How would creating an i.d. card for foreign workers prevent illegals, using forged documents, from posing as U.S. citizens? Why should employers require someone who seems to be a citizen to show a “foreign worker” card? (Presumably the idea isn’t that employers will doubt the U.S. citizenship of any job applicant who looks “foreign.”)[Are Conservatives Cheap Dates? Item 2]

My first question is “Why the hell not?” Cops checking for truancy pick on teenagers in the middle of the day. Cops checking for drunk drivers focus on those who weave and stagger. Liquor store clerks card young-looking people. And have you tried to cash a check lately? They not only want to know who you are, but your phone number and credit rating.

Why shouldn’t an employer who’s not allowed to hire illegals focus on foreign appearance or accent? (Peter Brimelow has a foreign accent–he has no objections to being asked if he’s a citizen. Michelle Malkin actually thanked a guard at the NSA for having the courage to to ask her if she was a citizen.)

Unfortunately, I already know the answer: because employers who do check for illegals are persecuted much more than those who hire illegals. Marcus Epstein wrote about this on Vdare.com in 2003, there’s a bureaucracy called The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices [OSC], which bans, among other things,

Document abuse discrimination–you can’t ask for “more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility” or “reject reasonably genuine-looking documents” etc.

So Bruce Friedman, head counsel for the OSC told Marcus Epstein’s law class that the OSC had pursued an employer who

a firm from Texas that scrutinized a Mexican-American for his identification papers (which ended up being legitimate), while they accepted a white Texan’s unusual looking social security card. The OSC successfully sued the company for document abuse fraud.[Indiscriminate Anti-Discrimination Enforcement: Why Is It Illegal To Check For Illegals?, By Marcus Epstein, September 19, 2003]

This, remember, in contrast to the extremely low priority given to workplace enforcement:

Turning to worksite enforcement, this has been a low priority under both INS and ICE. In fiscal year 1999, INS devoted about 240 FTEs, [Full-time equivalents, or man-years]or about 9 percent of its total agent work-years, to address the employment of millions of unauthorized workers. In fiscalyear 2003, it devoted about 90 FTE’s or about 4 percent of total agent work-years. That many people would not fill the chairs behindme in this hearing room.[Testimony of Richard M. Stana, June 21, 2005(PDF)]

Senator Cornyn (R-TX) introduced an amendment that would prevent those applying for temporary guest worker visas from becoming what are essentially, permanent residents…or even citizens.

(Those who wish to become permanent residents or citizens can voluntarily leave the country and apply for these visas from their home country…also known as, the way everybody else has to do it.)

His argument is that the bill as written is flawed because one can apply for guest worker visas ad infinitum. However you look at at, that’s not “temporary” that’s indefinite residency.

Needless to say, a vote to table the motion (kill the amendment) took place.

Votes: YEA 55 Nay 32

Weak, selfish imbeciles…your United States Congress working for you!

Senator Sessions (R-Alabama) made an excellent point by asking one, simple question:

“Has anybody asked America if this is what they want? This bill has major flaws and they are going to be even madder at us when they see it.”

I have no idea what Senator Sessions would do with immigration given his druthers but one thing is for certain–he is the only member of the Senate who has bothered to acknowledge that another group of people exist in this nation: Americans

So far, our illustrious leaders have taken the floor one after another to register their concern for and pledge their devotion to illegal immigrants–not one of them has bothered to acknowledge that these people are not their constituents, we are.

They should not concern themselves with the petulant demands of foreign nationals–they should be doing the work of the American people.

My next project for VDARE.com Blog is the best and worst list of the U.S. Senate…let me just say, I’m having a lot of fun compiling it!

Spoiler Note: Senator Sessions is on the “best” list. (Email him)

Senator Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Cornyn (R-TX) both introduced amendments that would provide state and local governments with federal funding for health and education expenses related to immigration.

The difference between the amendments is the Cornyn version takes the funds from a surcharge on illegal immigrants applying for legal status–the Clinton version takes the funds from the usual source: American Taxpayers

Cornyn amendment passed YEA 64 NAY 32

The Salazar amendment passed a few minutes ago…

This amendment makes English the “national language” but does not punish those who do not speak English.

So the citizenship requirement of English proficiency which passed just moments before may be null and void. Denying citizenship to someone because they do not speak English (as the previous amendment would do) I am sure will be considered “punishment.”

Hmm…I guess I was wrong. I said it would be Kennedy who killed the amendment and I gave him until tomorrow.

Hard to believe it would take an act of Congress but…the Inhofe Amendment passed.

It was basically a party-line vote but English will be our “national language” and new citizens must pass an English proficiency test.

(Yeah, the odds that Kennedy will NOT introduce an amendment tomorrow repealing this amendment are roughly the same as Pat Buchanan signing onto the Hilary 08 campaign.)

Well looky here: Barbara “of course English is our language–if we have to say it fine” Boxer (email her) voted No.

Now it’s Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) talking about the Inhofe Amendment which would establish English as the official language of the United States and require new citizens to pass an English proficiency exam.

He actually said, “I am not saying that Senator Inhofe is a racist but this amendment certainly is.”

Well, the “R” word had to come up at some point I suppose…

He also claims the amendment is unconstitutional and un-American.

And there he goes again…talking about his father-in-law coming from Russia.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the anything but he keeps bringing it up–it’s all part of the Immigrant Hardship Story Competition.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is talking about the proposed amendment by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) which would establish English as the official language of the United States and require new citizens to pass an English proficiency exam.

“Of course English is our language–if we have to say it’s our language then fine…but I want to do it in a way that unifies us, not in a way that sets us up for unintended consequences” said Boxer.

Let me translate: I agree with this amendment but I am not going to vote for it because I plan on using it in the next election as an example of how Republicans pick on immigrants.

Unintended consequences? What could she possibly be talking about?

“Do we have to take our flag out of museum exhibits because there are slogans in Latin?” asked Boxer.

Lordy! Barbara Boxer has obviously been taking lessons in absurd hypothetical arguments from Senator Mc Cain and Senator Kennedy.

It’s a little but funny…students no longer have to demonstrate proficiency in English to graduate from high school in California so even if this amendment passes, how long will it take for some judge to strike it down?

Here are my comments from last week about that treacherous legal decision.

For reasons I will never understand, our allegedly conservative Senators are taking the “damage control” approach rather than the “let’s kill this ridiculous amnesty bill” approach.

Today we had an amendment from Senator Ensign (R-Nevada) which would prevent illegal aliens (or new guest workers as it were) from collecting social security benefits accumulated prior to the date they became legal workers.

And there’s a motion to table the amendment (kill it)…it passes 50 to 49. Looks like illegal immigrants will be able to collect social security benefits that nobody else would ever be entitled to under such circumstances.

Hmm…so here’s a thought:

Yesterday, the Senate passed an amendment to exclude from eligibility illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors.

Using a false social security number (whether that of another person or a made up number) is a felony.

I say we let them collect the social security benefits they accumulated while living here illegally (you know, in the shadows) and then we nab them for using fraudulent identification, charge them with a felony and ship them back to their home country as they would be ineligible for any legal work permit or Visa.

Enough daydreaming…

Kennedy struck another blow to truth and justice this morning. His new amendment will allow guest workers to “self-petition” for green cards rather than rely on a legitimate employer to sponser them. You know, the way everybody else has to do it!!

Of course it passed 56 to 43.

***By the way, the amendment by Senator Cornyn that would require an employer to sponser a guest worker for a temporary work visa or green card just passed yesterday. The employer sponsership requirement for a green card was one of the only methods by which we could guarantee our new guest workers were actually working.

Don’t let the waistband fool you…Kennedy moves fast.

Mickey Kaus also liked the proposal, by a reader signing himself “An Economist” [send him congratulatory mail]that illegals be given sixty days to leave the country if they ever want to be citizens.[Today’s Letter: Go Home Now! An Economist Reader Provides The Speech Bush Should Give—But Won’t]

Kaus writes:

A proposal that deserves to be considered as part of the policy mix! If not, why not? It might be appropriate, for example, for those immigrants “who crossed the border recently” and don’t merit a path to citizenship even in Bush’s “roots”-oriented scheme–that is, if Bush is serious about denying them legalized status. Or is the idea to wait until they’ve put down “roots” too?[Are Conservatives Cheap Dates?]