Skip to main content

S. 2611 -- Have You Read it already?

I just printed out a hard copy of the Senate's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) Now, if you are going to blog about it or comment on it, I would hope you would have taken the time to read it. I know...it will take a lot of time. The darn thing is 197 pages long!! We'll see what little tidbit I find in there.

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation has come out with a report on the effects of S.2611. I haven't read it yet, so I can't comment on what it says or whether I agree or not. Based on the headline, it does strike me as a bit sensationalist. The headline reads, "Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years"

But, generally speaking, I tend to trust the Heritage Foundation. Ad that one to tonight's reading list...my wife is not going to be happy with me.
Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation's population.

The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years -- —over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.
Technorati Tags: , Politics, border, MEXICO, , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Podcast: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well. Tell Me More, October 12, 2007 · This week, GOP presidential contenders met for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. Meanwhile, President Bush was stumping for reauthorization of the education bill, "No Child Left Behind." In this week's Political Chat, hear insights from political blogger Josue Sierra and Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor at the Detroit Free Press.

You can listen on the NPR website right here.


Related Posts:
- On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
- GOP Economy Debate


Other Posts of Interest:
- Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith Cross posted at:
http://josue.townhall.com/g/539550d0-6e62-45a9-b375-f9d534488f25

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Victory for Life -- Court backs military on abortion coverage

Great news being reported on the Chicago Tribune. Surprisingly, a decision was handed down in favor of life. I find the quote facinating. These days, one could hardly believe such statement would come from a judge--a federal one of all things.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that military medical benefits should cover abortions only when a mother's life is at risk.

The 3-0 ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."Tags: , , ,