“This has been a great week for America. Our principles of equality and rule of law have been upheld, and that's worth celebrating”, writes Robb Pearson on Life & Liberty: An American Blog.

Pearson is referring to yesterday’s defeat of the Senate’s immigration bill and the U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring race-based assignments to public schools unconstitutional. The opinion can best be summed up with the words of Chief Justice John Roberts’ who wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

It is time to celebrate and there’s no better time than now to remember the men and women who sacrifice greatly to maintain our freedom and way of life. An email expressing your support to a Marine in a combat zone would be greatly appreciated. Ken Adams has the details.

The comprehensive Senate immigration reform bill goes down in defeat 46-53.

This quote gives the story in a nutshell:

Liberals felt it did not go far enough in protecting illegal immigrants, while conservatives rejected the bill because they felt it would grant amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.

The bill didn’t even receive simple majority support, let alone the necessary 60 votes for cloture. New Jersey Senators Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg both voted in favor the illegal alien amnesty bill. They were joined by 12 Republican Senators and 32 other Democrats.

New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez continues to push his personal story of victimhood. Last week it was in the Star-ledger. This week in a piece by the New York Times:

Mr. Menendez recently challenged a colleague on the floor of the Senate for referring to immigrants as “those people” and said he was personally insulted.

“I’ve heard ‘those people’ before,” he said. “I understand what that means. It’s not abstract.”

Here’s the transcript of the exchange from page S7136 of the Congressional Record of June 6, 2007 between Menendez and Senator Jon Kyl, the chief Republican proponent of the immigration reform bill:

Mr. KYL: It was not easy for some people to agree to allow at least 12 million immigrants who came to this country illegally to stay here and eventually become citizens. That was not easy. One of the bases upon which we were able to do that was to respond to an argument that had frequently been made: Why should we let all those people, is the way it is described, become U.S. citizens and then chain migrate all their family—their uncles, cousins, grandparents, and so on?

Mr. MENENDEZ: One point. Remember how the Senator from Arizona said how all ‘‘those people’’ would be able to claim their families. The Menendez amendment has nothing to do with ‘‘those people.’’ The Menendez amendment has everything to do with U.S. citizens today who have a right under the law. So I hope we do not confuse both of those.

Mr. KYL: Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey that what he said, as far as he said it, is, of course, exactly correct. What I was talking about was the tradeoff that existed between the accommodation to the 12 million people and--by the way, I don't use that phrase ``those people .'' I hope the Senator understands that I was referring to the criticism of those who say we shouldn't allow the illegal immigrants in the country, especially if we chain migrate their families.

Times reporter, Raymond Hernandez, should have checked the record and called Menendez on it, but he does offer this observation:

Yet as Mr. Menendez tries to remake his image, he finds it hard to avoid being pulled back into what he is known for doing best: playing politics and raising money.

Representing taxpayers and citizens of New Jersey? No, Menendez is looking to “advance his policy objectives” with your tax money. Playing the victim is part of his act.

The Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran wrote a column yesterday about “immigration reform” and Senator Bob Menendez, a member of the gang of 12 who negotiated the failed “grand bargain” in the U.S. Senate.

The column is remarkable for the level of Moran’s mendacity, beginning with this whopper. Moran writes that Menendez is “himself an immigrant from Cuba”. In fact, the only migration Menendez experienced was from his birthplace in New York to New Jersey, where he has lived most of his life, save for his time spent in Washington D.C.

Painting Menendez as some sort of victim is central to the media’s narrative about the man, which Moran uses to set up the remainder of his piece.

Moran laughably tells his readers that Menendez “is a liberal Democrat, but one who likes to strike deals with Republicans to get things done.” No examples where given to back up this preposterous claim. Probably because anyone remotely familiar with the perennial backbencher knows that Menendez’s idea of a deal is of the “heads I win, tails you lose” variety. So it was with his tactics on the immigration bill. "Do we want to see principle in our public servants?" Menendez asks. "Or do we want them to equivocate for the sake of bipartisanship?"

At its core, the compromise he pushed would toughen border security while allowing the 12 million illegal immigrants already within our borders to earn citizenship. Polls show most American support the idea.

Of course polls show no such thing, which is one of the reasons, the so-called compromise failed. The American people were against it, especially those provisions favored by Menendez.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Moran tries to lead his readers to falsely believe, “penalties and fees for illegals seeking citizenship, a petty move that would inevitably discourage some from applying”, were a part of a deal breaking amendment. They weren’t. The “petty fines and fees” were a central part of the original Senate bill and the fig leaf used by proponents to pretend illegal aliens would not be receiving amenity.

Moran writes, “But now, Menendez says he would not vote for this bill unless it is fundamentally changed.”

His biggest objection is aimed at a provision that would emphasize job skills over family relationships in awarding visas.

That was another key provision in the original Senate bill that Menendez supposedly helped to negotiate, along with the misguided “huge guest worker program”. Menendez objects to the plan because it wouldn’t lead to permanent legal residency for “guest workers” and additional chain-migration for their family members. It was Menendez who tried to change it with an amendment.

Moran explains that “On a personal level, Menendez sounds deflated by the experience”.

"What surprised me was the vehemence of some of the language," he says. "I heard, 'those people.' When I hear that, it just sends a shiver up my spine."

He was referring to Arizona Sen. John Kyl, a Republican, who used the phrase on the Senate floor last week to describe the illegal immigrant population.

The Congressional Record tells a different story about the exchange between Menendez and Jon Kyl, the chief Republican proponent of the “grand bargain” of a bill that was to bear the Republican’s name along with Democrat Ted Kennedy. The “shiver up my spine” exchange Moran refers to is on page S7136 of the Congressional Record of June 6, 2007:

Mr. KYL: It was not easy for some people to agree to allow at least 12 million immigrants who came to this country illegally to stay here and eventually become citizens. That was not easy. One of the bases upon which we were able to do that was to respond to an argument that had frequently been made: Why should we let all those people, is the way it is described, become U.S. citizens and then chain migrate all their family—their uncles, cousins, grandparents, and so on?

Mr. MENENDEZ: One point. Remember how the Senator from Arizona said how all ‘‘those people’’ would be able to claim their families. The Menendez amendment has nothing to do with ‘‘those people.’’ The Menendez amendment has everything to do with U.S. citizens today who have a right under the law. So I hope we do not confuse both of those.

Mr. KYL: Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey that what he said, as far as he said it, is, of course, exactly correct. What I was talking about was the tradeoff that existed between the accommodation to the 12 million people and--by the way, I don't use that phrase ``those people .'' I hope the Senator understands that I was referring to the criticism of those who say we shouldn't allow the illegal immigrants in the country, especially if we chain migrate their families.

There are those people who check the facts and then, there are those people who don’t. Some people try to enlighten, others try to intentionally mislead. Moran seems to be one of those people following into the latter of both camps.

But, Moran did get one thing right about Menendez. “He is far more permissive than most when it comes to immigration.” New Jersey’s senior Senator, Bob Menendez has a voting record to back up the claim. We checked the facts.

"There's a great deal of ignorance out there." Someone should tell Paul Mulshine a good bit of it comes from his newspaper. May his and Moran’s brand of journalism R.I.P.

According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, public support for the Senate “immigration reform“ bill continues to slide with bi-partisan opposition to the grand bargain.

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Monday and Tuesday night found that just 23% of voters now support the bill while 50% are opposed.

Just 29% of Democrats support the measure while 40% are opposed. Among Republicans, support is at 21%, 57% are opposed. Only 17% of those not affiliated with either party support the measure. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of unaffiliateds are opposed.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters prefer no bill over the Senate bill.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.”

Adding pressure to Congress is the fact that voters see this objective as achievable --68% of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration.

Where’s the Republican Party in New Jersey on this issue? Leadership is not flying below the radar.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll (conducted May 29), only 26% of American voters favor passage of the Senate immigration reform bill. Unaffiliated voters are now more opposed to the bill than either Republicans or Democrats.

• 81% of American voters are closely following news stories about the issue.
  
  75% want the Senate immigration reform bill to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration.
  
  74% do not believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate bill is passed.
  
  68% believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration
  
  66% believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws.
  
  57% of unaffiliated voters oppose the Senate immigration bill
  
  41% believe the Senate bill will actually lead to an increase in illegal immigration.
  
  29% would “make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country and eventually become citizens.”
  
  16% believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate bill is passed

It should have been obvious that Congress had little interest in actually preventing future illegal immigration or solving, to the benefit of Americans, the problems associated with 12 to 20 million currently “living in the shadows”. After reading the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 all doubt should be removed.

Under the Senate’s proposed reform bill, the fine for entering or attempting to enter the U.S. illegally will be “not less than $50 or more than $250 for each such entry”. There are greater penalties for illegal parking and jaywalking.

New Jersey mandates a $250 fine for the first offense for parking in handicapped space without a special vehicle identification card. Subsequent offenses require a fine of at least $250 and up to 90 days of community service. (See N.J.S.A. 39:4-197(3)(c)). Jaywalking will get you a $100 fine in New York and one for $114 in California.

The Senate plan for the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. is also extremely favorable to the pro-illegal immigrant camp. Of course you wouldn’t know it listening to those complaining about the bill’s “impossibly tough standards” and the hardship it would bring “to an already overburdened and underappreciated community”. It’s doubtful these folks have read the actual bill.

New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez was a lead negotiator of the Immigration Reform Act of 2007. He now he says opposes it.

Menendez, of Hudson County, said he and most members of Congress "all support fines for those who broke the law," but called the amount of the fines "prohibitive."

Menendez is referring to the $1,000 charge illegal aliens will pay to obtain a Z card and the $4,000 fee for a green card. What the Senator doesn’t mention is that under the proposed legislation, fines and penalties for entering the country illegally and any liability for back income and payroll taxes are wiped away with the payment of a $1,000 fee for a four-year, renewable “Z” visa. The fee for a second four-year Z card is $500 and can be renewed indefinitely. A green card is strictly optional and won’t be available for eight years.

Call this process what you will, but the past is forgiven. The price for legal status going forward is $250 per year for the first four years and then $125 per year thereafter. Flexible payment terms are even available.

The bill requires the government to establish procedures allowing for the payment of 80 percent of “z” and green card “penalties” through an installment payment plan. That’s $200 down, the balance in low, low monthly payments. Just imagine the mandatory ads in the five required languages - Crazy Uncle Sam: His prices are insaaane!"

So are his standards. To qualify for a Z card, all an alien need do is fill out an application; claim to have lived in the U.S. illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, plunk down $200 and get on the filing fee payment plan. A probationary Z card, with all benefits, is then issued until such time the government gets around to completing a background check. Unlike immigration visa’s, a medical exam will not be required for a “Z” or green card for the illegal alien population.

Renewals for a second four-year period will require an applicant, 18 years of age or older, “to demonstrate an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language” and “knowledge of United States civics”. The language requirement is satisfied by “enrollment in or placement on a waiting list for English classes”. The civics prerequisite is satisfied by taking the naturalization test. Passing the test is not necessary to qualify for renewal.

Z card holders can ultimately apply for a green card -- but not until the government clears a backlog of more than 5 million current green card applicants, which will take eight years. Processing 10 to 20 million Z Card applications, on top of 400 to 600 thousand new merit based Y visas, will undoubtedly overwhelm the system.

We could go on with a laundry list of problems with this bill, but the real point is no bill is better than this “comprehensive” mess. The immigration issue is too important to be rammed down the throats of Americans without an open and honest debate.

The other day Fred Thompson said: “there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.” Man, was he right!

Here’s a link to the controversial Senate immigration bill - Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

The Whole Thing Is Crazy

The immigration “plan hatched by a bipartisan group of senators yesterday”, according to the Star-Ledger, “inspires confusion, criticism from both sides”.

Here’s the first bit of confusion the plan inspires in us - Does congress represent American citizens or illegal aliens? Based on press reports, the plan offers a menu of benefits for 12 to 20 million people living in the U.S. illegally, beginning with ability, upon demand, to have their illegal status wiped away with a temporary-residency permit.

What’s in this plan for Americans? What’s it going to cost American taxpayers and how does the bill address the needs of Americans?

The Star-Ledger report was light on criticism from American rights advocates and loaded with complaints from illegal aliens and their advocates.

Hilario Castro, an illegal alien from Mexico, says "Oh, Dios mío," - "They're going to take $5,000 from us. It will be easier to go and come back than it will be to pay that." Other “illegal immigrants gathered at the Red Bank train station last night summed up the plan” as “painful, but somehow doable”

Sen. Robert Menendez, “who took part in the negotiations, quickly denounced it.”

The bill would enable illegal immigrants to immediately receive permits to work legally and then apply for renewable one-year visas after paying a $1,000 fine. But it would require them to return to their home countries within eight years to apply for permanent residency, with another $4,000 fee for that stage of the process.

Amy Gottlieb, attorney with the Newark chapter of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization that advocates for immigrants, said "They can't administer what they have right now. They'd have to double the size of the budget to have enough staff to process applications."

“Echoing the concerns voiced yesterday by many pro-immigrant and religious groups”, Gottlieb said “the measure was too punitive. Forcing poor illegal immigrants to pay thousands in fines and return to their home countries, she said, would only increase hardship and separate families. We are deeply concerned. The debate has gotten so polarized, so far apart. And cutting these deals that really disregard the humanity behind immigration is not a way to address the polarization."

The article did include the views of one advocate for Americans, Gayle Kesselman, co-chairwoman of New Jersey Citizens for Immigration Control. "Crazy," said Kesselman, "The whole thing is crazy."