A Tennessee State University student died Saturday when another driver broadsided her vehicle on Old Hickory Boulevard.Lindsey Grahamnesty was unavailable for comment.
Metro police said 24-year-old Victor Benitez was drunk as he ran a red light at the intersection of Old Hickory Boulevard and Nolensville Road, killing 22-year-old Joycelyn Gardiner.
"Just a tremendous young lady, from all accounts, who had all types of potential," said Don Aaron, Metro police spokesman.
"According to the witnesses who attempted to render aid to both victims, Benitez smelled strongly of alcohol and was very combative," Aaron said.
Investigators said Benitez was drunk and did not touch the brakes of his Ford Expedition before hitting Gardiner's car. She died a short time later at the hospital.
"Because of this crash that apparently involves alcohol by the other driver, her life is lost," Aaron said.
Police said Benitez was driving without a license and that he didn't have paperwork verifying that he was in the United States legally.
"They learned that he is a suspected illegal immigrant, thus, a federal hold was placed on him so he cannot make bond," Aaron said.
In February 2006, Benitez was convicted of car burglary. Nine months later, he spent seven days in jail for public intoxication and resisting arrest. The Mexican native now faces a vehicular homicide charge.
"This is just a devastating story for Tennessee State University," Aaron said.
Gardiner ran track for the Tigerbelles.
Authorities realized Benitez's possible illegal status thanks to a new program that links into the federal data base.
The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night. Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow. They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.Actually, it's a bit of a shock to see them call this what it is: amnesty; for that matter, how did the word illegal slip through their sophisticated layers of editors?
The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a “grand bargain.” The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.What was so punitive? The thought that someone here illegally would have to cough up $5000? Please.
The anti-immigrant hard-core — no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever — must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it. The country is changing, but the way it always has, absorbing newcomers, shaping and being shaped by them, inexorably turning them, their children and grandchildren into Americans. Globalization has accelerated and complicated that upheaval, and decades of federal dithering have made things messy and chaotic.OK, for the last time, we are no anti-immigrant, you idiots. We're anti-illegal aliens. Get it? We're not holding anyone hostage. We are trying to preserve the greatness of America.
The authors of a comprehensive immigration bill said today that they would try to resuscitate the measure, which stalled Thursday when the Senate refused to cut off debate, as President Bush urged senators from both parties to bring the bill back to the floor.Yes, well we've had our say, and we want no part of this bill. Oh, and we now return to the name-calling.
"We are not giving up, we are not giving in,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who helped write the bill in months of negotiations with the White House and a small bipartisan group of senators.
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chief Republican architect of the bill, voted against limiting debate. He said he wanted to give conservative Republicans "a little bit more time to get amendments together, to get them considered, so that we can finish the bill with an opportunity for everyone to have their say."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, who is a co-author of the bill, said talk show hosts were partly responsible for derailing it.She provided no evidence to back up her statement.
"I’ve listened to talk show hosts drumming up the opposition by using this word amnesty over and over and over again," Mrs. Feinstein said. In 15 years in the Senate, she added, "I’ve never received more hate or more racist phone calls and threats."
The Senate voted yesterday to grant amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have already been caught and ordered deported but are defying a court order, preserving their path to citizenship as part of the immigration bill.You know anything supported by that drunken bum from Massachusetts is a horrible idea.
Another showdown is scheduled for this morning on Democrats' effort to cut off the debate and force a final vote on the bill. Republicans have vowed to block that through a filibuster unless they are given assurances they can offer enough amendments before the final vote.
For now, the small bipartisan group of senators that crafted the bill behind closed doors has been successful in fending off any major changes, though the coalition took a couple of hits from Republican-sponsored amendments last night.
Yesterday's major fight was over part of the bill that wipes out the immigration charges against illegal aliens who have already faced a judge and been ordered deported, known as alien absconders, and over part of the bill that applies to aliens who have already been deported but sneaked back into the country again.
Sen John Cornyn offered an amendment to prevent those aliens from gaining legal status, arguing they have already shown disrespect for the law and should be sent home.
"We are going to continue to be viewed as non-serious about workability, about enforcement, about restoring respect for the rule of law, unless we vote to exclude those who show nothing but defiance for our laws," the Texas Republican said.
But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said they were only guilty of "common, garden-variety immigration offenses" that should not disqualify them.
"Our employers beg them to come back and our broken borders make that possible," he said.
President Bush did not intend to single out his conservative supporters for criticism in a speech on immigration reform last week and was "surprised" that his remarks angered Republicans, White House spokesman Tony Snow said today.Sure. Throw your last group of supporters under the bus and then it comes as a shock when they react negatively.
"He was surprised by the reaction," Mr. Snow said of Mr. Bush's speech in Glynco, Ga., last week. "The speech in Georgia was, 'We've got a serious problem and we need to fix it.' It was not in any way designed to be pointed at Republicans."
But conservative opponents of a Senate immigration bill supported by Mr. Bush reacted furiously to the president's suggestion that they are resorting to scare tactics by using the word "amnesty" in referring to the measure that would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States.
"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," Mr. Bush said in the May 29 speech about the legislation now being debated in the Senate. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people. Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."
Some Republicans on Capitol Hill said that Mr. Bush seemed to be questioning their patriotism, and several conservative activists said the president was splitting the Republican Party by insulting those who have been his most loyal supporters.
Mr. Snow's defense of the president's remarks shows that "the White House is in denial about this issue," said longtime conservative publicist Craig Shirley, an opinion shared by American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene.
"The plain meaning of what he said was clear," Mr. Keene said.
"Tony and others within the administration had been urging conservatives prior to the president's remarks to give Bush the benefit of the doubt as far as motives are concerned and to keep the debate civil. 'After all,' [Mr. Snow] said at a meeting I attended, 'at the end of the day we're all on the same team.'
"So it's easy to see why he's in denial," Mr. Keene said, "but the president's prepared remarks and some of the things he has said make it clear that conservatives, or at least those with the temerity to disagree with the White House line [on immigration], are no longer welcome on the team."
The immigration deal foundered yesterday, on the verge of collapse under its own weight just days after it appeared to have a clear path to pass the Senate.Read the rest.
By late in the afternoon, Republicans were accusing Democrats of trying to "stuff" them, and Democrats said Republicans were trying to kill the bill by obstructing the process. Both sides were saying they don't know whether the process can be put back on track.
A showdown is scheduled for tomorrow, when Democrats said they will force a vote to set a time limit on the bill, and Republicans have promised to block that move through a filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Republicans block his effort to limit debate, it would bump the bill off the schedule and likely derail it for the rest of the year.
"People are looking for excuses on the Republican side to kill this bill," he said.
The Nevada Democrat said Republicans are trying to bog down the bill by piling up dozens of amendments -- most of them from senators who "have no intention of voting for this bill, no matter what we do with it."
But Republicans said Democrats are blitzing them by blocking Republicans from even offering amendments.
"The best way to process this bill is not for the majority to try to 'stuff,' if you will, the minority, because that will not happen, I assure you," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who contended that Democrats were trying to block Republican amendments because they were afraid of having to take tough votes.
"He would like to move this bill and have his members exposed to the fewest number of votes," Mr. McConnell chided Mr. Reid on the Senate floor.
Wealthy philanthropic foundations are helping bankroll the pro-immigration movement, while groups advocating for tighter control of U.S. borders say they take a more grassroots approach to raising money.It's not as if the right isn't represented in funding, but the amounts are dwarfed by the other side.
The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and Democratic activist George Soros, among other liberal funders, have donated millions of dollars to pro-immigration groups, as the Senate continues its debate on a contentious bill that would overhaul the nation's immigration policy.
Three of the nation's biggest and most influential pro-immigration groups -- the National Immigration Forum, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, and the National Council of La Raza, or NCLR -- collectively received more than $3.25 million from Ford Foundation since 2005.
The three advocacy groups generally support the proposed Senate bill -- with some modifications -- that would give the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. a path to citizenship. The bill also would allow aliens here to be bring close family members into the county.
But groups supporting stronger immigration policy and tighter border control say they rely more on small donations from individuals than large foundations.
Numbers USA, which says it has 366,000 members, saw its membership grow 50 percent since Jan. 1, and 18 percent in May, spokeswoman Caroline Espinosa said. Two-thirds of the group's financial support comes from private individuals, with the average donation being $40.
The conservative Scaife Foundations of Pittsburgh gave FAIR -- one of the biggest immigration-control nonprofit groups -- $775,000 between 2003 and 2005. The foundations during the same time period also gave $420,000 to Center for Immigration Studies and $100,000 to the Numbers USA Education and Research Foundation -- groups also that advocate tighter border control and restricting the flow of immigrants.Meanwhile, a group of Republicans today published this op-ed in the Dallas Morning News, which was met with appropriate derision by Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO.
The op-ed would also be more persuasive if it demonstrated any familiarity with the bill itself. "[T]he package is built around a set of enforcement benchmarks that must be met before a single guest worker is hired or illegal immigrant legalized." This is simply untrue, and the White House has been careful to avoid making that claim in its own recent releases. The bill gives illegal immigrants legal status before any of these "enforcement benchmarks" are met. That is a central critique of this bill, and the op-ed not only doesn't address it; it pretends the bill doesn't have this feature.This amnesty bill is hugely unpopular and tonight during the Republican debate, it needs to be made clear which sides the candidates are on.
The Senate's immigration bill will only reduce illegal immigration by about 25 percent a year, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report, Stephen Dinan will report Tuesday in The Washington Times.I would hedge a guess and say that estimate of 1 million by 2027 is very modest.
The bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal immigrants within a decade, said the report from the CBO, which said in its official cost estimate that it assumes some future temporary workers will overstay their time in the plan, adding up to a half-million by 2017 and 1 million by 2027.
"We anticipate that many of those would remain in the United States illegally after their visas expire," CBO said of the guest-worker program, which would allow 200,000 new workers a year to rotate into the country.
And in a blow to President Bush's timetable, the CBO said the "triggers" -- setting up the verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents to duty and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers -- won't be met until 2010.
President Bush's immigration bill is hurting fund-raising by the Republican National Committee, but fierce grassroots opposition to the legislation is helping several state Republican parties, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Monday in The Washington Times.Read the rest.
Tina Benkiser, chairwoman of the Republican Party in the president's home state of Texas, says raising money has been successful "in large part to our principled stance against illegal immigration."
Since the beginning of 2006, when substantial immigration debate began, "the Republican Party of Texas has experienced an exponential increase in direct mail donations from supporters statewide," she said.
Both phone and direct-mail fundraising remain strong for Republicans in Michigan, said state chairman Saul Anuzis.
"In Michigan, seven out of nine congressional Republicans oppose the bill, our activists are publicly opposing amnesty and we are also re-establishing our brand image by fighting a Democrat attempt to increase taxes," Mr. Anuzis said. "These issues are keeping our people engaged, where otherwise we could feel a [donations] drop off."
Initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative.Enjoy your holiday weekend, lawmakers, and I hope you hear it loud and clear from your constituents, at least those of you who aren't avoiding them.
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure. The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.
The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters
House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of Republican activists last night, called the Senate's immigration compromise bill a "piece of shit" but said that he had promised President Bush earlier in the day that he would let his teeth be a barrier to such thoughts in public.
Boehner spoke last night at a small reception for the Republican Rapid Responders on Capitol Hill.
"I promised the President today that I wouldn't say anything bad about ... this piece of shit bill," he said, according to two attendees.
Earlier in the day, Boehner released a statement saying that "The Senate agreement appears to recognize that additional border security measures and more effective immigration law enforcement must come before any other issues are addressed, but I have significant concerns about parts of the Senate proposal -- particularly provisions that would reward illegal immigrants who have consistently broken our laws."
A senior Republican official said yesterday that while the chances of the bill, which opens pathways to citizenship for most of the U.S.'s 12 million illegal immigrants, are "50/50" in the House and that the White House would spend its time lobbying Democrats, rather than Republicans, to achieve a majority.
Are you a fine upstanding member of the Undocumented-American community? That's to say, are you (if you'll forgive the expression) an illegal immigrant?Read the whole thing.
Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas.
Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty -- if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.
Across the nation, illegal immigrants, many of whom toil in dirty, low-paying jobs, sharply criticized the Senate's immigration overhaul package as overly burdensome and impractical.No amount of catering is going to satisfy these ingrates.
"Where would I find $5,000? In two years, I don't get $5,000," said Daniel Carrillo Maldonado, an illegal immigrant who was looking for construction work outside a Home Depot in Phoenix.
The agreement between the Senate and White House would allow illegal immigrants to obtain a special visa. After paying fees and the fine, they could get on a path to permanent residency that could take eight to 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
Some illegal immigrants said returning home presented another major hurdle: Applying for residency at U.S. embassies in their home countries.
