Reform debate updates !!! - Page 35

Ianus · 05-09-2007, 02:52 PM

I think the sticking issues at this point are what rights would the new legalized immigrants would have,like what sort of family members they can petition for & Judicial review.

There hasn't been much news of any bill being introduced today but here is the speech Specter gave on the floor pertaining to the "grand bargain" according to this immigration restriction website.

Quote:

We all know the history of the immigration legislation from the 109th congress. The Judiciary Committee reported out a bill, came to the floor of the United States Senate, had many amendments, and it was passed with substantial bipartisan support. The House of Representatives had a very different configuration on the bill. They were concerned only with border security, contrasted with the senate bill which was a comprehensive bill.

We have had numerous meetings in an effort to structure a consensus bill in the course of the last many weeks. For many weeks we have met Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from four o'clock to six o'clock with as many as a dozen Republican Senators present, with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce present. [We have had] very substantial White House involvement reflecting the President's statement that he wants a comprehensive immigration reform bill. We have spent many hours on extended meetings with Democrats. [There were] a half a dozen Democrats attending these meetings and a rather unique process illustrated last week where we met for 2 1/2 hours with a dozen senators being present, pretty hard to keep a dozen senators sitting in one room at one time going over a great many ideas. We have come to an agreement on what we have called a -- quote -- "grand bargain," unquote, which is the outline of an immigration bill.

… We have proposed, and are prepared to enact, legislation which would provide for 6,000 additional border patrol, to bring the number to 12,000.

We are proposing very strong employer sanctions. We do not want employment in the United States to be a magnet for illegal immigration, and it is now technically possible to have foolproof identification. It can be costly and we're still working through the details, but there's no doubt that we want to secure the border and stop illegal immigration as the first item.

We are talking about triggers so that we don't move ahead to dealing with the11 million undocumented immigrants or dealing with a temporary worker program until we have solved the problem of securing the border and providing for identification so that there is a basis for using tough sanctions on the employers, but you can't do that unless they have a fair opportunity to know who is legal and who is illegal. We are rejecting the idea of amnesty for the 11 million undocumented immigrants. They're going to have to earn being on the citizenship path at the end. We are going to require that they pay their taxes, that they have community roots, they have a substantial period of employment, that they learn English. We're going to do our best to deport those who have criminal records, and there is a real security risk with some of the undocumented immigrants who have criminal records and where they do commit crimes.

It is a practical impossibility to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. We’re trying to structure a temporary worker program which is temporary, coming only for the purpose of filling needs and then returning to their native countries. We are looking at a system so that if there are Americans, United States citizens, people in this country who can take the jobs, that they will have the first choice.

The Majority Leader has stated publicly his intention to proceed under Rule 14 to file a bill this week, perhaps tomorrow, and list it for floor debate next Monday. There's a lot of concern among Republicans about proceeding in that way with concern that the bill, which was reported out of committee, does not have widespread support and the bill which has passed the Senate does not have widespread support, and that there is a disinclination how it will go. Nobody knows for sure, but a disinclination to support a motion to proceed, raising the possibility that there may be a filibuster there. There is a concern in many quarters that we need more time, that we've been proceeding diligently, very extended meetings. I have to confess there's been a fair amount of wheel spinning, but that we are not yet ready to proceed next Monday on the 14th to take up the bill the last two weeks before Memorial Day, as the Majority Leader has scheduled.

I can understand the Majority Leader's concern about moving ahead and holding our feet to the fire to try to produce a bill, but we're still working on it. Staff worked over the weekend. There was a meeting at the White House on Sunday. I had an extended discussion yesterday with Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy met with one of the Secretaries, and we're working at top speed. It would certainly be preferable if we could come up with a bill that would not have to have 2611, which passed the Senate last year, or the Chairman's Mark or the bill that came out of Judiciary. But I've been asked about this every time I step into the corridor, so I thought it would be useful to give this brief summary without talking later to impact on Senator Leahy's time, but with the note that some Democratic time on the judicial nomination was taken up by Senator Durbin earlier.

I yield the floor.

Ianus · 05-09-2007, 03:31 PM

In other more important news,The House immigration sub-committee will be holding several hearings next week but most notably THERE WILL BE A HEARING ON DREAM ACT ON THE 15TH of MAY at 2:00 P.M.I always wanted to type that.

Here are the links to the government website & time for the hearings next week.

1.Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans - U.S. Immigrant Integration.
2. Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Future of Undocumented Immigrant Students.... basically DREAM ACT.
3.Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Impact of Immigration on States and Localities

rock steady · 05-09-2007, 03:36 PM

IMMIGRANT PLAN PUTS JOB SKILLS AHEAD OF FAMILY
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

(05-09) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Key senators and the White House are attempting to negotiate a "grand bargain" on immigration that would grant visas to immigrants based more on their skills as workers than their family ties to those already here.

As part of the deal, the estimated 12 million people now in the country illegally -- including about 2.1 million in California -- would be allowed to remain here.

After two months of intense, closed-door negotiations, major stumbling blocks remain, and time has all but run out before the Monday deadline set by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for debate to begin on a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

Both sides in the immigration debate that has roiled the country for more than a year are under intense pressure to reform a system that all agree is broken. Legislators are getting heat from businesses, immigrant lobbying groups and those most opposed to easing immigration -- as well as the broader public. Polls indicate that voters are dismayed by what they perceive as widespread law-breaking by those entering the country illegally but shrink from such punitive measures as mass deportation.

In the closely divided Congress, neither party alone has the power to change immigration law to suit its tastes. House Republicans tried and failed to do so last year with a border crackdown. This year, Democrats, who narrowly control the chambers, need a hefty chunk of the GOP in the House and Senate to pass any legalization plan, given the fractures in their own party over such issues as a giant temporary worker program that could intensify wage competition among lower-skilled workers.

President Bush is bent on making immigration reform a legacy of his presidency, and he has detailed two Cabinet secretaries, Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security and Carlos Gutierrez of the Commerce Department, to try to hammer out a deal. Shifting the overall immigration policy from a reliance on family ties to a skills-based system represents a last-ditch effort to win over Republicans who were opposed to Bush's earlier overtures on legalization.

The proposal would require both sides to swallow hard, but it offers each the tantalizing prospect of long-sought goals that otherwise appear unattainable.

Republicans who have taken a hard line on immigration, such as Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, would have to consent to a sweeping legalization program for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country -- an effort conservatives denounce as amnesty.

Democrats, particularly Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, would have to agree to a big shift in the system Kennedy authored in 1965, which established family ties as the basis of U.S. immigration. Immigrant groups, particularly Latinos and Asians who make heavy use of the extended family categories, are deeply wedded to the principle of what they call family reunification.

But both sides could see huge payoffs.

Democrats would get a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and more green card slots to clear up the long backlogs for family members now waiting for legal entry.

Republicans would get a change in the system that would weigh a prospective immigrant's skills more heavily than kinship. That is a key concern of Republicans who oppose legalizing the 12 million in the country now because under today's system, these new legal permanent residents could sponsor their extended families later. So-called chain migration proved a potent restrictionist argument last year, causing worries in both parties.

Many Republicans also contend that the U.S. immigration system should prioritize the national economic interest rather than the personal interest of immigrants themselves and that the United States is admitting far too many unskilled people, many of whom are high school dropouts.

They cite the 1997 findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, led by the late Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Texas, that called for "shifting admission priorities away from the extended family and toward the nuclear family, and away from the unskilled and toward the higher skilled immigrant."

Key Democratic negotiators have shown interest in such a bargain. They are not necessarily averse to giving more preference to skilled immigrants. But they want to see the details of how such a system would be structured.

Supporters are quick to note that immediate families -- spouses and minor children -- still would be allowed under any new system to accompany the primary immigrant, as current law allows.

The proposal "doesn't include immediate family," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican and Cuban immigrant who is a key broker in the talks. "It has to be understood, this is about extended family, about changing the dynamics of immigration for future flows to one that is more in keeping with what every other country in the world does pretty much. Which is, what is in the best interests of the country, what are the immigration needs of the country, not just what is the need of the family, particularly distant family."

Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand are cited as models. All are immigrant-receiving countries that use point systems, which place priorities on such things as education, work experience and language to receive immigration benefits.

The current U.S. system of family-based preferences dates to 1965 and is weighted heavily to kinship, or what is called family reunification. More than 60 percent of all legal immigrants enter under family preferences, the reverse of the ratios used in Canada and other countries using point systems. About 15 percent are employment based. In addition, about half of the quotas reserved for employment-based migrants are taken by spouses and children.

The family categories include not only spouses and children of legal immigrants but their adult children and siblings. U.S. citizens can also sponsor their parents. Waiting lines to receive legal permanent residence, or green cards, under such categories extend more than a decade for relatives from China and India, and as long as two decades and more from Mexico and the Philippines.

"Denying brothers and sisters (immigration benefits) would impose on ethnic groups a narrow definition of family," said Bill Ong Hing, a professor of law and Asian American Studies at UC Davis who testified Tuesday to the House Judiciary Committee's panel on immigration, chaired by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose.

Republicans asked Reid for more time Tuesday, but the Senate leader said a deal must be in place by next week when he intends to begin debate.

"I appreciate the pressure he's put on us," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who supported last year's sweeping Senate legalization bill. "The only thing that will fix the problem would be a bipartisan new bill."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan
Democrats would get:

A path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, plus more green card slots.

Republicans would get:

A new immigration system that would weigh the skills of a prospective immigrant more heavily than family connections

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, we must focus on having DREAM attached to this.

While it would be sad to see the family based system go, I do agree that we should adopt the skills system. It just makes sense. While we worry about our parents, the bottom line is that they will have their chance, albeit after a long wait. And for those whose parents have pending petitions, they have will have their status adjusted sooner (during the estimated eight year span when they say the backlog will be cleared). My father has been here for 22 years and his petition was approved 11 years ago, but the damn backlog is so large that it will be many years before a visa is current for his category. For those of you who have similar stories, I'm sure you can attest to the frustration of dealing with the USCIS and the Department of State.

And for those whose parents don't have a petition, as long as we have DREAM everything should fall into place. With DREAM we will be able to help out our parents, and pay them back for all the years of sacrifice they've given to us.

I say, so long as there are no wacky loopholes to this bill, we should take it. But our efforts must increase exponentially to have DREAM attached to this bill. So please call Durbin, our most ardent supporter. I'm sure he's already got DREAM in his sights for next week. But a little prodding wouldn't hurt either. Again, we should have no excuses not to call Durbin.

frbc13 · 05-09-2007, 03:42 PM

dream act hearing? did i read that right? my mind must be playing tricks on me.

polish imigrant · 05-09-2007, 05:23 PM

I sent Durbin a long email yesterday

Swim19 · 05-09-2007, 05:55 PM

here's an article from NY Times...and it says basically the same sort of thing that rock steady's article stated. Whole article is posted and I bolded the important parts

Quote:

Senators Reach Outline on Immigration Bill

By JULIA PRESTON
Published: May 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 8 — Key senators said Tuesday that they had agreed on the outlines of a bipartisan bill that would toughen border enforcement and provide a path to legal status for illegal immigrants.

But they remain deeply divided on many details, lawmakers and Congressional aides said, and it remains unclear whether a deal can be reached by Monday, the deadline set by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, for putting a compromise bill on the floor.

A group of Republican and Democratic senators and senior Bush administration officials have been negotiating intensively for the last several months to see if a bipartisan deal is possible this year on immigration, a politically volatile issue that has exposed fissures between and within the parties. President Bush, eager for a big second-term domestic accomplishment, has been pushing for legislation that he can sign, but his own party has been wary of any compromise that is seen as being too lenient toward the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said negotiators had reached what they called a “grand bargain.” It includes a series of triggers, Mr. Specter said, that require new border security measures to be up and running before the start of any programs to give legal status to people in the country illegally.

Points of continuing contention include the severity of penalties that illegal immigrants would have to face to seek legal status; whether temporary guest workers should be allowed an avenue to stay and become citizens; and what family members future immigrant workers should be allowed to bring to the United States, Senate aides and administration officials said.

Mr. Specter said there was agreement that illegal immigrants would “have to earn being on the citizenship path,” by, at minimum, paying back taxes, showing they had a substantial period of employment in the United States and learning English.

The package also includes expanded temporary worker programs for both low- and high-skilled workers; severe sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants; and new identification methods and verification programs to ensure that immigrants who seek jobs are authorized to work, Mr. Specter and other lawmakers said.

Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, called it “a pretty good skeleton of a bill.” But senators said it was highly unlikely they could complete any bill in the next few days to meet Mr. Reid’s deadline. As of Tuesday there was no working draft of what would be a huge measure, they said.The negotiations to overhaul the nation’s foundering immigration system have been surprisingly quiet, substantive and bipartisan, participants say. Almost every day, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff either worked the phones or hunkered down for several hours behind closed doors with lawmakers led by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat, and Senator Jon Kyl, the conservative Arizona Republican, trying to hammer out what would be the broadest revision of the immigration laws in two decades.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez also joined in, as did Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republicans, and Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, among half a dozen others. Often staff aides were sent out of the room, leaving only senators and cabinet officials to go head to head over hard points of difference.

“By nature of hours invested, it’s hard to conceive of any other piece of legislation during the Bush presidency where they have been more committed and more involved,” Mr. Martinez said, referring to the administration.

Staff aides and analysts said the discussions had moved beyond some demands made by conservatives last year, with widespread deportation of illegal immigrants no longer part of the discussion.

In the Senate, “the debate about amnesty is coming to an end,” said Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, referring to the term Republicans used last year to reject Mr. Bush’s plan to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. “The debate has shifted to much more important ground: Are we going to create an immigration system going forward that deals with our labor needs in a legal way?”

There is also new agreement on requiring illegal immigrants to leave the United States, at least briefly, to start obtaining legal status, a step that was rejected by Democrats last year.

Mr. Kennedy does not agree with Republican negotiators on provisions introduced by the White House that would shift the priority of the immigration system to supplying the nation’s labor needs, by sharply reducing chances for legal immigrants to bring parents and siblings.

For Mr. Bush, immigration is an issue where his views resonate with centrist Democrats, giving him perhaps his best chance at a major piece of bipartisan legislation in his second term, analysts said. It might also help the Republicans regain some of the ground lost with Latino voters in last year’s elections.

“Comprehensive immigration reform means that we’ve got to be humane about the nearly 11 or 12 million people who are already here,” Mr. Bush said last week to Hispanic evangelical pastors here, one of several recent speeches in which he has called for “neither amnesty nor animosity” in dealing with illegal immigrants.

A difference in the talks this year is the leading role played by Mr. Kyl, taking over the role of his fellow Arizona senator, John McCain, who has become less visibly active on the issue as he has campaigned for president, often encountering criticism from Republicans for his proposal to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. Mr. Kyl had been far more skeptical than Mr. McCain of granting legal status to illegal immigrants, and last year he and Mr. Cornyn offered a plan openly countering Mr. Bush’s proposals for legalization.

This year Mr. Kyl has taken a flexible, pragmatic approach, aides said. But he insisted that a new temporary worker program should not become a route for immigrants to become permanent residents and citizens, say Congressional aides.

On Tuesday Mr. Kyl said that a bipartisan agreement was within reach. “I think we can get there, so I think we need to keep working at it,” he said.Mr. Reid said he would initiate procedures on Wednesday to bring some form of immigration bill to the floor by Monday. If there is no new bipartisan bill, Democrats said they might re-introduce the one that passed the Senate last year.

Senate Republicans will gather later this week to hear the results of the negotiations so far, and Mr. Kyl said he would like more time for the talks.

In the House, six staunch opponents of any legal status for illegal immigrants, including Representatives Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, and Steve King, Republican of Iowa, wrote an open letter criticizing the Senate proposals for overhaul. Those measures would “pardon immigrant lawbreakers and reward them with the object of their crimes,” Mr. King said at a news conference.

hooper · 05-09-2007, 05:57 PM

There will be no hearing this week about immigration. They will start on other immigration topics this Friday that are no interest to us, but no DREAM until next week.

polish imigrant · 05-09-2007, 07:20 PM

one thing I dont like is that whole guestt worker program, because I want a citizenship damn it. I wont just work here and then leave.

rock steady · 05-09-2007, 07:47 PM

Polish, the guest-worker program doesn't apply to us because it deals with those currently outside of the U.S.

Ianus · 05-09-2007, 08:17 PM

Lol,I'd take the green card first !

In other news,There is another article basically along the same lines as Swim & Rock but this one mentions a comment from Cornyn in which he said,"We'll know by next Tuesday or Wednesday whether we can get a bill or not,".

Quote:

Talks on a bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system hobbled along Wednesday as senators from both parties pledged to continue negotiations while beginning to lay the groundwork for who would be blamed if the process falls apart.

Within hours of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announcing that debate would begin Monday on an immigration bill that passed the Senate last year, four key Republicans urged Reid in a letter to delay the debate until a bipartisan negotiating group, which has been trying for weeks to write an alternative bill, can strike a deal.

Otherwise, the GOP senators -- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, John McCain of Arizona and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- said the bill they each supported last year will not get their backing this time around, primarily because of the public perception that its major focus is on amnesty for undocumented workers.

"If we bring last year's Senate-passed bill to the floor, it is going to have a substantial opposition," Specter said on the Senate floor. "If we start there, the floor action is likely to be a free-for-all."

The senators suggested in their letter that they would oppose even starting a debate on immigration -- a possibility that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell echoed in a late-afternoon floor speech.

The move places Reid on a collision course with Republicans, but the majority leader declined Wednesday to shift his timeline.

"Negotiations can continue throughout the time we're on a bill, and Sen. Reid is hopeful they'll reach a deal," said his spokesman, Jim Manley. "But the fact is, we're running out of time."

Republicans involved in the talks have asked Reid to avoid using last year's Senate bill as a starting point for debate, saying it carries too much political baggage.

But earlier in the day, Reid told reporters that the bill was the right place to start because it received 62 votes last year. "Twenty-three Republican senators voted for this bill," he said. "How could they complain about this?"

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said it would be "very difficult to object to something we've already passed."

Behind Wednesday's public display of sharp exchanges, aides said talks were proceeding, if not progressing, behind the scenes.

Kennedy, straight from a 24-hour trip to Ireland, huddled with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and other Democrats. He talked with Specter. Earlier in the week, Kennedy spoke by phone with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, another key player in the negotiations.

"We have been talking every day, on the phone," Graham said. "Our staff has been meeting. There's not a day that goes by that we don't talk."

But an actual bill remains elusive, prompting a series of mixed messages on whether the bipartisan talks will work.

"We're still talking, not fighting, so that's good," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). But he added, "There is still a lot of work to be done if there is will to get it done. I am beginning to wonder whether there is universal commitment to get a bill or whether there is some posturing here."

Specter said the group had agreed to a general outline for the bill. The number of border guards would rise from 12,000 to 18,000. Fences would secure major metropolitan areas, such as San Diego, and along the southern Arizona border. Employers would use a verification system to check workers' legal status, and tougher sanctions would be leveled against those who flout the rules.

The group agreed that the 12 million existing undocumented workers would have to return to their home countries before obtaining citizenship, Specter said. And a guest worker program would be just that, Specter said: People would come to the United States "for the purpose of filling jobs but return to their native homes."

But sticking points remain, Specter said, such as increasing the number of green cards and moving from an immigration system that focuses on reunifying families to one that meets national employment needs.

"There has been a lot of wheel-spinning in the process which we have undertaken, and perhaps it was an error to abandon the traditional committee process," Specter said. "But that is where we are, and we need more time to flesh out the grand compromise, the grand bargain which we have structured so far."

McConnell went to the floor late in the afternoon and urged Reid to back down.

"Any effort to move legislation on this issue that isn't the result of the ongoing bipartisan discussions would be a clear signal from Democrats that they are not yet serious about immigration reform," McConnell said. "So I urge my colleagues to stay at the table. Let this bipartisan working group finish its work, so we can achieve immigration reform this year. Scrapping their work now will only end in frustration and defeat, for both sides."

Senators involved in the bipartisan talks said they must reach some sort of conclusion by early next week.

"We'll know by next Tuesday or Wednesday whether we can get a bill or not," Cornyn said.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

March

Reform debate updates !!! - Page 35