The new immigration reform proposal

One of the new provisions of HR 418 would require individuals seeking refuge in the U.S. from repressive and/or abusive regimes to provide documented proof of their persecution and/or abuse as well as the abusing government’s motivation.
  Raw Story article

Is the repressive government documenting their abuse? Will they give you photocopies to take with you when you flee?

One section of the bill allows the Homeland Security Secretary to waive all federal, state, and local law for the construction of “barriers,” and is viewed by some as in direct opposition to the Constitution.

Primarily, the Secretary would have discretion to suspend environmental, eminent domain and labor laws. The provision is worded, however, in such a way as to not limit construction to the external border of the country and actually includes roads as “barriers.”

Such suspension of labor laws could affect child labor, standards of compensation and safety, any and all compensation for the loss of property, adverse environmental affects and any damages resulting from toxins.

[...]

Sources on both sides of the aisle express great concern over this particular provision.

One Democratic aide stated that “that moderate Republicans have privately expressed concern over the possible loss of the Latino vote, backlash from unions, and the concern that this in no way strengthens the border, a sentiment shared by Congressman Paul with regard to the National ID card.”

The National ID card provision does not follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and instead turns the DMV worker into an INS worker.

[...]

Republican Congressman Ron Paul is among those vehemently denouncing the ID card.

“Very few people seem to see this as we do, as a precursor to something very bad, a domestic passport, a national ID card to do the business of life in America, to get a job, to travel,” said Rep. Paul’s press secretary Jeff Deist. “It doesn’t strengthen border control; it doesn’t add new agents or anything like that.”

“I think most Republican members are going to vote for it. I don’t think are there are that many House members [who will vote against it].”

[...]

Groups across the gamut of social and political persuasions express concern over the Patriot Act II provision which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security even more authority. The definition of what is a terrorist and/or a terrorist organization is very broad and could include protesters, political groups, and anyone the government “labels” as a terrorist.

The law will also apply retroactively to activities that were legal at the time, but later were labeled “terrorist.”

One source gave the following real life example: “Imagine I donate to a grassroots political party started by a group of average Americans. My donation is legal and the group’s activities are legal. Let’s say 10 years from now this group is run by different people and those people do something deemed to be “terrorism.” I can be labeled a terrorist because 10 years prior, I had donated to them, even though it was legal at the time.”

[...]

The American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly troubled by the implications of the proposed legislation, deeming this act as an annulment of the entire Bill of Rights.

Hey, if that Commie organization is against it, then it must be a good thing.

I hope you can goosestep, comrades.