« Seniors tell bench-jockey to shove it up his ass | Main | Lloyd Bentsen:  1921 - 2006 »

May 22, 2006

But don't  call it "amnesty".

(Hat tip Michelle Malkin via Misha.)

Among those who will be cleared of past crimes under the Senate's proposed immigration-reform bill would be the businesses that have employed the estimated 10 million illegal aliens eligible for citizenship and that provided the very "magnet" that drew them here in the first place.

Buried in the more than 600 pages of legislation is a section titled "Employer Protections," which states: "Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status under this section shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien."

Supporters of the legislation insist that such provisions do not amount to "amnesty".

Oh, no, don't call it "amnesty".  Under no circumstances whatsoever call it "amnesty".  Even when it fits the dictionary definition of "amnesty" - by no means call it "amnesty".

"The legislation we are considering today is not amnesty," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said last week. "That is a pejorative term, really a smear term used to denigrate the efforts at comprehensive immigration reform."

Yes, in much the same manner that calling you a senator is tantamount to being a perjorative.

To senators.

(And for the moment, we'll skip the part about how calling you a human being is perjorative to human beings.  But only for the moment.)

"This is not amnesty because amnesty means a pardon of those who have broken the law."

Hmmmmmmm...let's see here:

A pardon?  Check.

Extended to those who have broken the law?  Check.

How's that definition of "is" working for you again, Arlene Sphincter?

Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania Republican RINO [NOTE:  Get it right, Times.  -S], and others argue that the bill is not amnesty for illegal aliens because they will have to pay $2,000 in fines before they gain citizenship.

Raise your hands, class - how many of you believe for a second that as many as one-fucking-percent of that 20 million will end up paying that so-called $2000?  Anyone wanna bet that that'll  be forgiven after about five years, too?

The law does not, however, provide for such fines against employers who have broken the law by hiring the illegals.

But don't you dare  call it "amnesty".  Arlene Sphincter said so.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, vehemently opposes "this effort to waive the rules for lawbreakers and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them."

Amnesties, he said, "are the dark underbelly of our immigration process."

"They tarnish the magnanimous promise enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty," Mr. Byrd said last week on the Senate floor. "Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and should apply fairly to everyone."

Denizens, mark the date & time.  I'm in full, complete, 100%, non-biodegradable agreement with a liberal Democrat.  Great Honkin' Cthulu™, it must be the freakin' Apocalypse.

While most of the focus thus far has been on the "amnesty" granted to illegal aliens, opponents only now are discovering the broad range of crimes that will be forgiven under the legislation.

Lawyers for the Senate Judiciary Committee have scoured the bill and come up with a list of 31 crimes relating to illegal immigration that would be wiped clean.

Under current law, simply entering the country illegally can result in a six-month prison stay and a $250,000 fine. Aiding in that crime carries a similar fine and a five-year prison sentence. Once ordered deported, an illegal racks up $500 per day of continued "illegal presence."

But don't call it "amnesty", after all.  The RINO fucktard from Pennsylvania has decreed it thus.

Rope, tree, senator:  Some assembly required.

Posted by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant at May 22, 2006 08:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.spatulacitybbs.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/574

Comments

If Al Gore were President, would he be a better defender if immigration laws than Dubya? Probably not.

(No, I'm not defending our spendthrift, illegals-coddling, McCain-Feingold-signing president.)

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at May 24, 2006 12:33 AM