Immigration breakthrough could pave way for citizenship

[Spitz]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States could be put on the path to citizenship under a new immigration bill agreed upon Thursday by a bipartisan group of senators.

"The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, told reporters.

President Bush expressed gratitude to the senators for their work.

"I really am anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can," he told reporters outside the White House. "Today, we took a good step toward this direction."

The 380-page bill, which comes after nearly three months of negotiations, would give immediate work authorization to undocumented workers who arrived in the United States before January 1, 2007. Those workers would be granted a "Z" visa and placed on the path to permanent residence, according to a summary provided by Kennedy, who is chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Heads of household would have to return to their home country within eight years, and they would be guaranteed the right to return.

Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty.

Additionally, the number of Border Patrol agents would be doubled, border fencing would be strengthened and employers who hire undocumented workers would face fines.

The process of enforcing those provisions would take about 18 months, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

After the provisions are in place, a guest-worker program would be initiated, under which 400,000 temporary workers per year would be granted a "Y" visa.

The two-year visas would require they return home for a year, then allow them to re-enter for an additional two-years. The process could be repeated twice more.

Each year, they would be able to bring their families on 30-day visitor visas, and each year, they would earn points toward a merit-based green card.
Specter: This is not amnesty

"It is not amnesty," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. "This will restore the rule of law."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, called the bill "a first step, but an important first step, to moving forward with comprehensive overall immigration reform."

"I'm sure that there are certain provisions that each of us would not agree with, but this is what the legislative process is all about," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, acknowledged that not everyone will be pleased with the bill's treatment of the immigration issue.

"To the American people, I would say, 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good,' " she said.

She said the bill would ensure that border security is strong and that farmers -- who depend largely on an undocumented work force -- will be able to find workers.

"From my perspective, it's not perfect, but it represents the best opportunity that we have, in a bipartisan way, to do something about this problem," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the bill started out being about how to deal with illegal immigration "and wound up being about what it means to be an American ... I think we've got a deal that reflects who we are as Americans."

He added, "From the Ph.D. to the landscaper, there's a chance for you to participate in the American dream on our terms in a way that makes this country better."

Graham predicted the bill would find "overwhelming" support among lawmakers.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she wants passage of a bill before August.
Bush: Immigration a tough issue for a lot of Americans

Bush described immigration as "a tough issue for a lot of Americans," but added, "The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders but, equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty but without animosity."

That view was challenged by Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-California, chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

"The 'compromise' announced today by Sen. Kennedy will reward 12 million illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship -- what part of illegal does the Senate not understand?" he said in a written statement.

"Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty."

The American Immigration Lawyers Association decried the proposal as "large-scale social experimentation," singling out the "guest worker" program as one that would preclude a path to permanent residence for new temporary workers.

"A practical solution for the undocumented population is an enormously important step in the right direction," the association said in a written statement. "But the cost of fixing our current problems cannot be the creation of bigger problems in the future."

Whattya think?

 

[Spitz]

We all know something has to happen and it would be impossible to make everybody happy. Sounds like a bunch of legislators are pleased with this bill; I haven't made up my mind yet.

 

[Dinkshooter]

"Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty"

They more than likely shipped 4 times that amount back to Mexico while "working" in the U.S.

Still stinks, still lawbreakers.

 

[Curly]

We all know something has to happen and it would be impossible to make everybody happy. Sounds like a bunch of legislators are pleased with this bill; I haven't made up my mind yet.

The bill sucks.

It is Amnesty.

The fence needs built first.

And..........John McCain needs to be voted out. He is a moron.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I'm not so sure a fence is even possible. All we need to do is deny these criminals the health care, education, welfare, and jobs that they are being given now, and we won't need a fence.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty

Maybe some legislatures would rather have the money than these individuals giving it to a mule...

 

[ringer]

I wrote them all last night. Without a one time employer amnesty and then fines and prison for hiring we will never solve the problem. We will end up with a majority of voters from another country and then we are finished. We will become the united states of Mexico. Vote against everyone running who voted for this bill. If we don't send that strong signal we are sheep and deserve what we get. Our politicians here ignore ballot initiatives passed by a 70% margin if they don't like them. WTF is that all about?

 

[Curly]

Our politicians here ignore ballot initiatives passed by a 70% margin if they don't like them. WTF is that all about?

They do the same thing here.|oo

 

[noharleyyet]

..from The moderate Voice

by Joe Gandelman


The White House and the Senate struck a deal on immigration.

And that may be the easiest part.

Now comes the HARD PART: the selling of this deal to one side that feels it may not be enough and another side that feels it may be too much..with a race horse called Election Year quickly galloping up to the scene, with the potential of throwing a monkey wrench into compromise as other factors (such as talk radio hosts on the left and right and weblogs who don’t like parts of the bill) begin to kick in.

For instance, commentator/blogger Michelle Malkin, reflecting the view of those who feel the bill goes too far writes:”The amnesty sellout arrives.”

And, indeed, look for there to be a big debate over whether this is an amnesty or not. But, no matter what the outcome of that debate, fasten your seat belts because it’s going to be a frantic ride: if immigration reform fails (again) this year it’ll likely be years before a semblance of bipartisanship will emerge on the issue — and the issue could remain on the back burner unless one party or the other decisively wins the Congress and the Presidency.


The New York Times describes the political minefield that both sides are going to have to tip-toe through:

Senate negotiators from both parties announced Thursday that they had reached agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would offer legal status to most of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants while also toughening border security.

If the bill becomes law, it would result in the biggest changes in immigration law and policy in more than 20 years. That would provide President Bush with a political lift and a tangible accomplishment for his second term. It would also be a legislative achievement for the new Democratic leaders in Congress, though they said they would seek changes in the measure.

At the heart of the bill is a significant political trade-off. Democrats got a legalization program, which they have sought for many years. Republicans got a new “merit-based system of immigration,” intended to make the United States more competitive in a global economy.

But the politics of the deal are precarious. Democrats are already trying to tamp down concerns of Hispanic groups, who fear that the bill would make it more difficult for immigrants to bring relatives from abroad. At the same time, Republican negotiators face blistering criticism from some conservatives, who say the bill would grant a virtual amnesty to people who had broken the law.

The bottom line: the bill is reportedly raising a lot of eyebrows in some parts of Congress.

The AP:

The formula was enough to satisfy liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. _ viewed as his party’s decisive voice on immigration _ and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a conservative who has been adamantly opposed to past overhauls….

…..It was clear, however, that many Republicans and Democrats were deeply skeptical. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the proposal a “starting point” for next week’s debate and said it needed improvement.

“I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration,” Reid said.

In a reminder of the delicate nature of the alliance, some lawmakers on both ends of the political spectrum who attended the weeks of closed-door talks that yielded the agreement deserted it at the last moment.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said the proposal “tears families apart” because a new point system used to evaluate future legal immigrants would value family connections well below employment-related criteria.

“When you anchor yourself to the far right and you give, I think, relatively little, it’s hard to meet the challenge” of producing a workable bill, Menendez said in an interview.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he had “very serious concerns with the principles outlined” in the agreement.

And conservatives on both sides of the Capitol derided the deal as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, using a politically charged word that figured prominently in campaigns across the country last year.

“I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Congressional Quarterly gives some more details about the bill:

The legislation would allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country to stay and work, but they would have to wait up to eight years to apply for green cards.

They would have to return home before being eligible, and pay a fine of $5,000.

A new temporary worker program would allow new immigrants to come and work for up to six years, but they would have to return home every two years.

A key goal for Republicans has been ending so-called “chain migration” of family members of new arrivals by incorporating a new point system for awarding green cards that would include other factors.

A Democratic aide said that under the deal more than 50 percent of green cards still would go to spouses and non-adult children of immigrants. Only about 30 percent of the new green cards would be subject to a new merit-based system, which would award points based on job skills, education and English proficiency.

Meanwhile, in TMV’s home base of California, the bill is being welcomed in some circles, as the AP notes:

Farmworker shortages that have left tons of fruits and vegetables unplanted or unpicked would be relieved under a proposed immigration deal.

Thursday’s accord includes a pilot program for legalizing agricultural workers, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

The aim, she said, is “to see that we have a consistent labor force for agriculture, the one industry in America that almost solely depends on an undocumented work force.

“I believe that we have achieved that in this bill,” Feinstein said at a press conference.

Farmers say that as immigration enforcement has tightened in recent years, worker shortages have ranged from 10 percent to 30 percent across the labor-intensive produce industry and have affected dairy farms and nurseries, too.

In some cases pears, strawberries and other crops have gone unharvested. In others, farmers have chosen not to plant, or have reduced plantings of the most labor-intensive crops, such as asparagus. Economic losses have been estimated in the millions.

“We’re looking at deterioration of the work force and the inability of people to survive. We’re looking at the failure of farms and small businesses,” said Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform.

But the key question becomes: in the early 21st century culture of instant political mobilization and opinion-promoting new media (weblogs, talk radio) can this kind of precarious compromise bill triumph? Or will it get beaten back as some politicos heading into an election year face the inevitable organized pressures?

The Democrats are joining with President George Bush on this one, but recent news reports show that many of Bush’s own party members are increasingly reluctant to put their heads on the political chopping block for a President whose popularity rating is somewhere in the South Pole and whose popularity in Congress is increasingly akin to Rosie O’Donnell’s popularity with Donald Trump.

Does Bush have the clout to bring reluctant members of his own party along on this one? Or is he too much of a lame duck — a lame duck losing more clout with Congress each day, as he flits around with an albatross named Alberto Gonzales hanging around his neck.

 

[schmalts]

We do not need this bill, we need current laws enforced and ways to enforce them. We DO NEED the fence. not just for immigration, but for drug traffic, and national security. You fence the border you almost won the drug war at the same time. Drugs would be so scarce that the price would stop most from getting them. Anyone ever see the percentage of drugs that come from over the border?? it is astounding.
this is nothing but amnesty

 

[noharleyyet]

Political showmanship...semblance of reparational revenue (12 mil x 5 grand = never happen), new laws which will be broken with the same impunity as existing laws, more bureaucratic bloat.

Business as usual on Capitol Hill.

 

[Spitz]

So, we've got the extreme left wanting to accept illegals with open arms and provide amnesty and free health care to all and the far right wanting to hang the bastards. What's going to be the compromise?

 

[BigHornRam]

Good question Spitz. The CJ camp is whinning and the Matt camp is whinning over this and they haven't even finished writing it. I'm starting to think it's a good compromise.

 

[Spitz]

Excellent point. Nothing could possibly please all parties, so I think getting each side good and pissed off about the compromise indicates progress. We can't allow the problem to continue to build while we do nothing but argue about the solution.

 

[JB]

so I think getting each side good and pissed off about the compromise indicates progress.

is that what you learned in law school?

 

[noharleyyet]

Like Jose says, "Never compromise on something you can whine."

 

[BigHornRam]

"is that what you learned in law school?"

No......he learned to get right in the middle of the issue so you can get your hands in both sides pockets!

 

[Spitz]

he learned to get right in the middle of the issue so you can get your hands in both sides pockets!

Now that would be a conflict of interest. Just make sure the side you're on has deep enough pockets and you'll be fine.

As for getting both sides good and pissed off, I think it's inevitable in this debate. I lived in rural Mexico for a couple of years and feel like I see the issue quite fairly from the immigrant's perspective, but also see the other end of the spectrum which makes some very good points.

I think we all know what the fair thing to do is and that is far from giving amnesty, but to start from scratch seems next to impossible so realistic goals need to be set and reached. Maybe this bill is it, I'm not sure yet.

 

[cjcj]

So, we've got the extreme left wanting to accept illegals with open arms and provide amnesty and free health care to all and the far right wanting to hang the bastards. What's going to be the compromise?

You cannot "COMPROMISE" this issuehump

This bill would make the problem worse than any terrorist attack we could imagine... its AMNESTY!

Until you have "absolute control" of the border/with interior enforcement.,, you simply cannot "ENFORCE" anything|oo

until you accomplish the above, you have no incentive/deterant for fines ,back taxes etc.

These sellout R.H.I.N.O.`S should be voted out A.S.A.P.:BLEEP:

Time to vote for anything other than republican/democrathump

 

[JB]

This bill would make the problem worse than any terrorist attack we could imagine... its AMNESTY!

jew splain that.