Hugh Hewitt took a few days to go over the immigration bill. Hewitt is a lawyer and brings an analysis of the bill along with loopholes etc from a legal perspective. The analysis is long, but worth reading to get a better idea of what lies with in the potential legislation. I will try to post snippets I found interesting if/when I get the chance:
Hot Air has also put up one of Malkin’s ‘Vents’ where she discusses how illegal immigrant ID fraud helped shelter some of the 9/11 hijackers. Interestingly enough, the new immigration bill prohibits government employees with first hand knowledge of id theft to inform the victims and prohibits them from informing law enforcement (law enforcement must go to them with an investigation – the bill does NOT allow ‘tips’ to law enforcement – see sec.604(c)). For more information on the ID theft protection illegal immigrants will receive as well as a link to the draft legislation see. Click the above link for details on the protection (look comment #3 for a summary) as well as a link to download the draft legislation.
This new wall of communication will not do us any good, should it pass.
More: Michell Malkin also has an interesting post regarding identity theft with a cameo by a Utah driver’s license: Documents of the “Undocumented” [link temporarily redacted].
In other news, Utah has completed an audit about the costs of educating illegal immigrant’s children. Davis County Watch caught the initial (not much information) release. More information was released today: Schooling illegals costly
Now onto some excerpts from Hewitt’s post:
Section 601(h)(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) lay out additional provisions concerning this huge –indeed almost certainly 90% plus?– portion of the illegals currently in the country that are not subject to the “triggers,” and even notes in subparagraph (5) that if an illegal is arrested or detained prior to filing his or her application for Z permit status, “the Secretary shall provide the alien with a reasonable opportunity to file an application under this section after such regulations are promulgated.” Unless the computer spits out a no within 2 days of submitting the application, the illegal gets probationary Z status –before even one more mile of fence is built or a workplace verification system is constructed.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I can only read Section 601(h) as a massive undercutting of the entire concept of “triggers,”…
A note on the bail provision. Sec. 1 promised the end of “catch and release” by pledging a “catch and return” policy. But the bail requirement of Section 113 seems to provide well-off illegal entrants with a “catch, pay, and release” option that –in practice– would benefit an odd group of illegal entrants: those with financial resources, which may in fact be the very people we most want to question, correct? Section 113 is an amendment to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2), which currently reads…
If you wanted to end “catch and release,” wouldn’t the law simply declare that no bond shall be available and the alien to be detained until such time as he or she can be returned to the country of origin? There may be an explanation here that eludes me, but it looks like “catch and release” is simply not outlawed by the new law, only made less automatic.