It’s Legalization. Now. For All Illegals. And their Spouses. And their Parents. And their Children.

A news story I read yesterday suggested that under this new bill it would take many years (plus the completion of extraordinary beefing up measures at the border) before illegals could gain legal permanent residency. That made the bill seem tougher than any previous amnesty bills, which had given legal permanent residency up front. But it’s not true. In fact, this bill gives what amounts to INSTANT LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENCY TO ALL ILLEGALS IN THE U.S. The Washington Post explains:

The immigration overhaul that passed the Senate last year identified three categories of illegal immigrants, based on the length of time they had been in the country, and would have granted immediate legal status only to those who had been here the longest. Others would have had to return home or would have faced deportation.

This year’s legislation would grant undocumented workers who came into the country before January a permit to remain. [LA: They’re legalized instantly.] They could then apply for a new, four-year “Z Visa,” renewable indefinitely, as long as they pay a $5,000 fine, a $1,500 processing fee, show a clean work record and pass a criminal background check. [LA: They have legal status for life; they just have to keep renewing it.]

But it’s worse than just indicated. Remember what Brian Darling pointed out at NRO, which Paul Nachman quoted here. As soon as the illegal alien gets the Z visa, his spouse, his parents, and his children can all get Z visas too. The bill thus gives instant legal permanent U.S. residency to entire three-generational familes who are still living in Mexico, solely on the basis that one member of the family entered the U.S. illegally prior to January 1, 2007.

The Post continues:

The new bill’s authors “seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization,’ ” said Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a presidential candidate who is a strong opponent of illegal immigration. “The president is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.”

I have two quibbles with Tancredo. First, an amnesty is simply the removal of a punishment. This bill gives effective legal permanent residency to entire families who have never even entered the U.S., let alone broken its laws. They are being rewarded for the law breaking of their relative, who of course is also being rewarded for his lawbreaking. That’s not an amnesty, it’s an incalculable undeserved benefit, the principle of socialism applied to immigration: the less you deserve, the more you get. The socialistic aspect of it is brought out even more when we remember how difficult and time consuming it is for legal immigration applicants to get into the United States. The legal immigrant does all the work of applying—and it can take him years to complete the process. The illegal alien breaks into our country—and he and his entire family get instant legal permanent residence!

Second, how can Tancredo say that President Bush has “sold out the American people”? To sell someone out means that you’re ostensibly on his side, and then you betray him. But Bush during the 2000 campaign and throughout his presidency has made it crystal clear that he is an enemy of the American nation. Conservatives just didn’t want to hear the plain meaning of his words when, in a speech in Miami in August 2000, he celebrated the spread of the Spanish language and Hispanic culture in the U.S., and when, about 10,000 times during his presidency, he said that “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande,” meaning that the U.S.-Mexico border is meaningless, and when, in his first Comprehensive National Suicide proposal of January 7, 2004, he said that all people in the world who can underbid an American for a job should be allowed to come here. So he has not sold us out. He is doing what, in one form or another, he has always told us he wanted to do.

- end of initial entry -

Readers add more insights into the radical nature of this bill:

Eric E. writes:

There is something unbelievable in the bill.

It decriminalizes illegal entry into the United States at other than designated crossing points.

Recall that I once sent you the text of 8 USC 1325, where the first conviction is a misdemeanor and all the following convictions are felonies.

The bill removes any criminal penalties. Civil fines only.

Here’s the text, which I found at Liberty Post:

(b) Improper Time or Place; Civil Penalties-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Any alien who is apprehended while entering, attempting to enter, or knowingly crossing or attempting to cross the border to the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty, in addition to any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed under any other provision of law, in an amount equal to—

`(A) not less than $50 or more than $250 for each such entry, crossing, attempted entry, or attempted crossing; or

`(B) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) if the alien had previously been subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

`(2) CROSSED THE BORDER DEFINED- In this section, an alien is deemed to have crossed the border if the act was voluntary, regardless of whether the alien was under observation at the time of the crossing.’.

Roger writes:

This immigration bill is so radical that it’s staggering. It poses the greatest threat to this nation since the Civil War. It will ultimately destroy the unique culture of America; it will destroy the financial solvency of America; it represents an utter contempt for American democracy and the will of the people; and it is the beginning of the end of the very idea of America as a sovereign nation. It also represents as you have said the ruin of the Republican party as a viable force, leaving this country in the hands of unabashed leftists. The only hope for the Republican party and for the nation is for the Republicans in Congress to take the course you recommended they take last summer in taking a strong and principled stand against this bill, a stand that would be supported by the majority of the American people.

Stephen T. writes:

You can count on other sources lining up to shoulder this $5000 for the Mexicans so they won’t have to cough it up themselves. It’s not hard to envision Bush’s big business interests, employers such as WalMart, etc, falling over themselves to arrange interest-free payroll deduction loans spread out over 10 years or some period so lengthy as to make the payments virtually painless. I’d be surprised if there hasn’t already been some sort of back room understanding about this—so great is the desire among the ruling elite to fill this country with passive, subsistence-wage Mestizo Mexicans.

Also, it is not hard to imagine the Mexican government itself arranging to shoulder this cost, or at least pay some percentage of it, so great is the Mexican government’s desire to rid itself of this culture of uneducable, perennially impoverished Mestizos.

David B. writes:

Yesterday, I listened to Rush Limbaugh briefly. He again said, “I don’t understand these Republicans. The liberals, I do understand.” He was discussing the legalize-them-all bill.

Today (Friday), I heard Limbaugh for an hour, including a long monologue. The subject was what El Rushbo called the “Destroy the Republican Party” immigration bill. Note that Rush is more concerned with the Republican Party than America. Toward the end, he mentioned what he though were Bush’s motives. Limbaugh has never previously wondered why Bush was backing liberal policies, and would always say he “didn’t understand why the President is doing this.” Today Limbaugh said in part:

“He doesn’t want to be viewed as hard-hearted…He believes in the usage of government to do good works, for the downtrodden, for the poor, wherever they are in the world. That’s the only thing I can come up with, and I’m not even critical of this. I’m just trying to explain. Politically, it’s the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007. He’s not looking at it that way. He’s not looking at this through a political prism. Senator Kennedy and everybody else, is. He’s not. This is good works for him.”

Note that El Rushbo says, “…and I’m not critical of this.” I wonder what Bush has to do for Limbaugh to “be critical?” As he did right after last November’s election, Limbaugh won’t even use the word “Bush.” Only “the President,” or “he.”

LA replies:

I wonder how any serious conservative bear listening to him. I have another friend who’s always telling me, “Rush said this, Rush said that.” Always frustrated with Rush, but keeps listening to him, year after year.

How many times has Limbaugh said, “I don’t understand why Bush…” Ten thousand times? If a political commentator keeps saying he has no idea of why the president of the United States does things, maybe he’s in the wrong business???

Given that I’ve called it the Comprehensive National Suicide Act, it’s delicious that he would see it primarily as the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act. There are two different types of conservatism for you!

David replies:

I rarely listen to Limbaugh, but I wanted to hear what he would say about this latest destroy-America bill. Most days he is unbearable, as you say. He is either cheerleading for the GOP or making tired jokes about the Clintons and other easy targets. On Thursday, he was strangely defensive, and complained that his listeners were attacking him for a “softball” interview of Tony Snow. Snow had come on the program to defend the administration.

I sent you this message because it was the lengthiest defense of Bush’s liberalism I had ever heard Limbaugh make. As always, Limbaugh never admits that Bush is a liberal.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 18, 2007 02:20 PM | Send