An estimated 300,000 construction jobs paid for by the stimulus plan will go to illegal workers after leading Democrats removed a provision requiring verification of citizenship, a leading immigration expert tells Newsmax.

The House version of the $787 billion stimulus bill required verification of the legal residency of anyone put to work by its spending. But that provision was removed from the bill before members of Congress met to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill

Newsmax.com - Stimulus Loophole Gives 300,000 Jobs to Illegals (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_illegals_jobs/2009/03/09/190028.html)

An estimated 300,000 construction jobs paid for by the stimulus plan will go to illegal workers after leading Democrats removed a provision requiring verification of citizenship, a leading immigration expert tells Newsmax.

The House version of the $787 billion stimulus bill required verification of the legal residency of anyone put to work by its spending. But that provision was removed from the bill before members of Congress met to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill

Newsmax.com - Stimulus Loophole Gives 300,000 Jobs to Illegals (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_illegals_jobs/2009/03/09/190028.html)

Seeming how no one read the damn bill it makes perfect sense!!! :coffee:

An estimated 300,000 construction jobs paid for by the stimulus plan will go to illegal workers after leading Democrats removed a provision requiring verification of citizenship, a leading immigration expert tells Newsmax.

The House version of the $787 billion stimulus bill required verification of the legal residency of anyone put to work by its spending. But that provision was removed from the bill before members of Congress met to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill

Newsmax.com - Stimulus Loophole Gives 300,000 Jobs to Illegals (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_illegals_jobs/2009/03/09/190028.html)If it was there, and intentionally removed, is it really a "loophole", or a "feature" of the law? From their point of view, I think it's a "feature". From the point of view of a law abiding citizen, I think it's a "travesty of justice".