Stealth Amnesty Provision in War Funding Bill (Action Alert)(Sen. Bennett Upate)

Senators Diane Feinsteing (D-CA) and Larry “Wide Stance” Craig (R-ID) have shoved in an amendment to the Iraq War Supplemental Funding Bill while it was going through the Senate Appropriations Committee (and largely out of public view).

The amendment is set go provide amnesty to illegal immigrant farm workers. Here are some of the detailes provided by John Wallace (emphasis added):

Knowing that the war funding bill is desperately needed to support our troops in battle overseas, the outrageous amnesty plan was covertly attached by Senator Feinstein hoping that no one would notice. If it passes the full Senate next week, this would open the door for even larger waves of illegal immigration in the future! Here’s what the rider calls for:

  1. Granting a 3-year work visa to illegal aliens followed by a permanent green card for those who have been working as shepherds, goat and dairy herders.
  2. Grant a 5-year work visa to the estimated 1.3 million illegal aliens working in other agricultural jobs – plus all of their family members [this would add up to millions more]. The legislation doesn’t state what happens after 5 years.
  3. Grant a tripling of the maximum number of H-2B Visas for lower skilled, non-agricultural seasonal workers.
  4. Grant industries an extra 218,000 additional green cards for skilled foreign workers.

As you can tell, the provisions are directly related to war funding…or not. This is yet another example of the amnesty politicians trying to get it slid passed while no one is watching. Additionally, I understand that all you need to qualify is to work only 22 weeks (5 months) out of four years! This will also grant them amnesty from any identity theft they have engaged in.

While Mr. Wallace missed Craig’s involvement it came out later that he was the amendment’s co-sponsor. Michelle Malkin also picked up on the amnesty sneak and her latest post (with background links) on the issue can be found here: Amnesty alert:Tracking the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amendment.


Call your Senators now! Click here for a contact list (Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121). For those of us in Utah here are our Senators:

Senator Bennett (202-224-5444 or Utah Offices )

Senator Hatch (202-224-5251 or Utah offices)

Politely, but firmly, ask them to OPPOSE any back door amnesty in the war funding bill AND any other amendments unrelated to the bill.

You may also wish to ask their staffer if the Senator has taken a position on the amendment.

UPDATE: Senator Bennett needs lots of calls. He sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee and voted FOR the amendment in committee. Flood him with calls (polite but firm) to drop the amendment. Don’t forget, Bennett also effectively voted for last year’s amnesty debacle.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Hatch (he hasn’t taken a position on the amendment, yet) has only taken a tougher stand on these issues because of the election year (he’s been weak on this in the past).


7 thoughts on “Stealth Amnesty Provision in War Funding Bill (Action Alert)(Sen. Bennett Upate)

  1. I’m curious why you’d be against amnesty. As far as I’ve read on this site your biggest objection to illegal immigrantion is the identity theft that comes with it.

    A pragmatic policy of amnesty and an easing of immigration restrictions holds more promise for solving the identity theft problem among immigrants than any other proposal so far.

    Maybe the Senate is on to something.

  2. I’ve always been against amnesty. I’ve mentioned it several times on this site. Frequently it is in reference to identity theft but I’ve also referenced the fairness aspect to those in immigration lines as well. You are welcome to search the site for my views and comments (particularly during last year’s amnesty fight).

    I also think it is anything but pragmatic to absolve identity thieves of their crime while letting the victims (frequently children) clean up the mess. Nor do I consider it pragmatic to reward those breaking our immigration laws and turning our backs on others who have followed them.

    Amnesty is not a solution to identity theft. The identity theft can be significantly addressed by identity verification provisions. The first step of such was taken in the last State legislative session.

    Finally, if the Senate was really on to something, they would have the guts to do it in the open rather than trying to bury their wishes in unrelated bills and the like.

  3. The most effective policy for eliminating the problems of identity theft and unfairness to those who want to immigrate would be to grant amnesty to those who are here and open the borders to non-felons who want to immigrate.

    There won’t be anymore unfairness and there won’t be any more incentives for immigrants to steal identities since they’ll be legal.

    Why do you automatically assume that the correct answer is more government meddling at every level when, as is usually the case, less government will solve the problem?

  4. While you may be happy to let ID theft victims deal with the mess, I am not. Further, the assertion that this is “more government meddling” is asinine – the laws already exist. I believe in the rule of law.

    Your desire for open borders is up to you – I entirely disagree with such a policy. Part of a nation’s sovereignty is based on controlling who can enter that nation. Under the open borders you would like, particularly when dealing with certain countries and their legal systems, you would have no clue who you were letting in. Further, even with those already here, I hope you are aware that ID theft and doc. fraud are felonies which would disqualify the majority of those who work (or have worked here), by your own rules.

    While I do think we need to streamline the immigration process, I still strongly believe we need an effective screening process and blanket amnesty and open borders are not the answer.

    If you think current laws governing id theft are meddling, then lets give amnesty to all identity thieves. What other laws do you consider government meddling? Who else should we give amnesty to?

  5. Something else to consider: would you two be the same ones who would howl if they stuck a school voucher provision in the war funding bill?

    Personally, I vehemently oppose shoving unrelated issues into bills. It only leads to unwanted provisions, such as pork, that would have no chance if openly debated.

    Is the ‘sneak it past open debate’ tactic ok for you, as long as it is something you support?

  6. Sorry Rattler but what’s asinine is an unthinking support for strict enforcement of laws that are hurting Americans and those who want to immigrate or just work here. If you really believed in the “rule of law” you’d be arguing for correcting our flawed immigration system…not stricter enforcement of the foolish policies which are causing the problems in the first place.

    No one is arguing for making it harder for current victims of ID theft to get their lives back…only for withdrawing the primary factor motivating the majority of id thieves. If you make these people legal there won’t be any further reason for them to be identity thieves. Unless one is being deliberately obtuse this is obvious.

  7. Like I stated, I would be willing to streamline the entry process – that addresses the point of those who desire legal entry (I’ve seen the system and had friends go through it as well). I am not willing to give people who have come in illegally priority over those following current laws.

    No matter which laws we enact, we will end up with illegal immigrants. Enforcing those laws is not foolish. If the government, would have done it’s job instead of letting the problem fester we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. If a labor shortage had ensued, you can bet business (and their lobbyists) would have been barking at Congress to do something (and they would have). Instead, the law was ignored bringing us up to this point.

    As far as ID theft goes (this includes much more than illegal immigrants), the portion of the motive would be withdrawn if identity verification is required. Even without that, amnesty will solve the problem for the ID thieves but the victims still hold the bag (you appear to be fine with that and you are entitled to your opinion).

    If you think the crimes are a problem due to motivating factors, then there are a lot of crimes we should grant amnesty for. One that comes to mind would be the legalization of currently illegal drugs. I know several groups argue for such, do you also support this? (I’m asking this honestly). What other current crimes would you support providing amnesty/legalization for?

    I also believe open borders will hurt Americans. If we don’t know who is entering, we are opening ourselves up to criminals and the like, as well as different labor pools (and remittances) which place a serious drag on the economy.

    I would like an answer to the question about attempting to sneak unrelated provisions into bills to get passed typical public discourse.

    While I understand that such a tactic may be used by a minority pursuing an issue with major popular support, this isn’t the case here (not even close). The only thing this is achieving is further distrust of Congress (both parties) on this issue, when they should be building up trust in order to hammer out a decent solution.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s