Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Immigration compromise struck

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Immigration compromise struck

    I'd say that it's about time that this country moved forward on security and immigration. Hopefully, this deal will help in that regard.

    By way of background, this is a very divisive issue in the US. Immigration is unpopular (both legal and illegal), but the facts on the ground are that it's easy to be in the country illegally. Obviously, there are security issues attached.

    Up to 10% of Mexico's population is in the US illegally. The scale is very large, such that it creates a lawless situation with regard to who is in the country.

    Deal Struck on Immigration Bill
    May 17 02:12 PM US/Eastern
    By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.

    The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.

    The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.

    "Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.

    Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."

    The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.

    The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

    The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

    The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.

    The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

    They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

    A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

    Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

    Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

    In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.

    Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card—except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

    New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
    Last edited by DanS; May 17, 2007, 17:22.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

  • #2
    Does this mean they'll actually enforce the law now?
    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Immigration compromise struck

      Originally posted by DanS
      WASHINGTON (AP) - Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
      [...]
      Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. [..]"[...]
      Politicians, gotta love 'em.

      Comment


      • #4
        no

        Comment


        • #5
          FYI: "Amnesty" is defined as "a pardon that is extended to a group of person and that excuses them for criminal offenses."

          While the proposed bill requires:

          ...paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years.
          This hardly sounds like a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to me.
          Last edited by Zkribbler; May 17, 2007, 17:46.

          Comment


          • #6
            I can't believe the Republicans actually did this. I guess the losses in 2006 weren't enough for them...
            KH FOR OWNER!
            ASHER FOR CEO!!
            GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not a huge fan of the $5000 fine part, but if that gets the job done, then it gets it done. This is probably the best we could hope for until 2008 [and I think there's a reasonable chance that if either the Dems or a nonantiimmigration republican win the white house, it could get much better then]...

              I bet Giuliani would be pro-immigration. He seems to be so far anyway, and he has that advantage of NYC mayor (who must have been aware of the plight of illegals under the current system) and being a relative moderate on social issues...
              <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
              I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

              Comment


              • #8
                WTF are you talking about? George W. Bush is about as pro-amnesty as they come...
                KH FOR OWNER!
                ASHER FOR CEO!!
                GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
                  I can't believe the Republicans actually did this. I guess the losses in 2006 weren't enough for them...
                  1. From a security standpoint, a decision had to be made
                  2. This issue is a festering wound for the party; best to kill the issue as soon as possible
                  I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
                    I can't believe the Republicans actually did this. I guess the losses in 2006 weren't enough for them...
                    What do you mean, if Americans didn't want this, they wouldn't keep voting for it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by snoopy369
                      I'm not a huge fan of the $5000 fine part ...
                      I am. We tried an amnesty before & it just encouraged more immigrants to come here illegally hoping for a repeat. We must show there is a price to pay. Fees, a $5,000 fine, and an 8-13 year wait will act as disincentives.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        From a security standpoint, a decision had to be made


                        I don't see how this plan will improve American national security in any meaningful fashion.

                        This issue is a festering wound for the party; best to kill the issue as soon as possible


                        You think an amnesty is going to "kill the issue"? It seems more likely to make it worse...

                        Fees, a $5,000 fine, and an 8-13 year wait will act as disincentives.


                        How exactly are these "disincentives" going to dissaude Latin Americans from sneaking into the United States?
                        KH FOR OWNER!
                        ASHER FOR CEO!!
                        GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Reagan signed an amnesty into law in the 1980s, and it clearly solved the illegal immigration problem once and for all.
                          I'm about to get aroused from watching the pokemon and that's awesome. - Pekka

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Zkribbler
                            I am. We tried an amnesty before & it just encouraged more immigrants to come here illegally hoping for a repeat. We must show there is a price to pay. Fees, a $5,000 fine, and an 8-13 year wait will act as disincentives.
                            What are the odds that it will actually be enforced?
                            I'm about to get aroused from watching the pokemon and that's awesome. - Pekka

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
                              I don't see how this plan will improve American national security in any meaningful fashion.
                              Inasmuch as the infrastructure supporting breaking the law for illegal immigration can be discouraged, it makes it tougher for AQ, et al. to repurpose the infrastructure for more nefarious ends.

                              You think an amnesty is going to "kill the issue"? It seems more likely to make it worse...
                              How bad did it hurt the GOP when Reagan did it?

                              At worst, it seems like it would kick the ball down the road a couple decades.
                              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X