Americans might generally think that if someone forges a document and uses a Social Security number that does not belong to them, they should go to jail.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., believes if you are an illegal alien and you do these things, you should become a U.S. citizen. He made his case for this in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
When the committee was considering amendments to its immigration “reform” bill on May 20, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pointed to a report published by The Associated Press in March.
This report told the story of Candida L. Gutierrez, a Houston schoolteacher, and Benita Cardona-Gonzalez, an illegal alien from Mexico who stole Gutierrez’s identity.
“When Gutierrez’s identity was stolen, the thief didn’t stop at opening fraudulent credit and bank accounts,” the AP reported. “Cardona-Gonzalez assumed Gutierrez’s persona completely, using it to get a job, a driver’s license, a mortgage and medical care for her children. She even put the stolen name on the birth certificates of her two U.S.-born children in the spots where they list who’s the mother.”
The identity theft went on for 12 years. Finally, Gutierrez’s husband, Brenden Marquardt, pushed the case.
“He traced the identity thief to Topeka, and on the Internet he found a press release from the U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas about the prosecutions of other illegal immigrants working at Reser’s Fine Foods, the same manufacturer where Cardona-Gonzalez worked,” the AP reported. “He contacted federal authorities in Kansas, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Anderson took up their case.”
Cardona-Gonzalez, the AP reported, was sentenced to 18 months for possessing fraudulent identification documents. But other illegal aliens who have misused Social Security numbers will get something quite different if Schumer has his way.
After pointing to the victimization of Candida Gutierrez, Grassley explained to the Judiciary Committee a simple amendment he was offering to the immigration bill.
“The secretary (of homeland security) may not grant registered provisional immigrant status to an alien under this section unless the alien fully discloses to the secretary all the names and Social Security account numbers that the alien has ever used to obtain employment in the United States,” said Grassley’s amendment.
According to the immigration “reform” bill, a “registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) is an illegal alien who the secretary of homeland security has been authorized to convert into a legal alien, who can then work and live in the United States.
Grassley’s amendment would not have prohibited illegal aliens from being converted into legal aliens just because they had used names and Social Security numbers that did not belong to them. It would only have required that the illegal aliens make the names and numbers they used known to DHS before they could be granted the right to legally live in the United States.
“If Congress is going to adopt legislation that grants legal status to the 12 million undocumented living unlawfully in the United States, it should not thumb its nose at the millions of Americans who are victims of identity theft, often perpetrated by an undocumented person who steals Social Security numbers to get jobs, benefits, driver’s licenses and more,” said Grassley.
“This amendment will simply require the person applying for RPI status to disclose any previously used Social Security numbers,” said Grassley. “It’s the first step to helping clean up the mess that’s been created for the victim of identity theft. The amendment also authorizes certain federal agencies, upon receipt of this information, to notify individuals who were the victims.”
Schumer dismissed Grassley’s proposal.
“When people are living in undocumented status, there are times, I suppose, when they’ve made up identities, made up Social Security numbers,” Schumer told his Judiciary Committee colleagues. “How are they going to remember all that, and are we going to delay RPI status?
“(The) purpose of this is to bring people out of the shadows,” Schumer said of the “reform” bill. “We all know when they lived in the shadows, they had to forge documents, forge Social Security numbers, et cetera. We want to stop that once and for all so it never happens again. But this isn’t going to help. This is going to leave millions of people still in the shadows and not able to come out of the shadows and won’t solve the problem that we’re trying to solve, which is to have as few people here illegally as possible, put them on RPI, provisional status and then get them on a path to citizenship.”
“I just don’t see how, when you’ve lived here 10 years, and you’ve had many different identities, many different numbers, you’re going to remember them all,” said Schumer.
The committee defeated Grassley’s amendment 8 to 10 on a party-line vote.
As this column has noted before, the inspector general of the Social Security Administration reported in a 2008 audit report that U.S. employers filed 10.1 million W-2s in tax year 2005 on which the name and the Social Security number did not match. In that same year, 1,650 employers filed more than 500 no-match W-2s – and one employer filed 37,375.
1.) The ACLU has a surprise for Harry Reid– Even the liberal-leaning organization doesn’t support his gun bill. TheDC’s Vince Coglianese reports:
“As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have ‘serious concerns’ about the bill. Those concerns have the capacity to prove a major setback to Sen. Harry Reid’s current gun bill, which includes language from earlier bills introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties. … ’However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,’ he went on.”
When you have lost the ACLU……….
Senator Charles “Chucky” Schumer for this bit of idiocy
At a Sunday press conference calling for stricter rules on concentrated laundry detergent pod packaging that some children have mistaken for candy, New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer admitted that even he has felt drawn to down a few detergent pods himself.
“The incidents are skyrocketing,” the New York Daily News reported Schumer said during a joint press conference with medical professionals. “These pods were supposed to make household chores easier, not tempt our children to swallow harmful chemicals. I saw one on my staffer’s desk and I wanted to eat it.”
Well, let me inform Senator Ass Hat of something, little kids want to eat MANY things that they shouldn’t, and if he thinks Congress can suddenly fix that reality, then he is even more idiotic than I think. What is wrong with America? Well many things, but control freaks like Chucky are a big part of our national ills. Just consider this closing argument from Senator Ass Hat
The New York senator — who added, “I don’t know why they make them look so delicious” — called on the Consumer Product Safety Commission to impose tighter regulations on the packaging for the colorful one-time use laundry detergents.
You know, it sounds like he has already feasted on a few of those soap pods. And what regs will solve the problem? None, of course, but I can tell you what WILL happen, the detergent companies will pass the cost of whatever moronic regulations are set in place to the consumers! Will they ever learn?
(The Hill) Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
There they go again, trying to pass a new law, that would do absolutely nothing to stop crime, by hiding it from the people. This type of thing should never be allowed If these miscreants want such a law, write a bill, and let it be debated and voted on. Again, they have forgotten that the power lies with the people, not with politicians. They have forgotten that they SERVE the people.
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin becomes a billionaire today, and Chuck Schumer is seething.
Saverin, you see, objects to the staggering tax bills he would’ve incurred after today’s record-setting Facebook IPO – and so he decamped to Singapore and renounced his U.S. citizenship.
Which is rational, if impolitic. And which is his absolute right.
Now Schumer has the twitchies.
He’s co-sponsoring a bill that would permanently bar Saverin, among others, from re-entering the United States, while imposing punitive tax burdens on future investments in America.
“I have a status update for [Saverin],” Schumer declared yesterday, “Pay your taxes in full, or don’t ever try to visit the U.S. again.” Blah, blah, blah.
One needn’t sympathize with Saverin’s situation – he’ll be swimming in dough before sundown today – but it’s not inappropriate to be appalled by the message Schumer is sending.
First, it’s downright un-American to punish folks retroactively, no matter the offense. It may even be unconstitutional.
But the real problem with Schumer’s peevishness is that it ignores the basic problem: America’s globally uncompetitive tax structure.
Singapore has no capital-gains tax. America’s is one of the world’s most voracious – something that might not have made a difference a generation ago, but which makes no sense whatsoever in an age of international connectivity.
That is, high tax rates combined with high taxpayer mobility in the electronic age makes for a volatile mix.
Singapore is one nonstop jet flight away.
The Internet is infinitely faster.
Innovators don’t have to stick around just to be shaken down.
Amid the chaos of war, economic hardship, moral decay, crony capitalism, graft and corruption, is there any more refreshing way to kick off a weekend than by finding out that there are still at least a half dozen members of the US Senate who haven’t lost track of the real problem? I’m of course referring to a scourge that is ripping apart the fabric of this nation: fake maple syrup:
Six senators introduced legislation that would make selling fake maple syrup a felony offense leading to fines and up to five years in prison.
The Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement (MAPLE) Act is a response to what chief sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others say is the increasing practice of cheating Vermont, Upstate New York and other maple syrup regions by selling inferior, fake syrup.
“I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all,” Leahy said Thursday. “This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont’s economy and reputation for quality that has been hard-earned through Vermonters’ hard work.”
He added that others in the syrup-producing regions of Maine, New York and other states also have been hurt. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are all co-sponsors.
Good Freaking Grief! Is there any end to the stupidity of these clowns?
Republicans need to come up with their own “throw granny off the cliff” ad. They could use an Obama lookalike, for cutting $500 billion from medicare to pay for ObamaCARE. Or they can use Schmuck Charles Schumer who advocated on NBC today (and as usual got a free pass) rationing health care for sick senior citizens. According to CNSNEWS, Schumer proposed a reform that would ration health care for sick seniors by telling doctors the Medicare system would pay them a single flat fee for treating a particular illness as opposed to paying for the specific services needed to treat a particular patient. Aka, a one size fits all system. The system proposed by Schumer would give health-care providers a financial incentive to withhold care from sick seniors because each and every service or treatment they provided would cut into their profit margin–or cause them to lose money. Where’s the media outrage? Oh that’s right. schmucky Schumer is of course a far left Marxist Democrat, so the media has no problem with this.
Left Wing compassion! A video preview, obviously Schummer approved~!
Nine senators tied for most liberal in National Journal’s 2010 Vote Ratings issue. Here’s a look at the 10 most-liberal senators:
For the 10 most-liberal representatives head to the end of the gallery.
Tied for first—Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
Although he could face a tough reelection battle in 2012, Brown shows no signs of trimming his sails. He was tied as the most-liberal senator in 2009, making it two years straight he’s been tied for most liberal.
Tied for first—Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.
Both Maryland senators tied most-liberal senator in the 2010 vote ratings. Cardin also tied for most-liberal senator in 2009.
Tied for first—Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Leahy was the 29th most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 73.8.
Tied for first—Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Levin tied for 11th most liberal in the 2009 vote ratings with a composite score of 84.3.
Tied for first—Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
Mikulski ranked eighth most liberal in 2009 with a composite score of 85.2, which was a more-liberal score then the 83.3 that tied her for most liberal in 2010.
Tied for first—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Reid made a big jump to tie as the most-liberal senator in the 2010 ratings. He was 22nd most liberal in 2009 and the 25th most liberal in 2008.
Tied for first—Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Sanders is the only independent senator with a most-liberal vote rating in 2010.
Tied for first—Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
Stabenow ranked the 21st most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 78.3.
Tied for first—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Whitehouse also tied for the title of most-liberal senator in 2009.
Tied for 10th—(left to right) Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.
Senators from seven states had identical liberal scores. Gillibrand and Schumer are one set of the pairs.
TOP TEN LIBERAL REPRESENTATIVES
Tied for first—Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Judy Chu, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., John Olver, D-Mass., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.
In 2010, four of the 10 most-liberal members of the House were women (pictured above). Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., almost made the list as the 11th most-liberal member in 2010, a big jump from the 51st most liberal in 2009.
Tied for eighth—(left to right) Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., George Miller, D-Calif., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
With composite scores of 95.3, Markey, Miller, and McGovern round out the 10 most-liberal members of the House. All three members had a composite score in the 80s in the 2009 vote ratings.