Robb: It's time to dust off 2007 ideas about immigration

Ianus · 12-02-2012, 06:25 PM

There is no doubt that many of the past ideas for reform will come from past negotiations.This article highlights one of them and what role it could play in current negotiations.

Quote:

If Congress is going to take up comprehensive immigration reform again, the best place to begin is where it left off — the compromise negotiated between Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Ted Kennedy back in 2007.

Those whose only true interest in immigration reform is as quick and easy of an amnesty for illegal immigrants as possible believe they have the political wind at their backs. President Barack Obama’s re-election victory is widely credited to the Latino vote. Republicans are fretting about their Latino problem.

But those who believe that congressional Republicans will just cave on the issue so a future GOP presidential candidate will have an easier time are confusing national electoral politics with legislative politics.

A bill still has to pass the House. And the House is dominated by Republicans elected from safe districts for whom immigration politics haven’t changed much. They still face far more danger from a populist immigration restrictionist revolt in a primary than from a Latino-vote enhanced general election challenge.

House Speaker John Boehner is highly unlikely to bring immigration reform legislation to the floor that is opposed by a majority of his caucus. Probably only something like Kyl-Kennedy has an outside chance of overcoming that.

Kyl-Kennedy provided a pathway to citizenship for those currently here illegally. But it wasn’t quick or easy.

Those currently here illegally could apply for a four-year visa that was renewable.

After a renewal, they could apply for permanent residency. And with permanent residency comes the right to apply for citizenship, after passage of another period of time.

It would probably take 12 to 15 years before someone currently in the country illegally could become a citizen.

Employers would have to verify, through an enhanced E-Verify system, the work eligibility not only of new hires but all employees. Immigration enforcement would have been beefed up and penalties for violating U.S. immigration laws increased.

Kyl-Kennedy, however, went much further. It fundamentally changed the nature of U.S. immigration for the future.

Right now, immigration in the United States is dominated by bringing in family members, and family eligibility categories are very generous. And that’s been one of the principal objections of conservative Republicans to amnesty, that it would unleash a cascading avalanche of chain migration.

Kyl-Kennedy would have narrowed the scope of family members that could immigrate by right. Instead, more slots would be awarded based upon education and skills — more of a merit system.

Kyl-Kennedy got most of the major balances right. Forgiveness of past violations of immigration laws and a pathway to citizenship, although not a quick or easy one. Cutting off the access of illegal workers to the formal economy. Reducing future unskilled immigration and increasing future skilled immigration.

Kyl-Kennedy was a true compromise. Liberals largely won the argument about the past, with legal status and a pathway to citizenship for those currently here illegally. Conservatives largely won the argument about the future, with a workplace verification system that effectively cuts off access to the formal economy for illegal workers and more of a merit-based immigration system going forward.

There is a serious question about whether Republicans are willing to move on comprehensive immigration reform. But there is an equally as large question about whether supposed advocates of comprehensive immigration reform are willing to make the compromises necessary to achieve it.

DA User · 12-02-2012, 08:08 PM

I think lot of it will be part for the 2007.

Cloudless · 12-03-2012, 01:08 AM

In real terms, a 2007-style CIR would cut down on family-based petition and expand employment-based ones.

Sometimes I get the feel that these senators didn't exactly know the state of legal immigration at the time of their talk. The wait time for family-based petitions have always been measured in years because the quota hasn't been updated in a decade or two. So, I don't understand the Republicans' fear of this 'chain migration'. Even back in 2007 the fastest category in family-based visa had a 5-year wait. The slowest one (4th preference for the Philippines) had to wait 23 years!
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bul...etin_3100.html

DA User · 12-03-2012, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloudless

In real terms, a 2007-style CIR would cut down on family-based petition and expand employment-based ones.

Sometimes I get the feel that these senators didn't exactly know the state of legal immigration at the time of their talk. The wait time for family-based petitions have always been measured in years because the quota hasn't been updated in a decade or two. So, I don't understand the Republicans' fear of this 'chain migration'. Even back in 2007 the fastest category in family-based visa had a 5-year wait. The slowest one (4th preference for the Philippines) had to wait 23 years!
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bul...etin_3100.html

You mean reduce the number of visas for the family-based? The quota is too low. Some wait times are over 10+ years.

Cloudless · 12-03-2012, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA User

You mean reduce the number of visas for the family-based? The quota is too low. Some wait times are over 10+ years.

I haven't read that part yet, but I think the 2007 law would have made the wait longer. Worse, it could have eliminated whole categories of people eligible for family-based petitions. I wouldn't be surprised if it limited family petitions to USC only.

DA User · 12-03-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloudless

I haven't read that part yet, but I think the 2007 law would have made the wait longer. Worse, it could have eliminated whole categories of people eligible for family-based petitions. I wouldn't be surprised if it limited family petitions to USC only.

This is a possibility. They should not cancel out the application that have applied though in the past.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

April

Robb: It's time to dust off 2007 ideas about immigration