Archive for the ‘Drudge’ Category
Why Won’t NØbama Appear On Fox?
ABC becomes the one and the true Obama Network streaming live from the throes of the White House. ABCAMA statement:
“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president.”
Guess how many conservatives ABC will choose to be there? Right. Zippo.
Meanwhile Cavuto is kvetching about Obama appearing everywhere to push his health care program but avoiding Neil Cavuto and Fox Network outright. When you think about how many people Obama would reach though Fox audiences, it’s mindboggling that he refuses to appear on the network. Fox’s viewership is what all other networks numbers combined.Is it because Obama doesn’t want to discuss anything with the intelligent Fox audiences or because he knows his scams will not hold up if more people see the emperor’s new programs?
RIP Immigration Bill?
UPDATE: Immigration Bills Dies.
A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully failed a crucial test vote Thursday, a stunning setback that could spell its defeat for the year.
The vote was 45-50 against limiting debate on the bill, 15 short of the 60 that the bill’s supporters needed to prevail. Most Republicans voted to block Democrats’ efforts to bring the bill to a final vote.The legislation, which had been endorsed by President Bush, would tighten borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers in addition to giving up to 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.
Conceived by an improbable coalition that nicknamed the deal a “grand bargain,” the measure exposed deep rifts within both parties and is loathed by most GOP conservatives.Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had made no secret of his distaste for parts of the bill, said earlier he would move on to other matters if the immigration measure’s supporters didn’t get 60 votes Thursday night.
UPDATE: Immigration reform bill fails To pass.
The Senate voted 33-63, falling 27 short of the 60 votes needed in the
100-member chamber to limit debate and advance the major overhaul toward
passage. The action followed a series of amendments that upset a delicately
balanced compromise hammered out by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House.
Mary Katherine Hamm’s wraps up Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed’s and other blogs’ responses to Drudge’s RIP to the Immigration Bill.
Could it be too early to relax?
”(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN- `(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1). ”
Here is another goody, about drunk drivers (Section 225):
SEC. 225. REMOVAL OF DRUNK DRIVERS.(a) In General- Section 101(a)(43)(F) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F)) is amended by inserting `, including a third drunk driving conviction, regardless of the States in which the convictions occurred or whether the offenses are classified as misdemeanors or felonies under State law,’ after `offense)’.(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall–(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and(2) apply to convictions entered on or after such date.
Get that? They are empowered to do something (anyone want to look up Section 101(a) (43) (F) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (43)(F) – after a THIRD DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTION WHICH OCCURS AFTER THIS BILL!!!!!!
Ted Kennedy must have insisted on this personally 😉
Let’s grab another tidbit:
SEC. 228. PROTECTING IMMIGRANTS FROM CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS.(a) Immigrants- Section 204(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)), is amended– (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking `Any’ and inserting `Except as provided in clause (vii), any’; (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after clause (vi) the following: `(vii) Clause (i) shall not apply to a citizen of the United States who has been convicted of an offense described in subparagraph (A), (I), or (K) of section 101(a)(43), unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the citizen poses no risk to the alien with respect to whom a petition described in clause (i) is filed.’; and(3) in subparagraph (B)(i)– (A) by striking `Any alien’ and inserting the following: `(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), any alien’; and(B) by adding at the end the following: `(II) Subclause (I) shall not apply in the case of an alien admitted for permanent residence who has been convicted of an offense described in subparagraph (A), (I), or (K) of section 101(a)(43), unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence poses no risk to the alien with respect to whom a petition described in subclause (I) is filed.’. (b) Nonimmigrants- Section 101(a)(15)(K) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)), is amended by inserting `(other than a citizen described in section 204(a)(1)(A)(vii))’ after `citizen of the United States’ each place that phrase appears.
I don’t know what this means—but WTF aren’t they concerned with protecting citizens from illegal aliens who are sex offenders? There is no Megan’s Law in Mexico.
Oh, and Sanctuary Cities are A-OK:
SEC. 229. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND TRANSFER TO FEDERAL CUSTODY.(a) In General- Title II (8 U.S.C. 1151 et. seq.) is amended by adding after section 240C the following new section:`SEC. 240D. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND TRANSFER OF ALIENS TO FEDERAL CUSTODY.`(a) Authority- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement personnel of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody (including the transportation across State lines to detention centers) an alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by a Federal law. .`(b) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require law enforcement personnel of a State or a political subdivision to assist in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States..
Oh, yes, at the end of this section is the funding:
”(b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Detention and Transportation to Federal Custody of Aliens Not Lawfully Present- There are authorized to be appropriated $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and for each subsequent fiscal year for the detention and removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et. seq.).”
This means less than 1 billion dollars a year for detention.
By contrast, section 643 mentions training in English for those who want to become citizens.
“SEC. 643. STRENGTHENING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Strengthening American Citizenship Act of 2007′.(b) Definition- In this section, the term `Oath of Allegiance’ means the binding oath (or affirmation) of allegiance required to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, as prescribed in section 337(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (h)(1)(B).(c) English Fluency-(1) EDUCATION GRANTS- (A) ESTABLISHMENT- The Chief of the Office of Citizenship of the Department (referred to in this paragraph as the `Chief’) shall establish a grant program to provide grants in an amount not to exceed $500 to assist legal residents of the United States who declare an intent to apply for citizenship in the United States to meet the requirements under section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423).(B) USE OF FUNDS- Grant funds awarded under this paragraph shall be paid directly to an accredited institution of higher education or other qualified educational institution (as determined by the Chief) for tuition, fees, books, and other educational resources required by a course on the English language in which the legal resident is enrolled.”
OK, so I agree that English fluency is an important step to assimilation. That is good. (Even though to first appearances, it looks like we are trying to help illegals *become citizens* — which is amnesty.) But $500 per person times (let us hope for the best, that they *all* want to assimilate) 12 million is $6 billion. So they will potentially pay $6 billion to train in English, but less than $1 billion for deportation. This is not “revenue neutral” as I believe the saying goes. How will you pay for this? And who will score and administer the tests of fluency?
And the preferences for the government for illegal immigrants over US citizens does not stop there. Look at the National Crime Information Center, illegals can get their names removed when put there in error:
SEC. 231. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.(a) Provision of Information to the National Crime Information Center-(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (3), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the head of the National Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice the information that the Secretary has or maintains related to any alien– (A) against whom a final order of removal has been issued; (B) who enters into a voluntary departure agreement, or is granted voluntary departure by an immigration judge, whose period for departure has expired under subsection (a)(3) of section 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) (as amended by section 211(a)(1)(C)), subsection (b)(2) of such section 240B, or who has violated a condition of a voluntary departure agreement under such section 240B; (C) whom a Federal immigration officer has confirmed to be unlawfully present in the United States; and(D) whose visa has been revoked. (2) REMOVAL OF INFORMATION- The head of the National Crime Information Center should promptly remove any information provided by the Secretary under paragraph (1) related to an alien who is granted lawful authority to enter or remain legally in the United States. (3) PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF ERRONEOUS INFORMATION- The Secretary, in consultation with the head of the National Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice, shall develop and implement a procedure by which an alien may petition the Secretary or head of the National Crime Information Center, as appropriate, to remove any erroneous information provided by the Secretary under paragraph (1) related to such alien. Under such procedures, failure by the alien to receive notice of a violation of the immigration laws shall not constitute cause for removing information provided by the Secretary under paragraph (1) related to such alien, unless such information is erroneous. Notwithstanding the 180-day time period set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide the information required under paragraph (1) until the procedures required by this paragraph are developed and implemented. (b) Inclusion of Information in the National Crime Information Center Database- Section 534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended–(1) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’ at the end; (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: `(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of violations of the immigration laws of the United States; and’.
Who in the Hell voted for this egregious violation of our constitutional rights? Keep track of how your elected officials voted in your best interests.
Sma' Talk Wi' T 
