Immigration Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Trillions
Do you think we can afford this bill?
TH-With only a “working draft” on hand, the Democrat Leadership opened debate Monday on the new immigration bill – a bill no one has seen a final version of.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.) said, “It’s unthinkable we would pass this bill in one week. It’s not in bill language and we’ve had very little opportunity to study it. I think there will be every resistance to any plan to complete this bill this week
One of the most controversial points of the bill is the plan to issue illegal immigrants “z visas” that would give them legal working status. The “z visa” would be endlessly renewed as long as its holder paid the associated fines and passed criminal background checks. Critics say the hidden costs associated with giving low-skilled workers “z visas” would cost taxpayers trillions. For this reason Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior research fellow, said “this is the most expensive bill the U.S. taxpayer has ever seen.”
In March 2006, nearly 9.3 million adult illegal immigrants were living inside the United States. Most of them did not have a high school education, or were “low-skilled.” On average in fiscal year 2004, each low-skilled immigrant household consumed $30,160 in government benefits and services, but only paid on average $10,573 in taxes each.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I’m seeing the cost as a direct subsidy to corporate america.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
You are right! Now you get why the bill is getting pushed on us!
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Who’s voting for it? As far as I know, Shameless and Isakson are. McCain and Kennedy I guess since they authored it. Is anybody else?
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
caroline
Interesting article in USA Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate turned back an early attack on the broad immigration overhaul Tuesday, keeping alive a temporary worker provision that could bring in as many as 600,000 foreign laborers each year.
Senators voted 64-31 to reject a proposal offered by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and supported by some labor unions to delete the program, which is one of the measure’s key elements.
The vote was the first big test for the improbable coalition that wrote the measure and is struggling to keep the fragile deal from unraveling under pressure from across the political spectrum.
The bill still faces myriad assaults, including further Democratic attempts to limit or alter the temporary worker program, which would bring in foreign employees on two-year visas.
VIDEO: Criticism slows immigration deal
The bill would also toughen border security, give quick legal status to the estimated 12 million immigrants in the country unlawfully and create a new workplace verification system to bar undocumented workers from getting jobs.
It would create a point system for future immigration applicants that would place less emphasis on family connections and more on education and skills in demand by U.S. businesses.
Republicans were considering efforts to strengthen the bill’s security measures and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get on the path to citizenship. Democrats were eyeing changes that would ensure more visas would be available for family members of permanent residents or U.S. citizens.
Conservatives, liberals and centrists who worked out the White House-backed deal are struggling to keep the bill intact while giving Democrats and Republicans who harbor grave concerns about it opportunities to make revisions.
Coalition members meet each day to decide which proposed changes are deal-breakers to what they call their “grand bargain.” Dorgan’s was considered one such poison pill.
The temporary worker plan has come under attack from several fronts. It would allow most of the workers — largely unskilled, non-agricultural workers in areas such as construction, landscaping and meatpacking — to stay for up to three two-year stints, provided they left the United States for a year between each stay.
Many labor unions say that would depress wages and create a class of workers with no job rights. Business groups call the leave-and-return element unworkable. Hispanic advocacy organizations and religious groups say it unfairly denies workers the chance to stay in the U.S. and ultimately gain citizenship.
“It is just a fiction that these are jobs Americans aren’t willing to do,” Dorgan said. “The main reason that big corporations want a guest worker program is that it will drive down U.S. wages.”
Dorgan’s was just one of a host of modifications senators are seeking to the broad immigration plan, a measure that evokes strong emotions among the public. Aware of the potent crosscurrents on the issue, leaders have abandoned an effort to speed the measure through the Senate this week, and now plan a final vote in June.
Democrats and Republicans are to take turns offering amendments, a process expected to last all week and resume after next week’s Memorial Day recess.
“There’s good and bad in this,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of the bill. “That’s what amending the legislation is all about — trying to improve it.”
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., plans to offer an amendment to slash the number of annual visas available for temporary workers to 200,000. A similar proposal passed the Senate last year by an overwhelming margin.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., plans to propose instituting mandatory prison sentences for foreigners caught crossing the border illegally. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wants to add language to the measure declaring English the country’s official language.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., announced he will seek to kill the legalization provisions altogether, calling them “amnesty, plain and simple.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
caroline
This is a bill to lower wages and stick tax payers with social service cost!
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
The USA today article makes it sound like the whole thing is one big mess. Notice your guys Isakson and Chambliss are doing what the WH wants them to do. Little rubber stamps aren’t they?
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
There are plenty of democrats behind this also. This is an example of why Gingrich said its time for Americans to get and vote incumbents out. This is also an example of why John Kennedy said this:”Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
This is not only a big business issue there are plenty of sub contractors and small businesses out here paying cash wages to illegals and making a killing on them. No SS taxes or work comp to pay.Plus they dont bother with minimum wage because they know someone will work for far less.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 am
Just another in the myriad of reasons why we should support Ron Paul in his bid for the white house. Even if he can’t make it there, his message is an anchor around the insane legislators that the threat of a Ron Paul replacing them, or presiding over them should put a cork in their grossly anti-American aspirations.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
“Final version”? I love it. These bills are always so confusing (on purpose) and not only that, the bill itself seems to change day to day. Half the legal wrangling is designed to enable these politicians to hem and haw their way out of taking the blame from their constituencies as to why they voted for it. “I didn’t know” or “well look what we got out of it”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 am
“Final version”
Big corporation and politicians win we got stuck with the bill!
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
Interesting take on the bill by Libertarian Bob Barr…
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=853
Is he a NEOCON…LOL!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I spoke at the Georgia Libertarian State convetion last Saturday and most the members seemed against the bill!
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Wonder how they reconcile that position with their unbridled support for Bob Barr?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The Georgia Libertarians had a state convention last weekend? What happened to media coverage?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
All I know is they had a lot people at the convention. And it was a real smart group of people.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“And it was a real smart group of people.”
Normally I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment of Libertarians. But if they had you as a speaker, their intellect must be questioned.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Georgia’s senators held a teleconference today with the following account now up on AJC –
READ
Both remain steadfast in their support for secure borders and no path to citizenship. The misinformation being distributed by people like John was refuted without hesitation by both senators.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
No idea why the vast space in the previous post…
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
The Path to Suicide
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070521_path.htm
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
BART
How much is Hillary paying you?
You and Hillary agree on so much! Trade, Immigration, Spending ie Highway, Energy, Drug bIll, Pork in all the Iraq emergency bills……
WOW do you guys talk?
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
bb,
I always liked Bob Barr, but I also always had suspicions. Now that he’s come out in favor of this amnesty, it’s all clear. Barr, along with Bush, Isakson, Chambliss, the Democrats, etc., etc., are all Traitors to the U.S., in my opinion.
ps. I just heard a taped interview of Isakson on radio 750 just now. What a joke - one smooth talker, one liar! Impeach all the bastar_s!
May 24th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Hugh,
What options do we have:
1. Status quo — wide open border, no ability to track 20M already here, restrictions on local law enforcement, etc.
2. Let the dems structure legislation with no input from Republicans.
3. Roll up the sleeves, sit in the room with Ted Kennedy, et al and negotiate the best possible deal to structure a bill for open debate in the arena of public opinion and on the senate floor.
IMHO, #3 is the best alternative considering the circumstance. Look what has already happened in less than a week; immigration surpassed war as the lead story on all news broadcasts, every presidential candidate is being asked about S1348, citizens are engaged and lots of good ideas are being considered.
This is what makes America great…the freedom to offer an opinion directly to our elected representatives in order to influence legislation. The senators (especially Chambliss, Isakson and Graham) put forth proposed legislation, then immediately met with their constituents for an open discussion. The process is working.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
bb
The alternative is AMERICANS HOLD FAST AGAINST AMNESTY UNTIL OUR COUNTRY GETS ITS SOVEREIGNTY BACK FROM THE CORPORATE ELITISTS!!!
bb
You won’t find these alternatives in your talking points.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Bart
I have simple question if President Bush refuses to enforce immigration laws now, what makes you think after we sign a sell-out bill he would start enforcing immigration laws?
May 24th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
bb post #22, you make the 3 points that I’ve in other postings.
Other comments on this issue is basically about import poor labor that will cost the tax payers. Very true and any bill to bring them in needs to address this.
Bill’s point in posting #23 does not hold water because we can’t vote, nor vote someone in (who?) time to represent the people they were elected by. Neither parties represent the people. Both parties apparently want the people of Mexico in this country, surely for different reasons.
May 26th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Bart
No bill can pass without President Bush. Oh I forgot he is for selling us out!
What party is Bush in?
June 13th, 2007 at 8:24 am
[…] Saxby Chambliss strongly supports an immigration policy that unfairly pits tax payer-subsidized immigrant labor against hard working American families. […]
June 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Behind every complicated problem is a simple solution, which is Wrong. Making some or even many currently illegal aliens, legal, ought to be a goal of the entire immigration debate, but only after many issues have been addressed.
First, there are at least 12 Million illegals in the US. Unless the borders are tightened significantly, there will be another 12 Million and another. What is the cost to effectively close our borders to illegals and how fast are we willing to do that? If the answer is that we are going to spend billions of dollars and close the borders in 2 to 3 years, then no amnesty program ought to be in effect until the borders are really closed. If the answer is that the borders are too big and too porous to ever be closed, then the whole discussion is a waste of time.
Next, what type immigrant are we willing to allow to enter? All types or are we actually willing to reward education and training? Family ties alone ought not be determining. Further millions of immigrants have followed the rules and paid fees and costs to enter legally. Their families ought not receive less consideration than the families of illegals.
Finally, how many illegals are we willing to legalize and why? The mere fact that they are here means little, other than the fact that we will likely not attempt to deport 12 Million people (that is equal to the population of Ohio). All 12 Million should not be granted automatic citizenship track merely because they are already here. Their families ought not receive automatic citizenship either. At least the proposed bill attempts to quantify eligibility criteria through a point system, but many officials want the point system eliminated in favor of a bloodlines test only..
Once questions like these are addressed and debated, then we can talk about an immigration and amnesty bill covering some, but not all 12 Million illegals. In the meantime, the debate ought to be well informed and not run by emotion. Crying that the immigration bill is some sort of corporate welfare program (when it is nothing of the sort) is just as uninformed as crying that the 30 something year old children of illegals still living abroad will be somehow disadvantaged and discriminated against by the proposed bill (tough, the adult children of illegals ought to have zero rights). A rational debate of the real issues that got us here would be welcome instead of the mass hysteria on both sides of the aisle.