
with Senator Cantwell. He explained that the purpose of the amendment is
very simple, stating that we are about to give a large group of people
who arrived here illegally the opportunity to get in line and earn
citizenship. Those that arrived here illegally were not sought out to
perform certain jobs. He continued to say that we have a lottery program
where we say to people they can enter the lottery to apply for a green
card. People in this lottery should be people that make us stronger
socially and economically, he argued. The Senator outlined that his
amendment would reserve 2/3 of lottery for people with advanced degrees,
leaving the remaining 1/3 for the rest of the world population at large. He
proposed to "bring people in who will create jobs because they have
abilities and skills that we need," since they are highly educated.

Senator Gregg noted that as of now, the existing H-1B program, which
also helps to bring highly skilled and educated immigrants to the U.S.,
requires people to be sponsored by a family member or employer. However,
he argued, there are a lot of people who do not have family members to
sponsor them, even if they have a high degree. He went on to say that
the countries that currently qualify under the diversity visa program
have a lot of unskilled workers, many of who are already here illegally,
and will be getting in line to live here permanently. He suggested that
immigrants should "bring a skill" if they are coming through the
lottery system, and that people of other skill levels may already be here
illegally, or can compete for the other 1/3 of the lottery system. The
Senator explained that "we can become more powerful and compete with other
countries by having stronger minds and better ideas," by having the
best and the brightest here, and that the lottery system should be built
around that concept. He also pointed out that most other nations require
some sort of qualifying talent to immigrate, and that attracting people
who have talent and ability should be our purpose.

Senator Schumer opposed the Gregg-Cantwell amendment, which he said
"would do away with the purpose of the diversity visa program." He went on
to explain that the diversity visa program exists because there is a
large number of people in foreign countries whose opportunities to enter
the U.S. are overshadowed by family reunification restrictions. He
stated a majority of those people are coming from Caribbean or Asian
countries, limiting those in Europe and Africa who do not have relatives or
employers petitioning their entrance. The Senator said that the
diversity visa program provides an opportunity for those people to be able to
immigrate to the U.S., and argued that the city of New York has greatly
benefited from this program.

Senator Schumer noted that he is "all for highly-educated and skilled
visas," but not at the expense of the diversity visa program. S.2611
already provides for highly educated and skilled immigrants to come to the
U.S. and the Gregg-Cantwell amendment is not necessary. The Senator
said he believes immigrants are good for America. He asked, why do we "rob
Peter to pay Paul?" He continued by saying that even Microsoft, who has
led the charge for highly skilled people and engineers is very unhappy
with the amendment. He concluded by saying we certainly need more
scientists and engineers, but we also need new people to start new
businesses at different skill levels, which overall benefits America.

Sen. Alexander rose in response, giving the Gregg-Cantwell amendment an
A+. He voiced his support saying that "we are in a competitive
environment,", and that "Gregg and Cantwell are exactly right." The Senator
argued that we are talking about admitting millions of people, and that if
the diversity lottery which is just 50,000 visas, 2/3 of those
positions should be dedicated to highly skilled and educated people. We need to
make it easier for the most talented people in the world to stay in the
U.S. and study here, he continued. "If we're going to have 50,000 more
people, let them be the best and the brightest."

Senator Kennedy rose to describe the diversity visa program in the
United States and all of the benefits of the program. The purpose of the
program "is to preserve this nation's heritage as a true melting pot."
He stated how unique the program is and that without it immigrants
would only apply from a handful of countries. This legislation, he said,
already addresses those with "special skills." Senator Kennedy
emphasized that 40% of those accepted into a diversity program come from
African countries. He believes the Gregg Amendment would eliminate these
high numbers of African immigrants and give visas to wealthier countries.
He stated that 800,000 skilled immigrants already come to this country
every year; however, 8 million people apply for the diversity program
every year. To eradicate the diversity program would destroy hope of
accomplishing the American dream for many people.

Senator Kennedy also focused on the issue of the jobs that these
skilled immigrants are taking from Americans. He said that the amendment
puts a high priority on families and future employment for immigrants,
but wondered why Americans aren't being educated for these jobs.

Senator Durbin opposed the Gregg Amendment. He lauded the diversity
program because it takes a hard worker from another country and gives him
or her the chance to provide for their family. "It is one of our
strengths, not our weaknesses." This is the only program that offers visas
to people that would otherwise not have the opportunity. Senator
Durbin also worried about the troubled countries like the Philippines that
America often uses to employ nurses or other similar occupations of
which this country has a shortage. "You could argue that it's good for us,
but as I already told you, it's at the expense of someone else." He
urged his colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Senator Landrieu offered amendment #4025, relating to international
adoptions. She stated that this amendment has broad bipartisan support
and there is much agreement that all children should be raised in a
family "not alone, not in a cardboard box, not in a ditch." Senator
Landrieu emphasized the benefits in the structure of this new international
adoption program, especially the establishment of a central agency to
assist all of the smaller ones throughout the country. This centralized
organization would provide much needed assistance to the process. She
hoped that her amendment would be adopted unanimously and would not have
to be given a roll call vote.

Senator Kennedy stated his support for the Landrieu amendment.

Senator Specter voiced his support for the Landrieu amendment.

Senator Hutchison offered amendment #4101. This amendment proposed a
new guest worker program, the Safe Visa Program, to replace the one in
the underlying bill. The Senator said, "No one is talking about the
underlying cause of illegal immigration in our country. What can we do
about the root cause of the problem?" She stated that the vast majority
of people coming to this country are doing so to support their
families. This process of illegal immigration and migration from Mexico is
harmful to both our country and theirs. She said the Safe Visa Program is
modeled after the guest worker program between Mexico and Canada.
Senator Hutchison said this is another option, one that would be expedite
and meet the demands of those who want to work in this country. The
Safe Visa Program would be offered to those who wanted to work here
temporarily, not relocate their families, and then send the money home to
support their family.

Senator Hutchison explained that under her amendment, participants
would be required to apply within their own country and provide proof of
employment, they would be required to pay some form of taxes, all
employees would be equal, they would not be eligible for healthcare but, money
would be allocated to provide healthcare to workers who need them if
incidents occur. The program would also allow a maximum of 10 months of
work and allow the alien to renew his/her visa annually. The program
would terminate the visa if the alien is unemployed for 60 or more days
and allow aliens to set aside social security deductions from their
paychecks to take home with them when they leave.

Senator Bond said he is a co-sponsor of Hutchison Amendment and that it
is an excellent model for a seasonal worker program. He especially
applauded the part of the program that reserves visas for cool-weather
states, such as Missouri, that need laborers later in the season.

Senator Kennedy opposed the Hutchison Amendment. He said this guest
worker program is very different from the one already in the legislation
and would be less successful. He said the most important differences
are the limited numbers, the heavy recruiting process for guest workers,
and also the protection the guest workers would have against
exploitation. Senator Kennedy said the program in the underlying bill would
demonstrate to guest workers that "when they work hard and play by the
rules they can get on the path to American citizenship." He added that the
Hutchinson amendment would restrict the countries which workers would
come from, whereas the existing program allows for more diversity.

Senator Bond stated that this amendment would make our country more
competitive in a similar manner where other countries are attracting
American students. He said that an area highly impacted by immigrants is in
stem cell research. At least 10% of stem cell researchers are foreign.
Senator Bond asserted that American enrollment in the math and science
areas is way down and we need to be on the cutting edge of
technologies, utilizing all of the resources available. He said he supports the
Hutchinson amendment because he believes it is an effective solution for
all involved.

Senator Sessions rose in support of the Hutchinson amendment. He
recalled that last week he and Senator Specter met with officials from
Colombia and the Dominican Republic, who said that they have a guest worker
program with Spain and Canada, where citizens of their countries get a
work permit with the understanding that they have to go back when they
are done. He said that Colombia and the Dominican Republic are very
happy with this system, and stated that if this is what Hutchinson is
proposing then she would have the support of those countries.

Senator Hutchinson responded to Senator Sessions, saying that a guest
worker program is exactly what is missing from this bill. She said it
would provide people with the ability to go back and forth between their
home country and the U.S.; we want commerce to circulate. Guest workers
would spend 10 months here and 2 months at home. She supported what
Senator Bond just mentioned, allowing the guest worker to work here and
then send money back to their country of origin, which is what Mexico
wants anyway. The Senator stated her disbelief that Mexico would want
their hardworking people to move here permanently. She continued to explain
her amendment and that if the guest worker wanted citizenship, it is
available, but we should not force them to take that route. As long as
you have a path to citizenship, she said "there is no underclass." She
argued that people should have more options, and that's what her
amendment does.

Senator Sessions asked Senator Hutchinson whether guest workers in the
Safe Visa Program would be prohibited from applying to the citizenship
path.

Senator Hutchinson replied "no, they can withdraw from the Safe Visa
Program," take the social security that has been deducted from them, go
home, and get in line for citizenship.

Senator Sessions questioned whether or not it would be possible to
allow people who currently do not feel comfortable going back and forth
from country to country, to allow them to do so within Senator
Hutchinson's amendment.

Senator Hutchinson answered, saying that "it is so important to have
different options." She said this is a country with entrepreneurs who
want to see things work. It is so important that we recognize we are in a
system that does not work right now, she stated. The Senator added that
because of 9/11, we now know we must secure our borders, but must also
not ignore the invaluable contributions made by immigrants in our
country. She argued that we are a country made up of immigrants, and that is
a good thing. "Why not have another option for people who would not
want to go the citizenship route?" she asked. She explained that, as
opposed to other work permits, this amendment does not have a time limit. It
is a 10 month program, so employers can hire different groups if the
job is not seasonable. She said that this program would be a "win for
everyone," because trained workers would be provided to employers.

Senator Hutchinson argued that if we are going to have a system that
works with a secure border and a guest worker program, people will be
able to build their "nest egg" with their social security deductions, and
we should offer the opportunity for citizenship. She noted that we
cannot make the same mistakes of 1986 when we passed an amnesty bill but
did not provide a guest worker provision. She said the current bill sends
a signal that if you come here illegally you will eventually be able to
become a legal resident. She was frank in saying that she doesn't
expect this amendment to pass, but does expect that the airing of this view
should have an impact on the conference committee. She described that
S. 2611 is not the bill that will provide for the long term; it will not
assure that we have economic viability and security for Americans. She
expressed her hope that the Senate speaks with a strong voice and that
her amendment should be part of the solution. People should be able to
make a living wage, go home, and keep the citizenship of their country
if they so choose, she proposed. The Senator also added that she has
the support of the American Farm Bureau.

Senator Allard rose to make a Budget Point of Order to S.2611.

Senator Sessions also rose in support of the Budget Point of Order,
saying that this bill is a tremendous budget buster. He stated that this
bill would increase poverty, increase welfare costs, and Medicare would
become extremely expensive. The Senator feels that progress on the bill
has been made, but he doesn't believe any study will show these budget
numbers are fundamentally incorrect.

Senator Allard stated this bill "can be described in two words: budget
buster." He brought up a statement that the Congressional Budget Office
issued on May 16, 2006. The cost estimate, explicitly stated that S.
2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion
in each 10 year period. He continued to say that the bill would
increase direct spending by $54 billion, mostly because of the amnesty
provisions. The Senator brought up statistics from the Heritage Foundation,
which state that providing benefits to individuals granted amnesty could
cost over $16 billion. He went on to explain that once in the country,
legal permanent residents can petition for their family members to join
them in the U.S., and those family members would also receive benefits
such as healthcare, with the average cost of $18,000 per person, per
year.

Senator Allard continued, stating that on top of these predicted costs,
we cannot predict how many spouses, children, or other family members
will come once those here are granted amnesty. He pointed out that all
this takes place on a backdrop of runaway government spending, and that
the last thing we need to do is increase government spending by
hundreds of billions of dollars for people who came here illegally. The
Senator argued that this is unfair to American taxpayers and that this bill
would "put a dagger in the heart of the country's fiscal health."

Senator Sessions rose to continue supporting the Budget Point of Order.
He stated that border enforcement is important and that we need to
figure out how to treat people here illegally in a fair way. While this is
a worthwhile goal, he argued that they do not need to be given every
single benefit that people who came here legally receive. He noted that
one of the things that happens when illegal aliens are given a
guaranteed citizenship path is that they become eligible for all benefits. The
Senator argue

To unsubscribe from all future email, paste the following URL into your
browser:

Hasn't Nativo Lopez been registering illegals to vote for years?

We should have voters dip their fingers in a bowl of ink like voters did in Iraq.

I could just hear the response from Congress, "Oh, we are not a Third World country, we don't do that. That is for other lowly people."

After everyone who voted had their fingers stained, suspected illegal voters could be checked for voting elligibility.