The problem with our immigration system has always been the failure to enforce our current immigration laws and the failure to put enforcement first. The Obama administration has prohibited Immigration and Custom Enforcement Agents from making street arrests when illegal aliens enter into the mainland. The agency has been ordered to focus on those that are convicted of certain criminal offenses. During the Bush Administration, Congress passed a law in 2006 requiring the construction of a border fense at the southern border which was to include a mix of barriers in rough terrain and an increase in the manpower of the Border Patrol. As of this date, the border fence remains incomplete. Even though the Border Patrol has doubled in size, the agency has failed to achieve operational control of the border. While the majority of illegal aliens cross over the border, more then fourty percent of the total comprise those who came legally but over stayed their visas. In response to this issue, Congress passed a law in 1996 and again in 2000 that required the completion of a functioning system to document the entry and exit of vsa holders. Even after the 911 terrosist attacks in 2001, the 911 commision again recommended it's implementation but again no such system has been implemented. When the Senate Committee had an opportunity to finally require these common sense enforcement provisions, both amendments were rejected.

The Senate bill requires that the border be certified as 90% secure within five years. The problem is with the metrics used to determine if the border is secured. The Government Accountability Office issued a report this past Fenruary that found that there are no clear definable standards in place to determnine if the border is secured. Using definitions from a defined strategy in 2004, "controlled" and "managed operational control" which state that there is a "high probability of apprehension after entry", the Border Patrol  had operational control over just 13% of the U.S. border and 44% of the southwest border. In 2010, the Obama administration dropped the "operational control" standard and currently has no standard to measure border security. Based on that history, why would it be prudent to grant unilateral power to the person responsible for the lack of border security, Department of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano? The bill would require the the DHS secretary must submit a plan for stengthening border security in six months after passage of the act. If at any time during a five year period after passage of the act that the DHS Secretaty certifies that their department "has not achieved effective control in all high risk border sectors", a commision shall be established within 60 days of the certifcation. This six member commision would be required to issue a report in 6 months with recommendations to achive 90% border security for all high risk areas. After the report is submitted to the President, Congress and the DHS Secretary, the commision would be disolved. It's important to note the distinction on securing the border. Unlike the claims to the contrary, border security is not the first priority.

The most egregious part of the Senate bill is that is gives the DHS Secretary unilateral discretion on border security and determining which aliens qualify for legalization. The DHS Secretary is granted the authority to waive criminal convictions of those who apply for legalization which include those involved in gang activity. Aliens who have committed document fraud, identity thieft and who failed to appear at removal proceedings are eligible for legalization. Those who have been deported once or several times are not eligible for legalization, however the DHS Secretary can waive their ineligiblity. The fact is almost all of those who apply will be granted legalization whether by their defined eligiblity or by the DHS Secretary's unilateral discretion. Based on the sheer numbers, the current system which is already heavily backlogged would be unable to adequately investigate tens of millions of addtional immigrants who would apply for legalization and an increase in the number of legal immigration. It's important to take notice when those who enforce the law oppose the bill, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents and Immigration Adjudication Officers, neither of whom were consulted when the bill was drafted. 

In light of America's $16 trillion in debt, any reform of the nations's immigration laws must be cost effective and should ensure that any "reform" include a cost benefit for the taxpayer. Yet this legislation will cost Americans dearly. The Heritage foundation has projected the cost of the bill to run as high as $6.3 trillion dollars. Critics have charged that the projected cost is exagerated, however the basis for that assessment is the large array of benefits that legalized aliens would be entitled to receive. Those benefits which include social security, medicaid, medicare, food stampts, section 8, unemployment benefits would lead to the economic collapse of several states and the further errosion of the federal government fiscal stability. It is without dispute that there are millions of currernt illegal aliens who are receiving benefits for their children who were born in America including the cost of their education and the move by many states to grant lower in state resident tuition. When given a chance to deny welfare-tax benefits to those who will be legalized under the bill, the Senate committee rejected the amendment. Furthermore, the bill has a large loophole that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to define who is considered "legal or "lawfully prersent" which would allow an even larger pool of immigrants such as temporary workers to receive benefits.   

The claim that those who broke the law will be required to pay a fine and back taxes is false. Currently, the DHS has the authority to waive fees and has waived $200 million last year. When the Senate committee considered an amendment to ensure that all back taxes will be paid, the amendment was rejected. Considering that American citizens and legal residents do not have that option, this approach makes a mockery of our values and common sense. To actually  hold those who obey the law to a higher standard while allowing law breakers to get away with their crime is contrary to our nation of laws. Senator Schumer (D-New York) who voted against the amendment actually said, "The worry I have here is that by being as rigid … as this amendment is, that it will delay and prevent many, many people from coming out of the shadows.” The Senator went on to explain that the requirement would prevent 5 million from becoming legalized. The Senator seems to forget that he represents citizens both born and naturalized not those who are here illegally. 

The Senate bill is nothing more then a repackaged version of the Bush Amnesty bill. The only difference is this bill is even worse when it comes to border security, those eligible for amnesty and the dishonesty of the debate. The current Senate bill offers no benefit for America. The real test is when operational control of the border is validated by the use of specific metrics which is then certified by congress by a two thirds vote. This must inlcude full implementation of the border fense, full operational sucesss of a biometric entry, exit system for visa holders, requiring all businesses to use E-Verify, hire more Immigration Adjudication Officers and allowing ICE agents to make arrests in the U.S.interior. If Congress does anything less, its all about amnesty.