Milbank mischaracterized GOP amendment as effort to "soften" House immigration bill
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank described a Republican-sponsored amendment to reduce the charge for unlawful presence in the United States from a felony to a misdemeanor as "an effort to soften" the enforcement-only House immigration reform bill. In fact, Republicans sought to downgrade the criminal penalty in order to facilitate prosecution.
In his April 24 "This Week" column, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank described a Republican-sponsored amendment to reduce the charge for unlawful presence in the United States from a felony to a misdemeanor as "an effort to soften" the enforcement-only House immigration reform bill. In fact, Republicans sought to downgrade the criminal penalty in order to facilitate prosecution, as Media Matters for America noted.
On December 16, 2005, the GOP-led House passed a stringent immigration reform bill sponsored by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI). Among the legislation's components was a controversial provision subjecting illegal immigrants to possible felony charges (unlawful presence is currently a civil violation). But prior to the final vote on the bill, Sensenbrenner proposed an amendment to reduce the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor. Citing their across-the-board opposition to criminal penalties, 191 Democrats opposed the measure, which subsequently failed by a vote of 257-164.
As the Senate took up the issue of immigration reform in March and April, pro-immigrant groups held massive protests in cities nationwide, largely provoked by the House-approved felony provision. In an effort to distance themselves from this element of the legislation, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) attempted to shift the blame on to the Democrats, highlighting the Democrats' opposition to Sensenbrenner's amendment and assailing them for their purported "lack of compassion." The Republican National Committee (RNC) even produced ads claiming that Democrats "voted to treat millions of hardworking immigrants as felons ... while President Bush and Republican leaders work for legislation that will protect our borders and honor our immigrants." In response to Hastert and Frist's accusation, Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein asserted that the Republicans had "misrepresent[ed] the evidence" in this case. From his April 16 column:
Hastert and Frist charged that House Democrats voted to oppose "efforts to reduce the crime of unlawful presence ... from a felony to a misdemeanor." In fact, House Democrats opposed an effort to increase the penalty for unlawful presence from a civil violation to a criminal misdemeanor.
Indeed, as Media Matters noted in response to media figures' repetition of this argument, the stated motive behind the GOP effort to downgrade the criminal penalty was not to make the bill less punitive, but rather to enhance the government's ability to prosecute illegal immigrants. When Sensenbrenner introduced the amendment, he made clear that the White House had lobbied for the change because it feared the due process requirements associated with felony charges would limit the number of actual prosecutions.
From Sensenbrenner's December 16, 2005, floor statement:
SENSENBRENNER: The administration subsequently requested the penalty for these crimes be lowered to 6 months. Making the first offense a felony, as the base bill would do, would require a grand jury indictment, a trial before a district court judge and a jury trial.
Also because it is a felony, the defendant would be able to get a lawyer at public expense if the defendant could not afford the lawyer. These requirements would mean that the government would seldom if ever actually use the new penalties. By leaving these offenses as misdemeanors, more prosecutions are likely to be brought against those aliens whose cases merit criminal prosecution.
For this reason, the amendment returns the sentence for illegal entry to its current 6 months and sets the penalty for unlawful presence at the same level.
Nonetheless, Milbank -- echoing an April 12 article by Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman -- described it as "an effort to soften the bill by making immigration violations misdemeanors rather than felonies."
Further, Milbank baselessly claimed that Bush's position on immigration reform has shifted "toward what foes brand as 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants." From Milbank's April 24 column:
President Bush today tries to revive prospects for immigration legislation in Congress, which has failed to come up with an agreement amid complaints that the White House has been absent from the debate.
In Irvine, Calif., Bush gives a speech on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," a package that goes beyond the solely punitive bill passed by the House and toward what foes brand as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
The "amnesty" proposals in question are those that include a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The most prominent is the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 27, which provides such an opportunity to most of the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. A subsequent compromise proposal offered the possibility of citizenship to those immigrants who have been in the country illegally for more than 2 years.
While the White House commended both pieces of legislation, Bush has not expressed his full support for either proposal and has given no indication that he has shifted away from his opposition to so-called "amnesty," as Milbank suggested. Indeed, a March 27 fact-sheet laying out the president's "Vision for Comprehensive Immigration Reform" clearly stated that, while he supports a temporary worker program, he "firmly opposes amnesty." In an April 5 statement, he expressed his support for "a guest worker provision that is not amnesty, one that provides for automatic citizenship." And in his April 8 radio address, Bush reiterated that "comprehensive immigration reform must include a temporary worker program that relieves pressure on our borders, while rejecting amnesty." He further stated, "We must ensure that those who break our laws are not granted an automatic path to citizenship."
must not be filling their beds sufficiently with the manatory sentencing laws, three-strikes and you're out laws, and drug penalty laws, so we've got to have legislation that will add a new base enrollment source: people who work at or below minimum wage who struggle with the language who can't afford attorneys and may not qualify for appointed counsel in the federal system. Not America's finest hour...nor its finest five years.
the penalties can be debated all day long, the fact remains that they are illegal immigrants. they are in this country illegally, they live here illegally and they work here illegally. this hurts the poorest in our society for it drives down the price of labor. bush and his corporate buddies should be tracked down and punished for employing them. we have every right to determine who can become legal residents of our country, this is a country with controllable borders, if just more than a few politicians would actually be in favor of enforcing our borders instead of pandering to one interest group or another.
as all that. See [link to thinkprogress.org] with links to materials that seemed to defy logic but which may be statistically sound. Not being a statistician, I'm more than a little confused about what the truth is about the impact on the economy. But I'm not confused about the idea of sticking twelve million people in jail because they came over here to improve their lives, and we all know that if we can't support moving the population of New Orleans temporarily we can't support catching and moving twelve million people.
you will never catch twelve million people and put them in jail. any reasonable/sane person knows that. but we need to enforce our borders and not encourage twelve million more people to flow here illegally. the system is broken, something drastic needs to be done. bush doesn't care. many republicans and many democrats don't care either. the people need to demand our borders get enforced with seriousness, that's the most important thing in the entire debate. until that's done, everything else should be off the table.
To say "everything else should be off the table" until we "demand our borders get enforced in seriousness" is simplistic.
Because the question that immediately arises is "What does enforcing the borders entail?" and, to be more concrete, what we do with those who are already here.
That brings us back to the content of the current debate, a debate which you seem to suggest should stop or be suspended for the time being.
not until there is real enforcement of our borders should any of the other issues be on the table. no talk of guest workers (or amnesty) should be discussed seriously until the borders are dealt with. otherwise it's all moot. remember back when reagan did this in the 80's. "oh the borders will be dealt with", ya right. they weren't then and they won't be now.
First of all - I would beg to differ on the wages most of the illegals are being paid - in my area, day laborers make $8-$10/hour for their work. Since they are generally paid cash and no taxes are withheld, they really earn the equivalent of more like $10-$12/hour. However, the employers of most of these people either only need temporary labor, which would cost them closer to $20/hour through any kind of labor pool, or if they hired them as employees, it adds lots of other costs, such as workman's comp, SSI contributions, etc. It's not necessarily the wage paid to the worker that is the whole cost - I'd venture to guess that if any working poor who are American citizens wanted the work - they also could stand on a street corner and get work. However, a citizen has worker protections that an illegal would never pursue for fear of being caught. The real key is not what the individuals are earning as a wage - it's more a question of what employing a citizen costs vs. employing an illegal. The two may actually make the same wage, but one costs much less to hire. Now, aside from that - this entire post isn't about wages, etc - it's about misrepresenting facts to the American public. This shows a concerted effort to distort the fact surrounding the debate.
you just verified the fact that illegals are driving down the price of labor, and it's the employer's fault. of course they want the cheap labor, what do you think drives bush so much? he is a corporatist, bottom line. we are not a country with borders anymore, we are a market. is't sickening. the poorest citizens are being hurt the most, they have no voice speaking for them and that's the sad part. the politicians will get their day of reckoning soon, we all hope.
.... to force his buddy Vincente Fox to enforce HIS borders and deal with his impoverished workforce in an equitable way. That would truly be a step in the right direction.
If all the money coming into Mexico vie the Illegals was to suddenly stop ,It would be economically deviating to Mexico and Mr Fox knows this. No-sense in him fixing something that isn't broken.Illegals making money to spend in Mexico is a good thing .for the Mexican economy .And no one in the Mexican government wants a influx of that many unemployed deported laborers and farm workers coming home this would be a disasters for Mexico . So we cant expect any help form South of the Broader is just isn't in their best interest
but why is there no mention to the Major Contributing Factor to the Illegal Immigration Problem, Illegal Employers who provide the jobs? During the Bush years, there have been only a few instances of Illegal Employment punishment.
But I think to actually look, as you did, at the statements made by a congressional representative (as found in the official Congressional Record), as opposed to regurgitating GOP and RNC talking points as so many in the mainstream media do -- why, that must be considered a form of cheating. Not fair!
Remember the day the newspaper boy was proud to hit your doorstep ?
Remember the proud Apprentice that just made Journeyman in Carpentry?
Remember when our fields where picked by Americans?
Remember when the slaughter houses slaughtered by Americans?
Well, you may not, BUT I DO!
For anyone to say, they do the jobs American wont! You are a complete moron! I worked in the Landscape business for years. I always hated how employers would take advantage of the "Mexicans".
I had a young man show me his tool repeatedly at a bus stop. You know what he was doing? Paying off his way into America!
How many of you know someone that has had shabby work done because they hired cheap mexican labor? I know dozens. Many I warned myself, but most wont listen due to the price. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR AMERICA!
50% of inmates in Federal prison here in cali are illegal.
Many work under fake Contractors Licence numbers, resulting in poor work, and scams.
Many drive illegally without insurance.
Many do not pay taxes, steal, ect.
Where is the benefit to illegal immigration.
Also, why do most headlines read, "Immigration reform", and not, "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM"?????
Because of the Media Complex. Most people reading these headlines think it is about the Immigration Process. What a joke........
"I had a young man show me his tool repeatedly at a bus stop. You know what he was doing? Paying off his way into America!"
Dude. If some guy showed you his tool at a bus stop, you should have called the police! Did he have like a trench coat or something and just flashed it? Enquiring minds want to know.