(2007-06-04) — A little-known provision of the immigration reform bill now moving through Congress would also create a “pathway to legitimacy” for millions of U.S.-born criminals who currently operate on the fringes of society — guilty of a variety of crimes but not yet arrested or charged.
Those affected by the measure are natural-born citizens who have successfully eluded arrest after committing crimes. Their legal status often forces them to move about, doing odd jobs, getting paid under the table, or even dealing drugs in order to support their families.
Under the terms of the bill these “unpunished Americans” could come forward, pay a fine and processing fees, and immediately receive a special Y.O.Y. visa that would allow them to stay out of prison, and put them back on “the straight and narrow.”
Conservatives in Congress have denounced it as a further expansion of what they call “the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty Bill,” but President George Bush today announced his enthusiastic support of the provision as “the only reasonable way to bring unpunished Americans out of the shadows and back into the mainstream of society.”
The president noted that “unpunished Americans often do jobs that law-abiding citizens will not, making them a valuable part of our undocumented economy.”
19 responses so far ↓
1 Scott Ott // Jun 4, 2007 at 6:18 am
Bill Would Also Bring U.S.-Born Criminals Out of Shadows…
by Scott Ott
(2007-06-04) — A little-known provision of the immigration reform bill
now moving through Congress would also create a “pathway to legitimacyâ€
for millions of U.S.-born criminals who currently operate on the
fringes of society …
2 JamesonLewis3rd // Jun 4, 2007 at 6:25 am
God Bless America
3 Fred Sinclair // Jun 4, 2007 at 6:31 am
Thanks Scott, I didn’t know I could laugh and cry so hard at the same time, the bill is a perfect case for “forgiving” one certain special class of criminal all the while discriminating against other classes of criminals simply because they were born on the wrong (North) side of our Southern border.
Heirborn Ranger
4 MargeinMI // Jun 4, 2007 at 6:42 am
I was going to post this link on the last thread, but it’s ON TOPIC here!
For those here who don’t read Opinion Journal, Peggy Noonan nails it to the White House door here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148
As almost all responders to any editorial they publish regarding this immigration debate state: “What part of ILLEGAL don’t you understand?”
5 JamesonLewis3rd // Jun 4, 2007 at 6:42 am
“Why, oh, why.”
It took me a minute.
I can’t help thinking that “immigration reform” is a misnomer; I think “decriminalization of wanton criminal activity” would be more appropriate.
6 Darthmeister // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:06 am
…and 90% will vote Democratic. Now there’s a voting bloc the Donks have long been trying to court. (pun intended)
7 Darthmeister // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:07 am
BTW, shouldn’t that be a YOYO Visa?
8 camojack // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:14 am
The president noted that “unpunished Americans often do jobs that law-abiding citizens will not, making them a valuable part of our undocumented economy.â€
Like rape, larceny and murder, for example?
9 JamesonLewis3rd // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:14 am
RE: #4~~
Thank you for that link, MargeinMI.
Noonan echoes my own disappointment, disillusionment and feeling of betrayal. The patronizing insults hurled against right-thinking Americans by various administration honchos-including (and especially) the president-some of which are recounted in the 5th paragraph, have left me feeling “violated” in some intangible manner.
Her closing paragraph says what my mind recoiled from even thinking because it would mean admitting that my heart had been broken because my naïveté had been used against me and I can’t help but wonder-in what other ways have I been duped?
“Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it’s time. It’s more than time.“
10 MargeinMI // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:29 am
You’re welcome, James. Peggy has been disillusioned with W. for some time now, and I don’t always agree. She really hit it on the head with this one though. I, too, feel ‘violated’. I read a link this morning quoting Mark Steyn that we shouldn’t feel betrayed by Bush because he’s always been pro-Mexican, and even campaigned on it. Of course, that was pre-9/11, when the concern of the sieve border to our south was just a matter of lettuce pickers. It’s a different situation today. The president’s PRIMARY duty is to protect this country! WHY haven’t our borders been protected better? ARGGGHHH!
And not just the southern border either. I live 1/2 hour from a bridge to/from Canada. Every day many, many garbage trucks come here from our neighbors to the north. WHY? Why do they need do bury their trash (including nuclear waste) here when there’s umpteen million square miles of uninhabited Canadian land where they could put it. $$$$$$$$$$$, that’s why. Where are the environazis on this one? [crickets chirping] ARRGGGGHHHHHH!
again.
sigh
11 onlineanalyst // Jun 4, 2007 at 7:54 am
Yoyo? Good one, Darth1
The real pip is that it is Dems and their enablers in the ACLU who continue to champion voters’ “rights” for convicted felons.
BTW As per the shamnesty debate last night, Madame Hillary objects to the use of English as an “official language,” preferring the term “national language”. Hello? It was during Hubby Bill’s term in office (via executive order, I believe) that the nightmare of providing ballots and bureaucratic documents such as drivers’ tests in multiple languages, as well as providing interpreters in hospital settings, became the “rule” de jour . Madame Marxist just wants to go on record as supporting this continued and hugely costly balkanization of our country through language “sensitivity”. What an unnecessary drain on our monetary resources! And what a way to fragment a nation by not encouraging assimilation.
The Kennedy-La Raza shamnesty bill should be laughed out of the Senate as a con game. (See how I worked back to the thread’s topic?)
12 Darthmeister // Jun 4, 2007 at 8:15 am
Speaking of criminals. Sandy Berger: What Did He Know and What Did He Take?
It’s fascinating how the lamestream media has made it a point to totally accept Sandy Burglar’s explanation and then deep-six the story. Hmmmmmmmm.
13 Darthmeister // Jun 4, 2007 at 10:52 am
The American Founders: The Importance of Morality and the Christian Religion in Government
Several weeks ago I went to several secular progressive websites which were attempting to “debunk” the mountain of founding evidence which clearly documented the Christian milieu in which the Founder Fathers were educated. One site went so far to assign four separate reasons to reject a founding quote. One reason was the American founder didn’t sign the U.S. Constitution even though he may have signed several other founding documents like the Declaration of Independence. Another reason to reject a founder’s Christian perspective on politics and government is if the quote didn’t happen during the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. They said that fact would put the quote “out of historical context.” I believe Godfrey had made similar claims here about opinions the various founders proffered at various times in their lives outside the “founding period”.
At each site I wrote a nice post informing them that the very basis for their embrace of the call for “strict separation of church and state” is founded upon a document that, according to their own exegetical standards, they would have to reject. That would be Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Thomas Jefferson was the ONLY American founder who ever elucidated the principle of “strict separation of church and state” and he wasn’t one of the signers of the U.S. Constitution either. Neither did he attend any of the Constitutional conventions SINCE HE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY AS AN AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE DURING THAT TIME! And neither was his statement made during the founding consitutional period, coming in 1802 as it did. So how does one man’s highly controversial opinion after the fact somehow becomes the only opinion to take on the force of law in this country which has long celebrated freedom of religion in all our institutions of liberty? I would call this kind of single-minded demagoguery an anti-religious despotism which completely ignores the full spectrum of the true founding record. Game, set, match.
14 gafisher // Jun 4, 2007 at 11:04 am
Let’s be clear — this bill does not provide “a pathway to legitimacy.” A “pathway” to citizenship, perhaps, but when the bill becomes law, the illegals instantly become legal. That’s no path, it’s a cliff. Unless you’re a lemming, fight this bill!
15 da Bunny // Jun 4, 2007 at 11:28 am
This has been my point, and my biggest gripe against the “Shamnesty Bill” all along! It’s “cherry-picking” at its finest on the part of the government. Try not paying your taxes as a US citizen, and you’re an instant “criminal,” but sneak into our country from another one, use phony documents, often stealing the identities of legal citizens, to get work, drive without a license or insurance, violate local occupancy laws by living 15 people to a one BR apt., etc. and you’re automatically in line to be rewarded with immunity from prosecution/deportation? It’s absolutely infuriating how willing our government is to sell out legal, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens to pander to a bunch of law-breaking deadbeats, who need to be deported back to wherever they came from and the revolving door locked behind them. I’m sick of this crap!!
16 Just Ranting // Jun 4, 2007 at 1:17 pm
One afternoon John Edwards was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the roadside eating grass. Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. He asked one man, “Why are you eating grass?” “We don’t have any money for food,” the poor man replied, “We have to eat grass.”
“Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I’ll feed you,” the lawyer said. “But, sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree.” “Bring them along,” the Edwards replied. Turning to the other poor man he stated, “You come with us, also.”
The second man, in a pitiful voice then said, “But sir, I also have a wife and six children with me!” “Bring them all, as well,” Edwards answered.
They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was. Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said, “Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you.”
Edwards replied, “Glad to do it. You’ll really love my place. The grass is almost a foot high.”
17 NightTwister // Jun 4, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I thought these people were already voting, so I’m not sure how “legalizing” them will gain the Dems any more votes. Maybe they just want to be sure they don’t lose them…
18 Darthmeister // Jun 4, 2007 at 1:43 pm
NightTwister makes a good point.
19 onlineanalyst // Jun 4, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Their votes probably count as two hanging chads. Is this what we call “in-the-shadows” government.
You must log in to post a comment.