Thread: Senator Shelby's Press Release On S.2611

http://shelby.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=256051


I LIKE THIS SENATOR ALOT!


Press Release

SHELBY OUTLINES REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO THE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL

Contact: Katie Boyd (202) 224-6518
Wednesday, May 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC - In a speech made yesterday on the floor of the United States Senate, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) voiced his strong opposition to S. 2611, the Immigration Reform Bill. The full text of Senator Shelby’s floor statement is included below: Mr. President, while S. 2611 contains important titles addressing border security and worksite enforcement, the bill also contains titles relating to amnesty for illegal aliens and the creation of a massive new guest worker program which will undermine true immigration reform. The most problematic provisions of S. 2611 are as follows:

One, I want you to know, I opposed amnesty twenty years ago. It didn’t work then and I don’t believe it will work now, Mr. President.

Two, our first priority should be to secure our borders. Any discussion of amnesty takes away from that priority, in my judgement.

Three, supporters of these amnesty provisions say it is not amnesty, but what they call “earned legalization.” I am not here to argue about semantics or labels. Whether you call it amnesty, status adjustment or guest worker, the result is, Mr. President, that individuals that came here illegally will now be considered legal workers and on their way towards citizenship. That’s the bottom line.

Four, under this so-called “compromise” that’s working here, those who have broken the law the longest are treated the best.

Five, those who can “prove” that they have been here two to five years still do not have to leave the country, and are hence, still treated better than those waiting to enter legally.

Six, the bill has minimal requirements for proving that an illegal alien has worked or, Mr. President, will work in the future. What few provisions there are seem very vulnerable to fraud.

Seven, this bill mandates that illegal workers are paid a higher wage than many American workers in the same position with the same qualifications.

Eight, the supporters of this bill claim that back taxes will be paid for past labor, but a close reading of the bill shows these back taxes will only be paid, Mr. President, if at all, 8 years down the road when applying for a green card, not as a requirement to receive the H2-C Visa.

Nine, this bill, Mr. President, drastically increases the number of employment-based green cards issued annually. What will happen to the American worker when unemployment goes up, and so many foreign workers who are willing to work for less have been given citizenship?

Ten, today, before the implementation of any reforms, the ability of our immigration officials to process applicants who are following the law is severely taxed. Mr. President, this bill will surely have a negative impact on those foreign workers who have followed the rules and are waiting patiently in their home country, to legally come to this country.

Eleven, while others say that “comprehensive” immigration reform must include these amnesty provisions, I feel strongly that they will only serve to encourage further illegal immigration, in the years to come.

And my twelfth reason, the bottom line is that this bill, in my judgement, requires past lawbreaking and encourages future lawbreaking. I am willing to bet, Mr. President, that if this bill is enacted, we will only revisit this problem twenty years down the road or perhaps before. Only then, Mr. President, we could be talking about 20-30 million illegal immigrants.

Those are some of the reasons - and there are many others - why I will vote no on the final passage of this bill.

Senator Shelby did a great job.

She is pretty close to accurate on the accounts she has stated, and I think she is correct in her methods.
In Australia we are facing similar p[roblems, but are we learning from the mistakes made by America? hell no. Our Government is biased and non functioning in a lot of similar matters. So i can see Australias future heading th same way. Now as I await to be able to enter the US I noticed that she stated that people who have broken the law the longest are treated better. This is not the case in all scenarios. What should have been stated here but obviously couldnt because of prejudism, is that Mexicans who have been in the US longer are treated better. As an Australian national and finding our recently that I was actually illegal, I was threatened with all sorts of things to get my arse out of the US. As it turns out, misinformation confusion and withheld information id our main problem. We to date have Two senators, 1 congresswoman and 4 attorneys helpimng us to prove our case. Because of the minority groups abusing the system the people that have unwittingly brooken the law are now being penalized for the upsurge in illegal immigration. I understand the harshness that has to be laid down here and I agree with it. I lived i the US for % years and saw it front on. When I see the average American struggling to survive and then these so called minority groups waling arounf with more gold dripping off of them than fort knocks it pisses me off no end. I am currently in Australisa where the wages are better and the cost of living is affordable. If the US will nor let me back in my wife will be moving here. Here she can earn 45 bucks an hour doing her trade. A professional chef. In our home town in SD she is doing the same thing for 10 bucks an hour. Who the hell can afford to live in America anymore with all of the excess cash being earned and then sent out to the families of the illegals. Even the Aussies and the English are being foeced out as they get caught up in the middle of this immigration upheaval. Yes who is still backing the US in their war on terrorism?

It's about time Senator Shelby became more vocal. Senator Sessions has been doing the speaking for Alabama on the most part, so I've been contacting Shelby's office to urge him to get more into this.....I'm happy to see this as well!

He says, we could be talking about 20-30 million then referring to 20 years down the road but the truth is we are talking about that many or more right now.

I have a very hard time believing it is only 12 million. I would guess there has to be probably 12 million in California alone.

Alabama reps are working hard to save our nation...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=51143

Congressman presses on 'super-state' plan
Asks Bush administration to fully disclose its activities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.
A congressman is pressing the Department of Commerce to fully disclose a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a North American union.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote July 11 to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez requesting detailed disclosure of working groups in the Security and Prosperity Partnership office within his department.


Referring to an attached letter from a constituent, Rogers wrote to Gutierrez:


Judging by information contained in this letter, a number of legitimate concerns are raised regarding the implementation and operation of the SPP, including the membership and charge of its working groups; potential memoranda of understanding with foreign countries; and whether there has been any Congressional oversight of these working group, to name a few.
Rogers concluded by asking Gutierrez for a prompt review of the issues and for a response "as soon as possible."

The attached constituent letter was written by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum of Alabama and by Bob Couch. They posed the following questions to Rogers:


What is the membership of the 30 SPP working groups?

What is the charge/working agenda of each of the 30 SPP working groups?

Please provide to me any trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.

Please provide findings, reports and presentations of the working groups.

Under what congressional action are these working groups constituted?

What congressional oversight is there of this process?

Are the working groups redefining American laws to make them tri-lateral?

What specific plans are there for reporting to Congress?
The constituents' letter also suggested four lines of inquiry should congressional hearings be convened to examine SPP working group activities:


Is the sovereignty of the United States threatened since it has been reported that a North American court and a parliamentary body are being proposed, complete with the "Amero" to replace the U.S. dollar?

Wouldn't an "outer security perimeter" remove the capacity of policing our borders from the hands of United States citizens?

Isn't "harmonizing entry screening and visa and asylum regulations" code for a quantum leap in liberalizing our country's immigration laws?

What about the May 2005 CFR Task Force documents calling for a "seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico" and for a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute regulation," as well as calling for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the U.S.
The constituents' letter also attached a copy of a July 2005 article by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly entitled, "The Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada."

Schlafly was one of the first analysts and commentators to question the purpose of SPP. In her article, she wrote that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" let the "cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries."

Schlafly argued the CFR task force report "spells out a five-year plan for the 'establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.'"

She commented:


This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
Rogers' letter to Gutierrez supports a demand for information made last month by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

Smith, on behalf of Eagle Forum of Alabama, told WND she is "very pleased" with Rogers' commitment to inquire into the SPP operations.