PDA

View Full Version : Legal Comprehensive immigation reform on its way, McCain again involved.


Direckshun
01-27-2013, 04:41 PM
UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/read-senators-release-their-plan-for-immigration-reform/

READ: Senators release bipartisan plan for immigration reform
Posted by Brad Plumer
on January 28, 2013 at 9:42 am

A bipartisan group of senators has just unveiled a new proposed framework (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/bipartisan-framework-for-immigration-reform-report/27/) for overhauling the U.S. immigration system.

The big feature here is that current undocumented immigrants in the United States with otherwise clean legal records could achieve legal residency after paying a fine and back taxes. But a path to full citizenship would only be offered after measures to prevent further illegal immigration are in place.

The proposal also includes new border security, more stringent checks on immigrants with visas, and programs to help businesses verify the legal status of their employees.

Read the full proposal below:

——

Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

From Senators Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio, Michael Bennet, and Jeff Flake

Introduction:

We recognize that our immigration system is broken. And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations, we still don’t have a functioning immigration system. This has created a situation where up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows. Our legislation acknowledges these realities by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here. We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

Four Basic Legislative Pillars:

1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

1. Creating a Path to Citizenship for Unauthorized Immigrants Already Here that is Contingent Upon Securing the Border and Combating Visa Overstays

- Our legislation will provide a tough, fair, and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the United States that is contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.

- To fulfill the basic governmental function of securing our borders, we will continue the increased efforts of the Border Patrol by providing them with the latest technology, infrastructure, and personnel needed to prevent, detect, and apprehend every unauthorized entrant.

- Additionally, our legislation will increase the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance equipment, improve radio interoperability and increase the number of agents at and between ports of entry. The purpose is to substantially lower the number of successful illegal border crossings while continuing to facilitate commerce.

- We will strengthen prohibitions against racial profiling and inappropriate use of force, enhance the training of border patrol agents, increase oversight, and create a mechanism to ensure a meaningful opportunity for border communities to share input, including critiques.

- Our legislation will require the completion of an entry-exit system that tracks whether all persons entering the United States on temporary visas via airports and seaports have left the country as required by law.

- We recognize that Americans living along the Southwest border are key to recognizing and understanding when the border is truly secure. Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.

- While these security measures are being put into place, we will simultaneously require those who came or remained in the United States without our permission to register with the government. This will include passing a background check and settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes, in order to earn probationary legal status, which will allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Individuals with a serious criminal background or others who pose a threat to our national security will be ineligible for legal status and subject to deportation. Illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes face immediate deportation.

- We will demonstrate our commitment to securing our borders and combating visa overstays by requiring our proposed enforcement measures be complete before any immigrant on probationary status can earn a green card.

- Current restrictions preventing non-immigrants from accessing federal public benefits will also apply to lawful probationary immigrants.

- Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. Those individuals who successfully complete these requirements can eventually earn a green card.

- Individuals who are present without lawful status – not including people within the two categories identified below – will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.

- Our legislation also recognizes that the circumstances and the conduct of people without lawful status are not the same, and cannot be addressed identically.

For instance, individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.

Similarly, individuals who have been working without legal status in the United States agricultural industry have been performing very important and difficult work to maintain America’s food supply while earning subsistence wages. Due to the utmost importance in our nation maintaining the safety of its food supply, agricultural workers who commit to the long term stability of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume. These individuals will earn a path to citizenship through a different process under our new agricultural worker program.

2. Improving our Legal Immigration System and Attracting the World’s Best and Brightest

- The development of a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America’s future economic prosperity. Our failure to act is perpetuating a broken system which sadly discourages the world’s best and brightest citizens from coming to the United States and remaining in our country to contribute to our economy. This failure makes a legal path to entry in the United States insurmountably difficult for well-meaning immigrants. This unarguably discourages innovation and economic growth. It has also created substantial visa backlogs which force families to live apart, which incentivizes illegal immigration.

- Our new immigration system must be more focused on recognizing the important characteristics which will help build the American economy and strengthen American families. Additionally, we must reduce backlogs in the family and employment visa categories so that future immigrants view our future legal immigration system as the exclusive means for entry into the United States.

- The United States must do a better job of attracting and keeping the world’s best and brightest. As such, our immigration proposal will award a green card to immigrants who have received a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or math from an American university. It makes no sense to educate the world’s future innovators and entrepreneurs only to ultimately force them to leave our country at the moment they are most able to contribute to our economy.

3. Strong Employment Verification

- We recognize that undocumented immigrants come to the United States almost exclusively for jobs. As such, dramatically reducing future illegal immigration can only be achieved by developing a tough, fair, effective and mandatory employment verification system. An employment verification system must hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring undocumented workers and make it more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to falsify documents to obtain employment. Employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers must face stiff fines and criminal penalties for egregious offenses.

- We believe the federal government must provide U.S. employers with a fast and reliable method to confirm whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the United States. This is essential to ensure the effective enforcement of immigration laws.

- Our proposal will create an effective employment verification system which prevents identity theft and ends the hiring of future unauthorized workers. We believe requiring prospective workers to demonstrate both legal status and identity, through non-forgeable electronic means prior to obtaining employment, is essential to an employee verification system; and,

- The employee verification system in our proposal will be crafted with procedural safeguards to protect American workers, prevent identity theft, and provide due process protections.

4. Admitting New Workers and Protecting Workers’ Rights

- The overwhelming majority of the 327,000 illegal entrants apprehended by CBP in FY2011 were seeking employment in the United States. We recognize that to prevent future waves of illegal immigration a humane and effective system needs to be created for these immigrant workers to enter the country and find employment without seeking the aid of human traffickers or drug cartels.

- Our proposal will provide businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner when Americans are unavailable or unwilling to fill those jobs.

Our legislation would:

- Allow employers to hire immigrants if it can be demonstrated that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers;

- Create a workable program to meet the needs of America’s agricultural industry, including dairy to find agricultural workers when American workers are not available to fill open positions;

- Allow more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs, and fewer when our economy is not creating jobs;

- Protect workers by ensuring strong labor protections; and,

- Permit workers who have succeeded in the workplace and contributed to their communities over many years to earn green cards.

stonedstooge
01-27-2013, 04:53 PM
That 11 million people added to O'BamaCare will drive the costs down for everyone won't it?

dirk digler
01-27-2013, 04:55 PM
This should be the easist legislation to pass this upcoming year until RWNJ's like Limbaugh start crying about it like he did last time.

Garcia Bronco
01-27-2013, 07:21 PM
Lol...what is immigration reform? What are they "negotiating"?

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 08:05 PM
For the 10-gazillionth time: Hispanics vote democrat because they agree with them on the issues. Not because the GOP is "xenophobic"

Chocolate Hog
01-27-2013, 09:17 PM
Awesome this will hurt that phoney Rubio in the primaries.

donkhater
01-27-2013, 09:26 PM
While I understand the desire to become a citizen of the US for benefit reasons, why does the primarily low-income Latino illegal immigrant want citizenship? From what I can tell, their allegiance is still with Mexico and once they become citizens, their employment will be subjected to Federal Minimum wage laws. How does that help their employment opportunities?

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 10:05 PM
While I understand the desire to become a citizen of the US for benefit reasons, why does the primarily low-income Latino illegal immigrant want citizenship? From what I can tell, their allegiance is still with Mexico and once they become citizens, their employment will be subjected to Federal Minimum wage laws. How does that help their employment opportunities?

Access to Obamacare, and social security/Medicare.

Direckshun
01-27-2013, 10:09 PM
For the 10-gazillionth time: Hispanics vote democrat because they agree with them on the issues. Not because the GOP is "xenophobic"

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 10:12 PM
Those are not mutually exclusive.

But only one is the answer. If the GOP tried to our-amnesty the Dems (as if that were even possible), it wouldn't attract any more voters. See: 1986 amnesty.


Bush Sr got 30% of the Hispanics vs Romneys 27%. Lotta good that did!

Direckshun
01-27-2013, 10:18 PM
But only one is the answer.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 10:26 PM
Bzzzt. Wrong.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Well, the Dems hate white southerners so same deal.

dirk digler
01-28-2013, 08:12 AM
A deal is done and will be announced today by the bipartisan Senate group. Let's hope the House can get their stupid act together.

A bipartisan group of eight Senators working on a comprehensive immigration reform plan are planning on announcing a framework for a bill Monday after reaching an agreement on the broad outlines of a package, including a path to citizenship for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants.

According to the Associated Press, (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senators-reach-deal-immigration) the bill would grant legal status and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants only after a series of additional border security measures were put in place. In addition, the package would include an e-verify program to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers in the future, an expanded visa and guest worker program to manage future immigration, and a seperate streamlined path towards citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were bought to America as children.

The Democratic Senators working on the deal are Sens. Robert Menedez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Michael Bennett (D-CO), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The Republicans are Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

notorious
01-28-2013, 08:27 AM
Access to Obamacare, and social security/Medicare.

Um, they already get free medical care.

Direckshun
01-28-2013, 09:07 AM
A deal is done and will be announced today by the bipartisan Senate group. Let's hope the House can get their stupid act together.

It's pretty centrist, sounds like. Maybe a tad center-left.

What's really disappointing to me is that it doesn't sound like it's addressing the #2 immigration issue facing our country, which is our wholesale education of foreigners who take their education home and compete against us.

We should offer a hell of a deal for foreigners who've come here to get a higher education. We need their knowledge to play ball for us, since we spent the money to educate them, rather than releasing them back home and completing against us.

Nonetheless, it's good a deal got struck. Clearly the GOP did not want to get framed as anti-reform on this issue.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 09:22 AM
What should immigration prefix be? Legal?



It fits under US issues with the Uncle Sam icon. I can always make his face brown if you prefer also.

Certainly, not the justice icon, because that's for court issues. Progressives see everything as a justice or social issue though.

Direckshun
01-28-2013, 09:27 AM
The OP will soon be updated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/read-senators-release-their-plan-for-immigration-reform/

READ: Senators release bipartisan plan for immigration reform
Posted by Brad Plumer
on January 28, 2013 at 9:42 am

A bipartisan group of senators has just unveiled a new proposed framework (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/bipartisan-framework-for-immigration-reform-report/27/) for overhauling the U.S. immigration system.

The big feature here is that current undocumented immigrants in the United States with otherwise clean legal records could achieve legal residency after paying a fine and back taxes. But a path to full citizenship would only be offered after measures to prevent further illegal immigration are in place.

The proposal also includes new border security, more stringent checks on immigrants with visas, and programs to help businesses verify the legal status of their employees.

Read the full proposal below:

——

Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

From Senators Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio, Michael Bennet, and Jeff Flake

Introduction:

We recognize that our immigration system is broken. And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations, we still don’t have a functioning immigration system. This has created a situation where up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows. Our legislation acknowledges these realities by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here. We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

Four Basic Legislative Pillars:

1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

1. Creating a Path to Citizenship for Unauthorized Immigrants Already Here that is Contingent Upon Securing the Border and Combating Visa Overstays

- Our legislation will provide a tough, fair, and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the United States that is contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.

- To fulfill the basic governmental function of securing our borders, we will continue the increased efforts of the Border Patrol by providing them with the latest technology, infrastructure, and personnel needed to prevent, detect, and apprehend every unauthorized entrant.

- Additionally, our legislation will increase the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance equipment, improve radio interoperability and increase the number of agents at and between ports of entry. The purpose is to substantially lower the number of successful illegal border crossings while continuing to facilitate commerce.

- We will strengthen prohibitions against racial profiling and inappropriate use of force, enhance the training of border patrol agents, increase oversight, and create a mechanism to ensure a meaningful opportunity for border communities to share input, including critiques.

- Our legislation will require the completion of an entry-exit system that tracks whether all persons entering the United States on temporary visas via airports and seaports have left the country as required by law.

- We recognize that Americans living along the Southwest border are key to recognizing and understanding when the border is truly secure. Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.

- While these security measures are being put into place, we will simultaneously require those who came or remained in the United States without our permission to register with the government. This will include passing a background check and settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes, in order to earn probationary legal status, which will allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Individuals with a serious criminal background or others who pose a threat to our national security will be ineligible for legal status and subject to deportation. Illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes face immediate deportation.

- We will demonstrate our commitment to securing our borders and combating visa overstays by requiring our proposed enforcement measures be complete before any immigrant on probationary status can earn a green card.

- Current restrictions preventing non-immigrants from accessing federal public benefits will also apply to lawful probationary immigrants.

- Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. Those individuals who successfully complete these requirements can eventually earn a green card.

- Individuals who are present without lawful status – not including people within the two categories identified below – will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.

- Our legislation also recognizes that the circumstances and the conduct of people without lawful status are not the same, and cannot be addressed identically.

For instance, individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.

Similarly, individuals who have been working without legal status in the United States agricultural industry have been performing very important and difficult work to maintain America’s food supply while earning subsistence wages. Due to the utmost importance in our nation maintaining the safety of its food supply, agricultural workers who commit to the long term stability of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume. These individuals will earn a path to citizenship through a different process under our new agricultural worker program.

2. Improving our Legal Immigration System and Attracting the World’s Best and Brightest

- The development of a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America’s future economic prosperity. Our failure to act is perpetuating a broken system which sadly discourages the world’s best and brightest citizens from coming to the United States and remaining in our country to contribute to our economy. This failure makes a legal path to entry in the United States insurmountably difficult for well-meaning immigrants. This unarguably discourages innovation and economic growth. It has also created substantial visa backlogs which force families to live apart, which incentivizes illegal immigration.

- Our new immigration system must be more focused on recognizing the important characteristics which will help build the American economy and strengthen American families. Additionally, we must reduce backlogs in the family and employment visa categories so that future immigrants view our future legal immigration system as the exclusive means for entry into the United States.

- The United States must do a better job of attracting and keeping the world’s best and brightest. As such, our immigration proposal will award a green card to immigrants who have received a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or math from an American university. It makes no sense to educate the world’s future innovators and entrepreneurs only to ultimately force them to leave our country at the moment they are most able to contribute to our economy.

3. Strong Employment Verification

- We recognize that undocumented immigrants come to the United States almost exclusively for jobs. As such, dramatically reducing future illegal immigration can only be achieved by developing a tough, fair, effective and mandatory employment verification system. An employment verification system must hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring undocumented workers and make it more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to falsify documents to obtain employment. Employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers must face stiff fines and criminal penalties for egregious offenses.

- We believe the federal government must provide U.S. employers with a fast and reliable method to confirm whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the United States. This is essential to ensure the effective enforcement of immigration laws.

- Our proposal will create an effective employment verification system which prevents identity theft and ends the hiring of future unauthorized workers. We believe requiring prospective workers to demonstrate both legal status and identity, through non-forgeable electronic means prior to obtaining employment, is essential to an employee verification system; and,

- The employee verification system in our proposal will be crafted with procedural safeguards to protect American workers, prevent identity theft, and provide due process protections.

4. Admitting New Workers and Protecting Workers’ Rights

- The overwhelming majority of the 327,000 illegal entrants apprehended by CBP in FY2011 were seeking employment in the United States. We recognize that to prevent future waves of illegal immigration a humane and effective system needs to be created for these immigrant workers to enter the country and find employment without seeking the aid of human traffickers or drug cartels.

- Our proposal will provide businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner when Americans are unavailable or unwilling to fill those jobs.

Our legislation would:

- Allow employers to hire immigrants if it can be demonstrated that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers;

- Create a workable program to meet the needs of America’s agricultural industry, including dairy to find agricultural workers when American workers are not available to fill open positions;

- Allow more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs, and fewer when our economy is not creating jobs;

- Protect workers by ensuring strong labor protections; and,

- Permit workers who have succeeded in the workplace and contributed to their communities over many years to earn green cards.

Direckshun
01-28-2013, 09:28 AM
Sounds like my fears in post #15 have been addressed in the legislation.

dirk digler
01-28-2013, 09:34 AM
It's pretty centrist, sounds like. Maybe a tad center-left.

What's really disappointing to me is that it doesn't sound like it's addressing the #2 immigration issue facing our country, which is our wholesale education of foreigners who take their education home and compete against us.

We should offer a hell of a deal for foreigners who've come here to get a higher education. We need their knowledge to play ball for us, since we spent the money to educate them, rather than releasing them back home and completing against us.

Nonetheless, it's good a deal got struck. Clearly the GOP did not want to get framed as anti-reform on this issue.

I wouldn't consider that the #2 issue and honestly don't know if that will be addressed. I read somewhere where they are going to address the high-skilled workers problem though by raising the limit.

dirk digler
01-28-2013, 09:43 AM
Sounds like my fears in post #15 have been addressed in the legislation.

Sounds like. It is an important problem but I would consider border security and what do with the 11 million illegals as the top 2 issues.

We honestly need to streamline the immigration process and make it easier\faster for people going through the legal route to get what they need.

Also if I was in this group I would push for a biometric National ID card.

Chocolate Hog
01-28-2013, 01:17 PM
Direck blows himself in every thread.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 01:26 PM
I just want to know if they're going to end birthright citizenship.

donkhater
01-28-2013, 05:41 PM
Regardless of the need for a solution to the illegal immigration problem (aside from simply enforcing current laws), passing a bill on immigration reform does the Republicans absolutely no good. Even if they authored the bill, and pushed it through the legislative process, Obama and the syncophants in the MSM will NOT give them any credit that they would be due. For an analogous example see the 1964 civil rights bill.

The Republicans will be adding millions of voters to the Democratic till, and for what? To be liked by the Washington elite? That's all they'll get out of it. That and no shot for the foreseeable future of holding the executive branch.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 07:45 AM
Speaking of McCain.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/28/john_mccain_says_four_things_that_will_spook_conservatives_on_immigration.html

John McCain Says Four Things That Will Spook Conservatives on Immigration Reform
By David Weigel
Posted Monday, Jan. 28, 2013, at 4:05 PM ET

I was in the Senate for the packed Republican-Democrat-Kadima presser on the "framework" for immigration reform. It marked the return of a John McCain we'd all forgotten about, a statesman who stands side by side with Chuck Schumer and favors something that would be "good for the president." But I tried to imagine how Republicans were hearing McCain's comments.

1) "If we do succeed, it will be a testament to Ted Kennedy's effort some years ago."

Conservatives put the "blame" for immigration levels on the 1965 immigration bill backed by Kennedy. Also, he was Ted Kennedy.

2) "The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens. And we realize this is an issue in which we are agreement with our Hispanic citizens."

A big theme from recent come-to-Jesus meetings, like the RNC's meeting in Charlotte and the NRI meeting, was that the party needed better messaging on immigration but not necessarily a bill.

3) "I am confident that the majority in both Houses — led by the president of the United States — will succeed."

I thought Republicans were against that! But the hits kept coming as McCain left the room, and Bloomberg's Kate Hunter asked whether support from the president would alienate Republicans.

4) "No, he's the president of the United States ... it helped when George W. Bush strongly supported it. It certainly helped with Republicans."

It helped because Bush was Republican? Here, Republicans have to hope that Marco Rubio gains from a deal. But the incentives for aiding Barack Obama are completely different than the incentives for helping Bush. That's why the cliche is "only Nixon can go to China," not "only a Communist can go to China."

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 08:22 AM
I was reading this morning several Tea Party Senate Republicans like Cruz, Lamar Smith, and Mike Lee have all come out against this framework. Then you have fat druggie loser Rush saying it is going to be up to him and Fox News to stop this bill.

These people never learn.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 08:49 AM
NBC News is saying that Obama's speech today was designed to outline his own immigration reform idea.

But since a relatively effective reform proposal has been put forth by a fragile bipartisan coalition, he is instead just going to embrace and promote their deal.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 08:54 AM
Phenomenal news. The House is coming out with its own plan as well, also bipartisan.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/the-house-has-its-own-bipartisan-immigration-plan

The House Has Its Own Bipartisan Immigration Plan In The Works, Republicans Say
With House Republicans apparently on board, immigration reform could become a reality. Boehner “seems pretty optimistic,” a source tells BuzzFeed.
John Stanton
posted on January 28, 2013 at 5:00pm EST

WASHINGTON — The same day a group of Senators publicly laid out a bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform, Republicans told BuzzFeed that lawmakers in the House are closing in on their own set of immigration reform principles — and could even produce bipartisan legislation in coming weeks.

While immigration reform has long been considered a bridge too far in the Republican-controlled House, where conservative hold enormous sway, these Republicans insisted the conference understands that the political winds are shifting and a deal could be reached.

"Although we have not seen the legislation text, the principles released today are compatible with the discussions in the House," Rep. Mario Diaz Balart said Monday following the release of the Senate's guidelines for comprehensive reform.

"The prospect of true immigration reform can only happen with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, and today's news is a step in that direction. I commend the dedicated efforts of the group. We look forward to working with the Senate and President Obama to find a real, permanent solution," added Diaz, who is part of the bipartisan group working on the House's set of principles.

According to a House member involved in the talks, the bipartisan group is extremely close to not only an agreement, but to actually producing legislation. While a specific time table is not yet known, a bill could be introduced in the next several weeks, according to this lawmaker.

"I'm very cautious because we've been here before," the member said, pointing to previous failed efforts at reforming the system. But after four years of often intense, secretive negotiations by the group, legislation now appears to be close at hand.

A leadership aide offered a slightly more cautious assessment, but acknowledged the group which also includes border-state Republicans, Latino Democrats and others has made progress.

The group is "a pretty good cross section of the folks you'd need on this issue," the aide said, adding that Speaker John Boehner has remained in contact with the members and "seems pretty optimistic" that a compromise can be reached.

The involvement of Sen. Marco Rubio in the efforts both in the House and the Senate have been key, Democratic and Republican aides said. One Republican aide noted Rubio "has had extensive conversations with House members over the last three month" building on his unsuccessful efforts last year to find compromise on the Dream Act. Those discussions have included key committee chairmen as well as influential conseravtives like Rep. Raul Labrador, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and leadership.

"Nothings easy, but we feel very positive about the response we've gotten so far," the aide said.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 09:08 AM
NBC News is saying that Obama's speech today was designed to outline his own immigration reform idea.

But since a relatively effective reform proposal has been put forth by a fragile bipartisan coalition, he is instead just going to embrace and promote their deal.

As he should. Sounds like a reasonable plan. I will say I don't know if I like the idea of this commission that will have to say the border is secure. It will need to be bi-partisan and shouldn't hold enough power to hold the process hostage. No border will ever be 100% secure especially as large as ours is, it is next to impossible to achieve.

Otter
01-29-2013, 09:12 AM
Good thing we have enough jobs and enforce the borders this time! I gave up caring. If anything is going to take me to an early grave it's going to be college girls and certainly not Bum Fcuk Barry.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 09:16 AM
I'm reading the big difference between Obama's proposal and the Senate propsal is that his includes provisions for LGBT couples (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/obama-immigration-speech/61516/), unlike the Senate's.

I would doubt that this issue will get introduced in his speech today, since like I said, he wants to preserve the coalition.

Otter
01-29-2013, 09:24 AM
I'm reading the big difference between Obama's proposal and the Senate propsal is that his includes provisions for LGBT couples (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/obama-immigration-speech/61516/), unlike the Senate's.

I would doubt that this issue will get introduced in his speech today, since like I said, he wants to preserve the coalition. So educate me Direckhun. Where we getting jobs for these people?

Otter
01-29-2013, 09:31 AM
Hooray for breaking the law!!!

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 09:39 AM
As securing the borders is never going to happen, the path to citizenship they're proposing is illusory.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 09:43 AM
Hooray for breaking the law!!!

You live in reality or you don't. There is no way to deport 11 million people so either come up with a solution or keep the status quo. Which do you prefer?

Otter
01-29-2013, 09:50 AM
You live in reality or you don't. There is no way to deport 11 million people so either come up with a solution or keep the status quo. Which do you prefer? But our government can stick a missile up a camels ass from a drone plane half way around the world being piloted by a guy in Kansas. Who the **** do you people think your bullshitting sometimes? Your so full of shit. Their effective when it's convenient huh?

Cave Johnson
01-29-2013, 10:03 AM
But our government can stick a missile up a camels ass from a drone plane half way around the world being piloted by a guy in Kansas. Who the **** do you people think your bullshitting sometimes? Your so full of shit. Their effective when it's convenient huh?

So your solution is drone strikes on immigrants attempting to cross the border? Good luck with that.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 10:07 AM
But our government can stick a missile up a camels ass from a drone plane half way around the world being piloted by a guy in Kansas. Who the **** do you people think your bullshitting sometimes? Your so full of shit. Their effective when it's convenient huh?

:facepalm:

You seriously think the government could round up every single illegal immigrant in this country? Really? Really? Are you going to have the military go around armed and knock down doors and drag people out of their homes and throw them in a truck and send them back over? Are you willing to destroy the economy and businesses as well?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 10:28 AM
Buzzfeed has confirmed that Obama will, in fact, include same-sex couples protection in his speech today.

Otter
01-29-2013, 10:51 AM
:facepalm:

You seriously think the government could round up every single illegal immigrant in this country? Really? Really? Are you going to have the military go around armed and knock down doors and drag people out of their homes and throw them in a truck and send them back over? Are you willing to destroy the economy and businesses as well? No. Just please don't pile your shit of how effective government is in one sentence then say "impossible" in the next for the sole reason of fitting your agenda. You make yourself look stupider than you already are. And I'm not going to go into a full page again but you don't need to round up illegals. Enforce the laws in place and they'll leave the same way the arrived.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 11:06 AM
No. Just please don't pile your shit of how effective government is in one sentence then say "impossible" in the next for the sole reason of fitting your agenda. You make yourself look stupider than you already are. And I'm not going to go into a full page again but you don't need to round up illegals. Enforce the laws in place and they'll leave the same way the arrived.

Where in my previous posts in this thread did I say the government is effective? I said they could either come up with a solution or keep the status quo. The only one looking stupid is the one that can't read.

They are trying for the most part to enforce the laws they don't have enough manpower, money and time to find 11 million illegals.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:10 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/five-things-economists-know-about-immigration/

Five things economists know about immigration
Posted by Dylan Matthews
on January 29, 2013 at 9:30 am

Few areas of economics have provoked as much fruitful research as immigration, and while disagreements remain, there are at least a few things we can glean from that literature. Here are just a few of them.

1. It’s really good for immigrants

File this one under “duh,” but immigration is a great deal for immigrants, and an even better one than it was during previous eras of mass immigration. Lant Pritchett, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of Let Their People Come (http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/10174), a great book on the economics of immigration, produced this graph comparing wage gaps between immigrants’ destinations and countries of origins in the 19th century to those gaps in more modern times:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/wage_ratios.png

In the 1870s, workers in Ireland could double their wages by coming to the United States. In the 1990s, workers in Guatemala could raise their wages sixfold by coming to the Unted States. In another study, the University of Wisconsin’s John Keenan estimated that completely opening the borders would increase the average developing country worker’s salary from $8,903 to $19,272 — more than double.

2. It’s very good for the economy as a whole

Economists have tried to put a dollar figure on how much the world economy would grow if we just removed all immigration restrictions overnight. The answer: a lot. Angel Aguiar and Terrie Walmsley modeled (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/49302/2/Aguiar_AAEA.pdf) the effects of three U.S. policy alternatives — full deportation of Mexican immigrants, full legalization and full legalization with increased border control — and found, unsurprisingly, that full deportation reduces gross domestic product and the others would add. Deportation reduces GDP by 0.61 percent, legalization with border control increases it by 0.17 percent and legalization without border control increases it by 0.53 percent.

Pritchett, meanwhile, compared (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/lpritch/Labor%20Mobility%20-%20docs/cliff%20at%20the%20borders_submitted.pdf) what open borders would do to world GDP, compared to completely free movement of capital and completely free trade with developing countries. It’s not even close. Open borders increase world GDP by $65 trillion. Let me repeat that. $65 trillion — with a ‘t’. The others don’t even come close:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/pritchett_65trill.png

3. It increases innovation

Businessweek’s Charles Kenny, who’s also a fellow at the Center for Global Development, highlighted (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-28/why-more-immigration-not-less-is-key-to-u-dot-s-dot-economic-growth) a slew of studies suggesting that high-skilled immigration is key to innovation in America. Foreign nationals living in the United States accounted (http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/foreign-born-entrepreneurs.aspx) for 25.6 percent of all patent applications and founded 26 percent of start-ups, including a majority of Silicon Valley start-ups. In addition, an increase in immigrants with higher education diplomas is associated (http://www.nber.org/papers/w14312) with an increase in patenting. Charles Lin at Rutgers found that an expansion of high-skilled visas passed in 1998 increased (http://ideas.repec.org/p/ieb/wpaper/2011-9-doc2011-17.html) revenue at affected companies by 15 percent.

4. The typical native-born worker probably benefits

There’s a lot of debate on this one. A 2010 white paper (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w16439#fromrss) by Gianmarco Ottaviano, Giovanni Peri and Greg Wright found that less expensive immigrant labor has a “positive net effect on native employment.” In another paper, Peri found (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Peri-June2010.pdf) that U.S. immigration from 1990 to 2006 increased real wages by 2.86 percent. Put together, Peri’s research forms the strongest basis for arguing that immigration increases wages for native-born American workers. Patricia Cortes at Unviersity of Chicago has confirmed (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3KABalnjP5OYjUxZjBiMmItZjRjNi00YzkyLTliNDctYTY1YTM2MjJkYzU5/edit?pli=1) his findings, Heidi Sheirholz at EPI (http://epi.3cdn.net/7de74ee0cd834d87d4_a3m6ba9j0.pdf#page=12) and Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda at the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2010/01/07/7187/raising-the-floor-for-american-workers/), similarly, have found across-the-board gains from immigration (or, in the latter case, comprehensive immigration reform) to wages.

George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, two Harvard labor economists who tend to be more skeptical of the benefits from immigration, beg to differ (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/Evolution_Mexican_Workforce.pdf). Between 1980 and 2000, U.S. workers saw their wages fall in the short-run by 3.4 percent due to immigration. In the long-run, the economy adjusts such that the overall effect is minimal, but the short term figures are still a cause for concern.

Unsurprisingly, Peri and Ottaviano dispute (http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi/Papers/OP_april_2010.pdf) Borjas and Katz’s methodology. They argue that Borjas and Katz inaccurately assume that U.S. and foreign workers are perfect substitutes. That’s a problematic assumption, since immigrants tend to do a different kind of labor, one which might not even exist in their absence. “[Immigration opponents] say ‘we Americans could do the job!’ but they don’t say ‘we’ll do the job at a significantly higher price at which the job wouldn’t exist,’” said Jagdish Bhagwati, a trade and immigration economist at Columbia and the Council on Foreign Relations. Borjas and Katz also neglect the indirect benefits that immigration provides to all groups through increasing growth.

But even taking Borjas and Katz at face value, the two groups’ estimates aren’t that far off from each other when you look at the long-run, as this chart (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/05/04-jobs-greenstone-looney) from Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney at the Hamilton Project shows.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/hamilton_immigration.png

Everyone agrees that high school grads and people with some college benefit in the long run and despite their short-run estimates, even Borjas and Katz show a mildly positive overall effect in the long run. The dispute is about what happens at the low-end.

5. Low-skilled immigrants probably don’t see any effect

That’s what Peri’s findings say above, and they’re confirmed in two notable studies, by David Card (http://www.nber.org/papers/w3069.pdf?new_window=1) and Rachel Friedberg (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Papers/1996/pdfs/96-28.pdf), which found that the Mariel boatlift (which brought upwards of 100,000 immigrants to Miami in 1980) and the early 1990s Russian Jewish migration to Israel, respectively, did not decrease native employment or wages. Both were big events. The boatlift increased Miami’s population by 7 percent, and the Russian migration increased Israel’s population by 12 percent.

The advantage of these studies is that they isolate what economists call a “supply shock” to labor. All of the sudden, for reasons unrelated to other factors in the economy, the supply of labor increased. That makes it easier to determine what that shock’s effects are, because it’s not itself caused by other factors in the economy. This increased Card and Friedberg’s confidence that there really wasn’t an effect on wages from the sudden influx of immigrants. But other studies have found this as well. Peri argues (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Peri-June2010.pdf) that while low-skilled native workers suffer due to liberalized immigration in the short-run, they aren’t affected in the long-run.

Of course, Borjas, Katz and other skeptics argue that low-skilled immigration very clearly reduces wages and employment for low-skilled American workers. The issue is, as yet, unresolved. But the consensus view among economists is that the effect, even if negative, is negligible.

donkhater
01-29-2013, 11:13 AM
Again, I see no reason why the Republicans should go along with anything bipartisan bill. There is no chance in hell Obama or the Democrats (i.e. the MSM) will give one ounce of credit to the Republicans for doing anything on this front. Meanwhile it puts them in a permanent minority party-wise.

What's going to happen to all those jobs that most Americans won't do becasue they are demeaning and low-paying? Go away? Great way to boost those unemployment numbers and place 11 million more on the already over-burdened government till.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 11:19 AM
Again, I see no reason why the Republicans should go along with anything bipartisan bill. There is no chance in hell Obama or the Democrats (i.e. the MSM) will give one ounce of credit to the Republicans for doing anything on this front. Meanwhile it puts them in a permanent minority party-wise.

What's going to happen to all those jobs that most Americans won't do becasue they are demeaning and low-paying? Go away? Great way to boost those unemployment numbers and place 11 million more on the already over-burdened government till.

So you would rather not try to fix our immigration problem because of politics is that what you are saying?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:22 AM
I think it's a net loss for Republicans, but I think it's an even more severe blow to the party to resist it.

At least this way the GOP can claim it had a significant hand in this. That will allow the tide to turn their way some day, if it ever does.

donkhater
01-29-2013, 11:28 AM
So you would rather not try to fix our immigration problem because of politics is that what you are saying?

Not at all. I just think the Republican party gets nothing out of this. This bill sets them up to be irrelevant in National elections. they are shooting themselves in the head. I don't respect any Republican that doesn't have the common sense to realize that.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 11:45 AM
The problem: you risk losing an entire demographic for a generation or more if you get in the way of it, donkhater.

Better to control your losses rather than to surrender to them.

Prison Bitch
01-29-2013, 01:10 PM
The problem: you risk losing an entire demographic for a generation or more if you get in the way of it, donkhater.

Better to control your losses rather than to surrender to them.

Lmao, you probly said the same thing in 1986 too. That sure worked out for the GOP. Look at all the souls St Reagan won for the party! (Snicker-laugh laugh)



Of course, the GOP *could* become the party of less government and be willing to change on some basic economic issues to attract Hispanics that way....without giving up on border security. But that is too obvious for them (and you) to understand.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 01:28 PM
Not at all. I just think the Republican party gets nothing out of this. This bill sets them up to be irrelevant in National elections. they are shooting themselves in the head. I don't respect any Republican that doesn't have the common sense to realize that.

Ok but who cares?

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 01:30 PM
Heh. That is a bit of a head scratcher.

So you would rather not try to fix our immigration problem because of politics is that what you are saying?

Not at all. I just think the Republican party gets nothing out of this. This bill sets them up to be irrelevant in National elections. they are shooting themselves in the head. I don't respect any Republican that doesn't have the common sense to realize that.

Donkhater responded to your accusation that he's opposed due to politics by essentially confirming he's opposed to it due to the politics.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 02:37 PM
Hard to argue with most of this.

Seems to be a nudging of the Senate plan to the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/read-president-obamas-immigration-proposal/

READ: President Obama’s immigration proposal
Posted by Ezra Klein
on January 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm

Here’s the White House’s immigration framework, which is similar to the Senate’s Gang of 8 framework (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/read-senators-release-their-plan-for-immigration-reform/), and to the White House’s May 2011 plan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/immigration_blueprint.pdf). If anything, their May 2011 plan was more detailed.

In his speech in Las Vegas this afternoon, President Obama warned that ”If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send them a bill based on my proposal and insist they vote on it right away.” The text of White House’s proposal follows:

FACT SHEET: Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules

America’s immigration system is broken. Too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers and there are 11 million people living in the shadows. Neither is good for the economy or the country.

It is time to act to fix the broken immigration system in a way that requires responsibility from everyone —both from the workers here illegally and those who hire them—and guarantees that everyone is playing by the same rules.

President Obama’s commonsense immigration reform proposal has four parts. First, continue to strengthen our borders. Second, crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers. Third, hold undocumented immigrants accountable before they can earn their citizenship; this means requiring undocumented workers to pay their taxes and a penalty, move to the back of the line, learn English, and pass background checks. Fourth, streamline the legal immigration system for families, workers, and employers.

Together we can build a fair, effective and commonsense immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

The key principles the President believes should be included in commonsense immigration reform are:

· Continuing to Strengthen Border Security: President Obama has doubled the number of Border Patrol agents since 2004 and today border security is stronger than it has ever been. But there is more work to do. The President’s proposal gives law enforcement the tools they need to make our communities safer from crime. And by enhancing our infrastructure and technology, the President’s proposal continues to strengthen our ability to remove criminals and apprehend and prosecute national security threats.

· Cracking Down on Employers Hiring Undocumented Workers: Our businesses should only employ people legally authorized to work in the United States. Businesses that knowingly employ undocumented workers are exploiting the system to gain an advantage over businesses that play by the rules. The President’s proposal is designed to stop these unfair hiring practices and hold these companies accountable. At the same time, this proposal gives employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.

· Earned Citizenship: It is just not practical to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants living within our borders. The President’s proposal provides undocumented immigrants a legal way to earn citizenship that will encourage them to come out of the shadows so they can pay their taxes and play by the same rules as everyone else. Immigrants living here illegally must be held responsible for their actions by passing national security and criminal background checks, paying taxes and a penalty, going to the back of the line, and learning English before they can earn their citizenship. There will be no uncertainty about their ability to become U.S. citizens if they meet these eligibility criteria. The proposal will also stop punishing innocent young people brought to the country through no fault of their own by their parents and give them a chance to earn their citizenship more quickly if they serve in the military or pursue higher education.

· Streamlining Legal Immigration: Our immigration system should reward anyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. For the sake of our economy and our security, legal immigration should be simple and efficient. The President’s proposal attracts the best minds to America by providing visas to foreign entrepreneurs looking to start businesses here and helping the most promising foreign graduate students in science and math stay in this country after graduation, rather than take their skills to other countries. The President’s proposal will also reunify families in a timely and humane manner.

Continuing to Strengthen Border Security

· Strengthen border security and infrastructure. The President’s proposal strengthens and improves infrastructure at ports of entry, facilitates public-private partnerships aimed at increasing investment in foreign visitor processing, and continues supporting the use of technologies that help to secure the land and maritime borders of the United States.

· Combat transnational crime. The President’s proposal creates new criminal penalties dedicated to combating transnational criminal organizations that traffic in drugs, weapons, and money, and that smuggle people across the borders. It also expands the scope of current law to allow for the forfeiture of these organizations’ criminal tools and proceeds. Through this approach, we will bolster our efforts to deprive criminal enterprises, including those operating along the Southwest border, of their infrastructure and profits.

· Improve partnerships with border communities and law enforcement. The President’s proposal expands our ability to work with our cross-border law enforcement partners. Community trust and cooperation are keys to effective law enforcement. To this end, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will establish border community liaisons along the Southern and Northern borders to improve communication and collaboration with border communities, boost funding to tribal government partners to reduce illegal activity on tribal lands, and strengthen training on civil rights and civil liberties for DHS immigration officers.

· Crack down on criminal networks engaging in passport and visa fraud and human smuggling. The President’s proposal creates tough criminal penalties for trafficking in passports and immigration documents and schemes to defraud, including those who prey on vulnerable immigrants through notario fraud. It also strengthens penalties to combat human smuggling rings.

· Deporting Criminals. The President’s proposal expands smart enforcement efforts that target convicted criminals in federal or state correctional facilities, allowing us to remove them from the United States at the end of their sentences without re-entering our communities. At the same time, it protects those with a credible fear of returning to their home countries.

· Streamline removal of nonimmigrant national security and public safety threats. The President’s proposal creates a streamlined administrative removal process for people who overstay their visas and have been determined to be threats to national security and public safety.

· Improve our nation’s immigration courts. The President’s proposal invests in our immigration courts. By increasing the number of immigration judges and their staff, investing in training for court personnel, and improving access to legal information for immigrants, these reforms will improve court efficiency. It allows DHS to better focus its detention resources on public safety and national security threats by expanding alternatives to detention and reducing overall detention costs. It also provides greater protections for those least able to represent themselves.

Cracking Down on Employers Who Hire Undocumented Workers

· Mandatory, phased-in electronic employment verification. The President’s proposal provides tools for employers to ensure a legal workforce by using federal government databases to verify that the people they hire are eligible to work in the United States. Penalties for hiring undocumented workers are significantly increased, and new penalties are established for committing fraud and identity theft. The new mandatory program ensures the privacy and confidentiality of all workers’ personal information and includes important procedural protections. Mandatory electronic employment verification would be phased in over five years with exemptions for certain small businesses.

· Combat fraud and identity theft. The proposal also mandates a fraud‐resistant, tamper‐resistant Social Security card and requires workers to use fraud‐and tamper‐resistant documents to prove authorization to work in the United States. The proposal also seeks to establish a voluntary pilot program to evaluate new methods to authenticate identity and combat identity theft.

· Protections for all workers. The President’s proposal protects workers against retaliation for exercising their labor rights. It increases the penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers to skirt the workplace standards that protect all workers. And it creates a “labor law enforcement fund” to help ensure that industries that employ significant numbers of immigrant workers comply with labor laws.

Pathway to Earned Citizenship

· Create a provisional legal status. Undocumented immigrants must come forward and register, submit biometric data, pass criminal background and national security checks, and pay fees and penalties before they will be eligible for a provisional legal status. Agricultural workers and those who entered the United States as children would be eligible for the same program. Individuals must wait until the existing legal immigration backlogs are cleared before getting in line to apply for lawful permanent residency (i.e. a “green card”), and ultimately United States citizenship. Consistent with current law, people with provisional legal status will not be eligible for welfare or other federal benefits, including subsidies or tax credits under the new health care law.

· Create strict requirements to qualify for lawful permanent resident status. Those applying for green cards must pay their taxes, pass additional criminal background and national security checks, register for Selective Service (where applicable), pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. civics. As under current law, five years after receiving a green card, individuals will be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship like every other legal permanent resident.

· Earned citizenship for DREAMers. Children brought here illegally through no fault of their own by their parents will be eligible for earned citizenship. By going to college or serving honorably in the Armed Forces for at least two years, these children should be given an expedited opportunity to earn their citizenship. The President’s proposal brings these undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

· Create administrative and judicial review. An individual whose provisional lawful status has been revoked or denied, or whose application for adjustment has been denied, will have the opportunity to seek administrative and judicial review of those decisions.

· Provide new resources to combat fraud. The President’s proposal authorizes funding to enable DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to establish fraud prevention programs that will provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.

Streamlining Legal Immigration

· Keep Families Together. The proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual visa numbers. The proposal also raises existing annual country caps from 7 percent to 15 percent for the family-sponsored immigration system. It also treats same-sex families as families by giving U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the ability to seek a visa on the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. The proposal also revises current unlawful presence bars and provides broader discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship.

· Cut Red Tape for Employers. The proposal also eliminates the backlog for employment-sponsored immigration by eliminating annual country caps and adding additional visas to the system. Outdated legal immigration programs are reformed to meet current and future demands by exempting certain categories from annual visa limitations.

· Enhance travel and tourism. The Administration is committed to increasing U.S. travel and tourism by facilitating legitimate travel while maintaining our nation’s security. Consistent with the President’s Executive Order on travel and tourism, the President’s proposal securely streamlines visa and foreign visitor processing. It also strengthens law enforcement cooperation while maintaining the program’s robust counterterrorism and criminal information sharing initiatives. It facilitates more efficient travel by allowing greater flexibility to designate countries for participation in the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of designated countries to visit the United States without obtaining a visa. And finally it permits the State Department to waive interview requirements for certain very low-risk visa applicants, permitting resources to be focused on higher risk applicants and creates a pilot for premium visa processing.

· “Staple” green cards to advanced STEM diplomas. The proposal encourages foreign graduate students educated in the United States to stay here and contribute to our economy by “stapling” a green card to the diplomas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) PhD and Master’s Degree graduates from qualified U.S. universities who have found employment in the United States. It also requires employers to pay a fee that will support education and training to grow the next generation of American workers in STEM careers.

· Create a “startup visa” for job-creating entrepreneurs. The proposal allows foreign entrepreneurs who attract financing from U.S. investors or revenue from U.S. customers to start and grow their businesses in the United States, and to remain permanently if their companies grow further, create jobs for American workers, and strengthen our economy.

· Expand opportunities for investor visas and U.S. economic development. The proposal permanently authorizes immigrant visa opportunities for regional center (pooled investment) programs; provides incentives for visa requestors to invest in programs that support national priorities, including economic development in rural and economically depressed regions ; adds new measures to combat fraud and national security threats; includes data collection on economic impact; and creates a pilot program for state and local government officials to promote economic development.

· Create a new visa category for employees of federal national security science and technology laboratories. The proposal creates a new visa category for a limited number of highly-skilled and specialized immigrants to work in federal science and technology laboratories on critical national security needs after being in the United States. for two years and passing rigorous national security and criminal background checks.

· Better addresses humanitarian concerns. The proposal streamlines immigration law to better protect vulnerable immigrants, including those who are victims of crime and domestic violence. It also better protects those fleeing persecution by eliminating the existing limitations that prevent qualified individuals from applying for asylum.

· Encourage integration. The proposal promotes earned citizenship and efforts to integrate immigrants into their new American communities linguistically, civically, and economically.

Otter
01-29-2013, 02:40 PM
You live in reality or you don't. There is no way to deport 11 million people so either come up with a solution or keep the status quo. Which do you prefer?

Which reality you living in? The one where we don't enforce laws of illegals breaking into a country but put people in jail for pot and not paying child support? Breaking into many countries would get you shot by the way. Or are you in the reality of not enforcing the laws in place to win votes?

Is there where you say "but what about the children" or "thank God we're not that country"?

donkhater
01-29-2013, 02:54 PM
Ok but who cares?

The Dems sure don't. Why would they?

This is no different than Democrats blocking Right to Work legislation. So what if it solves important economic issues, a Democrat would be commiting political suicide to vote for it.

There are other ways to mitigate the impact of illegal immigrants on the country.

First and foremost, legalize drugs. The gang wars in Mexico and on the border drive decent Hispanics out of Mexico to search for safer places to live. I don't blame them one bit.

Allow illegals to purchase private health insurance. Of course, this is a rational free-market approach that would have to be a part of larger health reform that doesn't enslave millions of people, so naturally the Democrats wouldn't go for it and demagouge it to death, but it's better than the alternative.

Lastly, eliminate the minimum wage. The narrative is that there are jobs that Americans won't do, but the truth is that there are jobs that illegals undercut wages to get. By eliminating the minimum wage, illegal immigrants no longer have the inside track on millions of jobs. Thus, less motivation to immigrate to America.

Notice that all of my proposals call for the REDUCTION or ELIMINATION of laws not the creation of new ones. So, breath easy, dirk and Derickshun, they won't be implemented. Doesn't mean that the alternatives should, though.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 03:00 PM
Which reality you living in? The one where we don't enforce laws of illegals breaking into a country but put people in jail for pot and not paying child support? Breaking into many countries would get you shot by the way. Or are you in the reality of not enforcing the laws in place to win votes?

Is there where you say "but what about the children" or "thank God we're not that country"?

I live in the reality that the USA is not like any other country in the world and we don't kill people who come to this country illegally. This country was founded by immigrants legally and illegally.

That doesn't mean we don't try to enforce our laws and when we catch them we send them back. But anybody with a brain knows there is too many to round up so we need a system that protects the border the best we can and get the illegals that are here out of the shadows and on the path to be being legal.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 03:12 PM
The Dems sure don't. Why would they?

This is no different than Democrats blocking Right to Work legislation. So what if it solves important economic issues, a Democrat would be commiting political suicide to vote for it.

There are other ways to mitigate the impact of illegal immigrants on the country.

First and foremost, legalize drugs. The gang wars in Mexico and on the border drive decent Hispanics out of Mexico to search for safer places to live. I don't blame them one bit.

Allow illegals to purchase private health insurance. Of course, this is a rational free-market approach that would have to be a part of larger health reform that doesn't enslave millions of people, so naturally the Democrats wouldn't go for it and demagouge it to death, but it's better than the alternative.

Lastly, eliminate the minimum wage. The narrative is that there are jobs that Americans won't do, but the truth is that there are jobs that illegals undercut wages to get. By eliminating the minimum wage, illegal immigrants no longer have the inside track on millions of jobs. Thus, less motivation to immigrate to America.

Notice that all of my proposals call for the REDUCTION or ELIMINATION of laws not the creation of new ones. So, breath easy, dirk and Derickshun, they won't be implemented. Doesn't mean that the alternatives should, though.

I don't care about what the Dems think politically either on this issue. The problem needs to be fixed as best as the government can do as long as it is fair and reasonable.

As far as your ideas you presented:

1. Legalize Drugs: You make a good point about the Cartels and the violence that happens in Mexico because of them but I just don't see realistically legalizing any drugs outside of pot. And people are even fighting that one.

2. Buy private health insurance: Interesting idea

3. Eliminate minimum wage: Definite no. Corporations would screw so many people and we would be back to slave labor like China. No thanks.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 03:13 PM
Some skeptics still abound.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/three_reasons_to_be_skeptical_that_immigration_reform_will_pass/

3 reasons to be skeptical that immigration reform will pass
Senate leaders are optimistic, but here's why you shouldn't expect anything to happen
By Alex Pareene
Monday, Jan 28, 2013 02:35 PM CST

The big story out of Washington today is that a bipartisan “gang” of senators (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/senate-immigration-proposal/61477/) tentatively agree on a “framework” for comprehensive immigration reform. And it’s not just another variation on the increasingly limited Dream Act: It’s got a real path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. Harry Reid is going to make it a top priority. Longtime immigration reform supporter John McCain, who opportunistically turned against reform a few years ago, is back on board. Conservative golden boy Marco Rubio is pushing Republicans to accept it. The bill could be on the president’s desk by spring.

Except it’s all going to blow up. For three simple reasons:

Lindsey Graham

One member of the “gang of eight” is, naturally, Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is always joining gangs with his best friend John McCain. That’s a bad sign. Because Lindsey Graham is a pathological deal-killer. He lives to bargain endlessly and then pull out at the last minute. Lindsey Graham is the master of refusing to support things he actually supports because a Democrat hurt his feelings (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/21/lindsey_graham_pique/). He withdrew his support for immigration reform in 2010 because the Senate planned to also consider climate legislation, another policy he claimed to support. He reneged on the Dream Act. He promised that he was working on immigration reform with Chuck Schumer two years ago (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/07/lindsey_graham/) and nothing happened.

The problem is, Graham is actually necessary for the bill to pass the Senate, and whenever his vote is crucial, he responds by withholding it. Here’s the National Journal’s Fawn Johnson explaining the Senate situation (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-3-big-hurdles-obama-has-to-clear-to-pass-immigration-reform/272584/):

Advocates expect to lose at least five Democrats in the Senate, which means they will need upwards of a dozen Republicans to vote for the legislation. That’s where Rubio and other Tea Party favorites like Senator Mike Lee of Utah will come into play. Rubio and Lee are newcomers to an old discussion among Republican veterans like McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Newly elected Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona will be a key Republican player as well.

If history is any guide, Graham will continue carefully negotiating and signaling his support for the proposal until he is forced to withdraw his support at the last minute because of some entirely unrelated bit of Senate business.

(Rubio could also end up killing this thing by requiring that nativist Southwestern Republican politicians get veto power over the citizenship provisions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/28/what-did-republicans-win-in-the-immigration-deal/). It’d suit his purposes just fine to be seen as a guy who tried to get an immigration deal done but was stymied when Democrats asked too much of him.)

House Republicans

The problem comprehensive immigration reform ran into last time is that Republicans don’t want it. The business community wants it, obviously, but Republicans forced to choose between donors and their right-wing white constituents are generally more terrified of pissing off their constituents. Right-wing nativism has declined a bit since its recent height in 2010, but it’s still arguably worse than it was in 2006, when mass conservative revolt killed the last deal.

As all of America’s recent legislative fights have shown, House Republicans are protected from national anti-conservative trends by very safe and conservative districts. They are more vulnerable to getting primaried than they are to losing to moderates or Democrats in a general election. A majority of Americans may now support a path to citizenship (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/23/americans-support-pathway-to-citizenship-for-immigrants-poll-says/), but a majority of Americans also support hiking taxes on the rich, and the GOP nearly shut down the government rather than agree to that.

And Johnson basically acknowledges that … no suitable deal can pass the House (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-3-big-hurdles-obama-has-to-clear-to-pass-immigration-reform/272584/):

Next comes the House, where Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is in no hurry to rush any broad legislation. Goodlatte’s main objective is much more modest — to familiarize his committee members with immigration policy such that they understand the difference between a work visa and a green card. There are not enough Republican votes in the House to pass anything that would earn Obama’s signature or the nod from Senate Democrats.

Which means that the entire deal rests on Speaker John Boehner again bringing a major, controversial bill to the floor without a majority of Republican support, and relying on Democratic votes for its passage. I’m not sure he can do that again without ending his career. I imagine he’d be perfectly fine with killing whatever the Senate passes and allowing his caucus to pass some sort of “flying border drones and giant fences only” version of “immigration reform” instead.

The Right-wing Press

While some elite-backed elements of the right-wing press will fall in line — Murdoch will keep his media organs on his side of the immigration debate — the “grass-roots”conservative press is going to react the same way it did in 2006, when they helped kill their own president’s immigration reform plan. National Review’s The Corner is currently like 75 percent hysterical accusations of betrayal from anti-immigration zealots like Mark Krikorian, who has written four separate lengthy posts decrying “amnesty” (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/25849) today alone. Michelle Malkin’s headline is “Suicidal GOP senators join open-borders Dems for Shamnesty Redux.” (http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/28/suicidal-gop-senators-join-open-borders-dems-for-shamnesty-redux/)

The conservative media is the primary source of opinions and information not just for crazy comment section trolls, but for a terrifying number of actual Republican legislators. If they raise enough of a fuss, and they are already fussing quite a bit, signing on to “SHAMNESTY 2.0″ will become too toxic for all but a few Republicans.

I’d be thrilled to be wrong about any or all of this, but all of this sudden optimism around reform seems to ignore the last four years of American politics.

donkhater
01-29-2013, 03:36 PM
I don't care about what the Dems think politically either on this issue. The problem needs to be fixed as best as the government can do as long as it is fair and reasonable.


3. Eliminate minimum wage: Definite no. Corporations would screw so many people and we would be back to slave labor like China. No thanks.

So who do we enslave to undercut minimum wage laws and do the jobs 'Americans' won't do if we make all illegal immigrants legal?

Otter
01-29-2013, 03:46 PM
I live in the reality that the USA is not like any other country in the world and we don't kill people who come to this country illegally. This country was founded by immigrants legally and illegally.

That doesn't mean we don't try to enforce our laws and when we catch them we send them back. But anybody with a brain knows there is too many to round up so we need a system that protects the border the best we can and get the illegals that are here out of the shadows and on the path to be being legal.

The only one using the phrase "round them up" is you lefty libs who are looking for an excuse to not enforce the law.

I'll speak slowly this time: enforce the laws in place and they won't have a reason to stay. You know like needing to be a citizen to work and collect government benefits. Let me know how many times you need me to repeat that before it sinks in.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 04:38 PM
So who do we enslave to undercut minimum wage laws and do the jobs 'Americans' won't do if we make all illegal immigrants legal?

That's a fair question and one I don't have an answer to other than hopefully the illegals don't get the lazy gene once they are able to work legally.

dirk digler
01-29-2013, 04:40 PM
The only one using the phrase "round them up" is you lefty libs who are looking for an excuse to not enforce the law.

I'll speak slowly this time: enforce the laws in place and they won't have a reason to stay. You know like needing to be a citizen to work and collect government benefits. Let me know how many times you need me to repeat that before it sinks in.

We already enforce the law the best we can retard. There is too many of them and we don't have enough manpower to get them all. It is not complicated.

As of July 2012, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration — that’s 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported every month, according to official numbers from the Department of Homeland Security

J Diddy
01-29-2013, 04:48 PM
The only one using the phrase "round them up" is you lefty libs who are looking for an excuse to not enforce the law.

I'll speak slowly this time: enforce the laws in place and they won't have a reason to stay. You know like needing to be a citizen to work and collect government benefits. Let me know how many times you need me to repeat that before it sinks in.

Or maybe the rich business owners could quit giving them jobs without green cards....

RedNeckRaider
01-29-2013, 05:03 PM
Or maybe the rich business owners could quit giving them jobs without green cards....

This is the problem. Rich down to startup business owners hire these workers. If you start punishing those who hire illegal workers no round up is needed. No jobs this problem gets smaller quickly. We have to be realistic on dealing with many who were born here and grew up here with parents here illegally. Control the boarder cut off the jobs and suddenly we have a manageable problem to deal with~

donkhater
01-29-2013, 05:18 PM
That's a fair question and one I don't have an answer to other than hopefully the illegals don't get the lazy gene once they are able to work legally.

At least you acknowledge the conundrum. I wasn't being snarky. I've never really heard anyone come up with a good answer for that question.

Direckshun
01-31-2013, 06:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/worried-about-the-economy-then-pass-immigration-reform/

Worried about the economy? Then pass immigration reform
Posted by Ezra Klein
on January 31, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Washington tends to have a narrow view of what counts as “economic policy.” Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any stimulus we pass, or any deficit reduction we try. But most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy.

The truth is, the most important piece of economic policy we pass — or don’t pass — in 2013 may be something we don’t think of as economic policy at all: immigration reform.

Congress certainly doesn’t consider it economic policy, at least not officially. Immigration laws go through the House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy: About a 10th of the U.S. population is foreign-born. More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a foreign-born founder. One-quarter of all U.S.-based Nobel laureates of the past 50 years were foreign born. Right now, about half of the PhDs working in science and technology are foreign born.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/pstents-and-businesses-immigrants.jpg

Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts, and while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, there’s little dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them.

The economic case for immigration is best made by way of analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly conventional view of Japan. It’s even conventional wisdom about the U.S. The retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall from 5 to 1 today to 3 to 1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy.

There’s nothing controversial about that analysis. But if that’s not controversial, then immigration shouldn’t be, either. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks — at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here.

From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might not.

Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more immigration. If you’re worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution you’ll find.

Politicians of both parties recognize this. “Our goal is to advance policies that make a difference in peoples’ lives, and that means we want to advance pro-growth reforms that are good for the economy,” Republican Rep. Paul Ryan said at a recent Wall Street Journal breakfast. The first pro-growth reform he named? Immigration.

Many immigration opponents lodge a moral objection to “amnesty” — allowing people who broke the law to reap the benefits of legal status. That’s beyond the scope of this particular column. The main economic concern about allowing more immigration or legalizing the status of those who are already here is that immigrants will undermine the wages of the least-skilled Americans. In reality, it’s not clear that will happen.

In addition to growing the size of the national pie, unskilled immigrants tend to have what economists call complementary skills to U.S. workers. If one worker speaks English and another doesn’t, for example, they generally don’t pursue the same job.

In that way, it’s useful again to compare immigration with native birth rates. Increasing the number of native-born workers leads to more direct competition, because two native-born workers are probably more similar than an immigrant and a native worker. Yet most everyone cheers if they hear that the U.S. birth rate has ticked up.

Some workers are hurt by immigration, but they are typically already struggling. The best way to help them is with more training, better health care, a more generous earned income tax credit and so on. Those benefits are easier to provide in a growing economy with more young workers than in a sluggish one with chronic budget deficits. Immigration isn’t what really ails them, and it isn’t what stands in the way of aiding them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/immigrant-social-services.jpg

Will immigrants use those same social services, as some immigration opponents contend, adding to the cost of the nation’s welfare state? Yes, but not as often as they’ll pay into it. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the issue while assessing President George W. Bush’s proposed immigration reforms. It found that legalizing undocumented immigrants would increase federal revenue by $48 billion while costing only $23 billion in increased public services — and that’s before accounting for the broader economic benefits of immigration.

There are few free lunches in public policy. But taking advantage of our unique position as a country where the world’s best, brightest and hardest-working desperately want to live is surely one. In the end, economies aren’t mainly about budgets and tax codes, though Congress occasionally pretends otherwise. They’re about workers and business owners. Immigration reform is a way to get more of both.

Direckshun
01-31-2013, 06:13 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/how-long-is-the-immigration-line-as-long-as-24-years/

How long is the immigration ‘line’? As long as 24 years.
Posted by Suzy Khimm
on January 31, 2013 at 10:46 am

Both President Obama and the Senate’s Gang of Eight agree: If undocumented immigrants want to get legal status, they’ll have to “get in the back of the line” of those who’ve already gone through legal channels to immigrate to this country. But what is this line? And exactly how long is it?

There’s no one line. There are many lines with wait times that vary wildly depending on the type of green card that a prospective immigrant is applying for, the number of visas available and his or her country of origin: For those applying for work visas because of their “extraordinary ability,” including high-ranking professors and international business executives, there is virtually no wait time. By contrast, a brother or sister of a U.S. citizen from the Philippines applying for a family-sponsored visas may have been waiting 24 years, as those visas have been oversubscribed, according to the State Department’s latest figures.

“There are so many different lines. It’s very hard for people to understand that there are so many different categories and that each wait time is different,” says Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Council. As of November, there were 4.3 million people on the wait list for family-based visas and 113,058 waiting for employment-based visas — nearly 4.5 million in the overall backlog. (There are also about 41,000 “diversity” visas allocated to those from countries with low admission rates.)

Despite the huge demand, however, the government routinely doesn’t even give out all of the visas allocated in any given year, partly because of bureaucratic delays. According to the law, any pending visa that isn’t closed out in a given fiscal year is “lost,” and it must be counted toward the next year’s allocation, explains Angelo Paparelli, a California-based immigration lawyer at Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Democrats have been pushing to recapture the visas that were “lost” to bureaucratic delays, which could amount to hundreds of thousands of additional visas, by some estimates.

All this has created a lot of pressure to reform the legal immigration system, from employers who’ve been clamoring to hire more immigrant workers, particularly in the STEM fields, as well as from families who’ve been split apart for years. What’s more, the exceedingly long wait times have also fueled (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700049081/Long-immigration-waits-show-why-some-come-illegally.html?pg=all) illegal immigration, either because immigrants come without authorization or overstay their visas while they wait in line.

This has led to considerable consensus between the parties about which reforms are necessary, but there’s less consensus on how, specifically, to remake the system. Both parties want to make it easier for business (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2012/06/15/green-card-problems-growing-worse-for-skilled-immigrants/) to hire high-skilled immigrant workers. But where President Obama also has proposed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/read-president-obamas-immigration-proposal/) eliminating country-based caps for employment-based visas and raising the country caps for family-based visas, Republicans has been less warm to such ideas: Senate Democrats recently eliminated the proposed recapture of visas for battered women in a recent bill as a concession to Republicans, for instance. And the bipartisan Senate gang so far discusses (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/read-senators-release-their-plan-for-immigration-reform/?wprss=rss_business) the need to reduce the backlog only in the most general terms.

Legislators are also raising the stakes for fixing the legal immigration system by tying it directly to the fate of undocumented immigrants: Unless the line of legal immigration speeds up, the illegal immigrants will be languishing without citizenship, as well. While more resources could help cut some of the red tape slowing down the process, such measures alone wouldn’t be enough to reduce the backlog in a meaningful way, says Giovagnoli. “At some level, you can’t speed it up if Congress doesn’t have more visas.”

Immigration advocates worry that the promise of citizenship could end up being “in name only” for some undocumented immigrants. ”Instead of dying in the desert, they might just die waiting to become permanent residents,” concludes Paparelli.

Direckshun
02-06-2013, 10:54 AM
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/02/06/majority_support_for_most_immigration_reforms.html

Majority Support for Most Immigration Reforms

A new Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160307/americans-widely-support-immigration-reform-proposals.aspx) finds "at least two-thirds of Americans favor each of five specific measures designed to address immigration issues -- ranging from 68% who would vote for increased government spending on security measures and enforcement at U.S. borders, to 85% who would vote for a requirement that employers verify the immigration status of all new hires. More than seven in 10 would vote for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants now living in this country."

Meanwhile, a new ABC News-Washington Post poll (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/poll-finds-a-boost-for-obama-on-handling-immigration/#.URJIVn-fFRg.twitter) finds public approval of President Obama's handling of immigration has jumped to a career high "buttressed by majority support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and, much more broadly, endorsement of stricter border control."

Direckshun
02-06-2013, 12:26 PM
The GOP can't help but do it to themselves.

Residency, but not citizenship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/house-gop-explores-immigration-changes-short-of-citizenship.html?_r=0

House G.O.P. Open to Residency for Illegal Immigrants
By ASHLEY PARKER
Published: February 5, 2013

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday staked out what they cast as a middle-ground option in the debate over immigration, pushing an approach that could include legal residency but not a path to citizenship — as their Democratic counterparts favor — for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

Republicans also signaled that they are open to the idea of breaking immigration legislation into several smaller bills, which would allow them to deal with the question of highly skilled workers, as well as a farmworker program, without addressing what Democrats and immigration advocates say is the larger issue of potential citizenship. Immigration advocates favor a comprehensive measure to enable them to use elements that have bipartisan backing to build support for broader legislation.

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing exploring an overhaul of the immigration system — the first of several such hearings expected in the House — Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the committee, tried to frame what he called the question of the day: “Are there options that we should consider between the extremes of mass deportation and a pathway to citizenship for those not lawfully present in the United States?”

It was a question later echoed by Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and the former chairman of the committee, when questioning Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio. “Do you see any compromise area between the current status quo and a path to citizenship for virtually all the 11 million who are illegal immigrants in the country today?” he asked.

Mr. Castro, whose twin brother, Representative Joaquín Castro, is a newly elected Democrat from Texas, said he saw the compromise as “a recognition that a path to citizenship will be earned citizenship,” meaning that illegal immigrants would be forced to learn English, and pay fines and back taxes before they could become citizens.

Representative Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama, turned to the question of how to approach an overhaul of the system when he said he thought the panelists could all agree that “it’s going to be a much easier lift to solve the problem of highly skilled workers.”

“When you take comprehensive, then we’re dealing with certain issues like full citizenship,” Mr. Bachus said. “And whatever else we disagree on, I think we would agree on that that’s a more toxic and contentious issue, granting full amnesty.”

But Representative Cedric L. Richmond, Democrat of Louisiana, countered that the only way to tackle immigration is through comprehensive legislation. “Why don’t we just get the skilled labor part done first?” Mr. Richmond asked. “Well, politically, and just being very practical about it, if we got the skilled labor part done first, do you think we would ever come behind it and finish the job? I think it has to be a comprehensive approach or we’ll never get to the hard part.”

Immigration advocates, who had been eagerly awaiting the hearing for an early hint of the tenor of the debate on immigration as it unfolds in the House, said the use of the word “amnesty” would most likely be a bad sign for those in favor of a comprehensive overhaul.

Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, tried to set the tone early — “I hope no one uses the term ‘illegal immigrants’ here today,” he said in his opening remarks. But the a-word, as immigration advocates have called “amnesty,” came up twice. In addition to Mr. Bachus, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also used the phrase: “This is not our country’s first foray into amnesty.” He expressed concern for “respect for the rule of law.”

Meanwhile, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, used a speech on his legislative priorities beyond the fights over deficit reduction to try to soften his party’s position on immigration. Speaking at a research group downtown, he explicitly embraced offering illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children a pathway to legal residency and citizenship, a position he had opposed. And he endorsed in broad terms a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

“I’m pleased these discussions make border security, employment verification and creating a workable guest worker program an immediate priority. It’s the right thing to do for our families, for our security, and for our economy,” Mr. Cantor said. But he warned, “There are some who would rather avoid fixing the problem in order to save this as a political issue.”

Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho, also challenged immigration advocates on the question of a political versus policy victory.

“If we want a political solution, you guys are going to insist on a pathway to citizenship,” he said. “You’re going to beat Republicans over the head on this issue. But if we want a policy solution, I think there’s good will here in the House of Representatives for us to come together, actually pass a pragmatic solution to the current problem that we have, and solve and modernize the immigration system for years to come.”

In a flurry of immigration legislation offered in recent days in the House, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would allow American citizens with foreign-born same-sex spouses or partners to obtain permanent resident visas, known as green cards, for them. Mr. Nadler’s proposal would allow a well-established same-sex couple to apply for a green card, avoiding any direct challenge to a federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.

Direckshun
02-06-2013, 12:35 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/06/obama-makes-immigration-comeback/

Obama makes immigration comeback
Posted by Scott Clement and Aaron Blake
on February 6, 2013 at 7:00 am

Americans have given President Obama a major ratings boost on immigration as he and Congress debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/partisan-cracks-appear-early-in-house-immigration-debate/2013/02/05/17571e1c-6fae-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html) the biggest immigration reforms in decades, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/06/National-Politics/Polling/release_200.xml).

By 49 to 43 percent, slightly more Americans now approve than disapprove of Obama on immigration. In July, Obama was deep underwater, with just 38 percent offering positive ratings and 52 percent negative.

Even after the shift, though, Obama’s immigration marks continue to trail his overall approval rating, which stood at 55 percent in a January Post-ABC poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20130113.html).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/02/Obama-approval-on-immigration-issues1.jpg

In addition, two key elements of current reform discussions receive even broader support than Obama: 83 percent support stricter border security, and 55 percent back a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

So is the poll just another indicator of Obama’s post-election bounce, or is something deeper afoot in attitudes about immigration? The poll finds evidence for both claims.

Obama’s overall job approval rating received a five-percentage-point bump since October, and there is little reason to believe immigration played much of a role in driving that up, given the fact that the “fiscal cliff” negotiations and gun control dominated the political zeitgeist from November to early January.

But perhaps most noteworthy is that fact that Obama’s solid-but-not-spectacular ratings mark a major change in how Americans have rated recent presidents — Republican or Democrat — on immigration. George W. Bush’s approval ratings on immigration ranged from just 29 percent to 34 percent in Post-ABC polls from 2004 to 2007, and Bill Clinton earned just a 28 percent approval on immigration in a 1994 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, after which pollsters stopped asking that question.

The paltry assessments appear to be rooted in a long-running dissatisfaction with the federal government’s handling of illegal immigration. Three-quarters of Americans said the U.S. is “not doing enough” to stop illegal immigration in a 2010 Post-ABC poll, a result consistent with polling since 2005. It’s no surprise, then, that 83 percent in the new poll support stricter border control to reduce illegal immigration, with 64 percent supporting this “strongly.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/02/Immigration-issues3.jpg

Obama clearly tried to tap into this vein of opinion in a speech last week, touting a drop in illegal border crossings and record high deportations of criminals during his presidency.

In addition, most Americans support what has been the biggest obstacle to immigration reform — offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

While Americans tilt positive on that issue — 55 percent support a path to citizenship while 41 percent are opposed — the bigger motivator for lawmakers may be the idea’s popularity among Hispanics. More than eight in 10 Hispanics support a pathway to citizenship, while just 15 percent are opposed.

Obama won Hispanic voters by nearly 3 to 1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/) over Mitt Romney in November, but Republicans are hopeful (http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/the-hispanic-challenge-and-opportunity-for-republicans) they can connect on other issues once they deal with immigration reform.

As the debate begins, Obama appears to be already earning credit from Hispanics; 67 percent approve of him on immigration issues, while 23 percent disapprove.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted Jan. 30 to Feb. 3 among a random national sample of 1,038 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full survey is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Click here to see full results and interactive breakdowns.

Direckshun
02-06-2013, 04:12 PM
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/are-immigrants-taking-your-job-a-primer/

Are Immigrants Taking Your Job? A Primer
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
February 5, 2013, 3:51 pm

Immigration reform is back on the table (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/politics/immigration-hearings-set-to-open-in-the-house.html?hp), reviving debates about whether immigration is good or bad for American-born workers.

There are a lot of competing studies (and pundits) out there, but the general takeaway from conservative and liberal economists is that immigration is good for Americans’ living standards over the long run. That’s because immigrants raise the wages of native-born workers (and also lower the cost of immigrant-dense services like child care and cleaning).

As scholars at the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project explained (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/01/29-immigration-greenstone-looney?cid=em_es020513) recently, immigrants and native-born workers are generally complements, rather than perfect substitutes: lower-skilled immigrants largely sort into farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that the native-born don’t want to do, and higher-skilled immigrants provide labor that high-tech companies cannot find enough trained American-born workers.

As a result, immigration creates new job opportunities for the native-born, with some particularly high-profile examples found in Silicon Valley. According to a Kauffman Foundation study (http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/Then_and_now_americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf), of the engineering and technology companies founded in the United States from 2006 to 2012, 24.3 percent had at least one key founder who was foreign-born. In Silicon Valley alone, this number was 43.9 percent. Even outside of Silicon Valley, entrepreneurship rates (http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs396tot.pdf) are higher for the foreign-born than the native-born, and start-ups are the greatest source of American job growth.

Academic research suggests that, over all, immigrants create modest but positive average wage increases from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent for American workers, according to Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney, both of the Hamilton Project.

There is some disagreement about whether the wage benefits of immigration are evenly distributed among all workers, though.

The chart below was created by the Hamilton Project and is based on this 2008 study (http://www.nber.org/papers/w14188.pdf?new_window=1). It shows the results of two different economic models designed to estimate the effect that immigration from 1990 to 2006 is likely to have had on wages for American workers (after adjusting for inflation).

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/05/business/economy/economix-05immigrationwage/economix-05immigrationwage-blog480.jpg

The purple bars represent estimates based on research by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, and show that immigration may have lowered the wages of American-born high school dropouts by 4.7 percent and those of college-educated workers by 1.7 percent. The blue bars show the results of a different model, created by Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, that finds that all educational groups likely benefited to some small degree.

For more on the history of the debate over how immigration affects wages, I suggest this 2006 article from The New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html) by Roger Lowenstein.

Direckshun
02-07-2013, 08:27 AM
The good news is that Cantor has come out in support of citizenship.

Not for enough folks, however. But still, it's a crack in the armor.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/281593-dems-unimpressed-by-cantors-support-of-dream-act

House Democrats unimpressed by Cantor's support of DREAM Act
By Russell Berman
02/06/13 07:07 PM ET

LEESBURG, Va. – House Democratic leaders weren’t impressed with Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) endorsement of citizenship for undocumented immigrant students, saying the country had “moved on” and now wants comprehensive immigration reform.

“Been there, done that,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Democratic caucus and a top party leader on immigration. “We’ve moved on. I think the American people have moved on.”

In a wide-ranging policy address on Tuesday, Cantor backed the principles (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/281197-cantor-calls-for-bipartisanship-to-help-americans-make-their-lives-work-again) behind the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status and a path to citizenship to young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents.

“One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents,” Cantor said in his speech. “It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home.”

The legislation was a top Democratic priority as recently as two years ago, but after President Obama offered protection from deportation for many so-called “dreamers” in 2012 through executive action, the party has shifted to a push for a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

Speaking at the party’s annual retreat about an hour’s drive from Washington, Becerra said “it’s great that our Republican colleagues are catching up,” but he insisted they go further. “So I hope that they’re going to put on fast forward on the Republican side when it comes to dealing with immigration reform,” Becerra said. “If the playing field for them is, ‘DREAM Act is a good idea,’ that’s yesterday’s news.”

While the DREAM Act is expected to be included in any broad reform, the caucus vice chairman, Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), said the president’s action last year had largely resolved the issue. “The heavy-lifting was done by the president, and somehow my Republican colleagues want to take credit for what was done already,” he said.

Still, both Becerra and Crowley said they were encouraged by the willingness of Republican leaders to consider more comprehensive reform. The Democrats had a panel on the issue on Wednesday, and it is expected to be a prime topic of discussion throughout their retreat.

King_Chief_Fan
02-07-2013, 12:33 PM
Or maybe the rich business owners could quit giving them jobs without green cards....

or those guys who make false documents would could quit making them so the rich business owners dont hire them.

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 12:56 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/10/1567121/mccain-goes-after-conservative-opponents-of-immigration-reform-what-do-you-want-to-do/?mobile=nc

McCain Goes After Conservative Opponents Of Immigration Reform: ‘What Do You Want To Do?’
By Igor Volsky
on Feb 10, 2013 at 10:00 am

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded to critics of the bipartisan immigration principles developed by eight senators and pushed back against conservatives who argue that undocumented immigrants should not be granted a legal status until the borders are completely secure.

Under the bipartisan agreement, unauthorized immigrants who pass a background check can qualify for probationary status as soon as reform becomes law, but can only achieve permanent legal status (and eventual citizenship) once the borders are certified as secure by the Department of Homeland Security. McCain explained that the principles he helped develop are fair and would require immigrants to pay substantial fines and back taxes if they want to attain legal status:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Under your plan, though [undocumented immigrants] wouldn’t get the path to citizenship until you got the border enforcement certification, they would almost immediately gate what is called “probationary legal status” which means they can continue to live in this country legally. Some of your critics on the right are saying that is amnesty.

McCAIN: Well, I don’t think it is amnesty to start with. Second of all, what do you want to do with them? That is the question in response and third of all, it is a tough path to citizenship, you have to pay back tax and learn English and have to have a clear record and get to the back of the line behind to the people who have come here legally or waiting legally. So, I just reject that.

Conservative pundits like Laura Ingraham and Charles Krauthammer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-immigration--getting-it-right/2013/01/31/ee05f716-6bdb-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html), and conservative members of the House have led the charge in demanding that the borders be secured before unauthorized immigrants can come out of the shadows and work legally. However, as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — on of the leaders of the group of eigh — explained, doing so would only encourage a rush of immigration, as more will try to come into the country under the deadline.

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 01:01 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282121-cantor-initial-efforts-on-immigration-reform-should-focus-on-the-children

Cantor: Initial efforts on immigration reform should focus on children
By Cameron Joseph
02/10/13 12:09 PM ET

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Sunday that Congress should begin to address immigration reform by looking at legislation to legalize those brought to the U.S. children.

"The best place to begin I think is with the children. Let's go ahead and get that under our belt, put a win on the board so we can promise a better life for those kids who are here due to no fault of their own," Cantor said on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

Cantor said sounded an optimistic note on the prospects for immigration reform, saying that here is "a lot of movement" in both chambers of Congress. He added that it was important to "balance" the need for heightened border security with compassion towards those who are here illegally.

But Cantor cautioned that Congress should first move forward by dealing with undocumented children, rather than waiting to address with immigration in a comprehensive package.

When asked if that meant he supported the DREAM Act, Cantor said he didn't know the current status of the bill, but said he supported its underlying principles.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the architect of the DREAM Act and one of the bipartisan "gang of eight" senators pushing a framework for comprehensive immigration reform, disagreed with Cantor's approach during a later appearance on the show.

"The DREAM Act means more to me than I can express. I've met these young people. But they will tell you, 'Yes I want a future, but what about my mom and dad.' They understand full well that these family structures are critically important to the future of America," Durbin said. "In the Senate we have a bipartisan goal of a pathway to citizenship. Not stopping at the DREAM Act, beginning at the DREAM Act and pushing forward."

Durbin also pointed out that Cantor had opposed the DREAM Act repeatedly since Durbin introduced it 12 years ago.

Cantor had voted against DREAM Act legislation in the past, but last week he said he supported those measures in a speech geared toward rebranding the GOP’s image.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 02:11 PM
I'm late to the party here, but isn't there zero immigration now into the USA since Obama took over the economy?


At any rate we don't have to "do" anything with illegal immigrants. They don't have to leave, nor do they have to be legalized. Why do we need to "do" anything at all? Is there some reason why action must be taken? Is action needed to benefit me or my family?


Because I fail to see how anything here would impact me or my family and since that's the case, why "solve" it?

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 02:38 PM
I'm late to the party here, but isn't there zero immigration now into the USA since Obama took over the economy?

Link?

At any rate we don't have to "do" anything with illegal immigrants. They don't have to leave, nor do they have to be legalized. Why do we need to "do" anything at all? Is there some reason why action must be taken? Is action needed to benefit me or my family?

Because I fail to see how anything here would impact me or my family and since that's the case, why "solve" it?

Because, and I could be wrong about this, there is more to the country than you and your family.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 05:26 PM
I thought "all politics is local"? Guess not. I am still wondering how amnesty benefits me. Does it? The only thing I can see good or bad about it is it adds millions of poor Democrat voters to the election role. Therefore I'd surmise that the 49.7% of Americans who voted Rwpublican in their local House vote would be damaged by it.

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 07:24 PM
I am still wondering how amnesty benefits me. Does it? The only thing I can see good or bad about it is it adds millions of poor Democrat voters to the election role. Therefore I'd surmise that the 49.7% of Americans who voted Rwpublican in their local House vote would be damaged by it.

There have been at least two links in this thread that explain how immigration reform would add to the economy.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 07:41 PM
There have been at least two links in this thread that explain how immigration reform would add to the economy.

Did they reference the way they harm te economy, such as worker displacement, increased social costs I.e. cops, and the enormous unfunded liability they represent to social security/Medicare?


Of course not. You only post "studies" that you like. None that you don't. There are pluses & minuses to every policy so start listing the minuses. Because you know there will be some.

Direckshun
02-11-2013, 09:37 PM
Interesting angle. Hadn't considered it...

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/281605-foreign-governments-lobby-hard-in-favor-of-immigration-reform

Foreign governments lobbying hard in favor of immigration reform
By Julian Pecquet
02/07/13 05:00 AM ET

Foreign governments are working hard to shape the debate on immigration reform as momentum for a comprehensive bill builds in Congress.

While the issue routinely comes up in talks between foreign leaders and the executive branch, embassy officials are ramping up their outreach to Congress and the White House in order to take advantage of the best hope for reform in years.

A number of countries with significant immigration ties to the United States — notably Mexico, Ireland and several Central American nations — have been making their concerns known while doing their best to avoid meddling in domestic affairs.

For many countries, the issue goes beyond humanitarian concern: Remittances from foreign nationals living in the U.S. provide a significant boost to the economies of their home countries.

Remittances to El Salvador, one of the countries most interested in reform, accounted for almost 17.4 percent of the country’s economy in 2010, according to RemittancesGateway.org.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a leader on immigration reform, said he’d had “conversations over time with a number” of ambassadors about immigration reform. He said he didn’t see any reason not to listen to anyone with “good ideas.”

“They all are extremely diplomatic in how they go about talking about this,” Becerra said. “But it’s no hidden secret that it’s important for a lot of these ambassadors and their governments to see comprehensive immigration reform pass.”

Mexico’s new ambassador to the U.S., Eduardo Medina-Mora, has had “a number of meetings with the administration” where the issue of immigration has come up since he took office last month, said a Mexican official familiar with the process.

He is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form.

“Probably like no other country, we are a player in this particular issue,” the source said. “If we have the need to say something, we will do so, but with the utmost respect to the domestic politics.”

An estimated 7 million Mexicans in the country illegally stand to benefit from reform.

While Mexico has adopted a wait-and-see attitude, other countries have specific changes they hope to see in the law. However, they’re happy to do so discreetly — letting American groups take the lead.

That’s the case with El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, three countries whose citizens have long been eligible for a temporary immigration status first offered in the wake of the civil wars of the 1980s.

The countries hope that immigration reform will include a path to permanent legal status, and eventually citizenship, for the estimated 300,000 or so Central Americans who are in the United States under the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, which is up for renewal periodically.

The Salvadoran embassy has requested updated data from U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services, said Maryland state Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D), a Salvadoran-American immigration activist.

The embassy reached out to other embassies to do the same in order to get a better sense of how many Central Americans currently benefit from the program. El Salvador is believed to have about 210,000 of its citizens currently in the U.S. under the program.

“We just need to be able to say, ‘These are the people we want to be first in line because they’ve already been here,’ ” Gutierrez said. “First of all, they have to pass background checks every 18 months, they have to pay taxes, they’ve been here with a legal status.

“They’ve stepped up. They’ve followed the law. They’ve been paying. And yet they’re stuck.”

Gutierrez said she’s met recently with Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and Felicia Escobar, the senior policy adviser for immigration at the White House Domestic Policy Council.

Gutierrez said money is a principal driver of the foreign governments’ interest in immigration reform.

“Of course the reason embassies would be interested is these are the people who have been working and sending remittances home,” she said. “And because they have a legal work permit and because they’re paying taxes and they have driver’s licenses, they are a lot more stable — and have access to better jobs — than the undocumented.”

Total remittances to El Salvador in 2010 were $3.6 billion in 2010.

For Mexico, the figure was $22.7 billion, or 2.1 percent of GDP.

TPS reform is not included in the principles of the White House immigration reform proposal, Gutierrez said.

However, Becerra and Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) both told The Hill that they want it to be included in comprehensive legislation.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Salvadoran Ambassador Francisco Altschul publicly weighed in with an emailed statement to The Hill.

“Although defining immigration reform is solely the responsibility of the U.S. political system, we share and support the idea,” he said.

Salvadorans with TPS status “should be considered prominently in this immigration reform because they have been living legally in this country for more than 10 years, create jobs, generate wealth, and do not pose any threat to public safety,” Altschul said.

Altschul estimated that Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries “have paid more than $602 million in registration fees since 2001, and that they pay approximately $0.8 billion in taxes every year.”

Other countries are acting to preserve their historic bonds with the United States.

Ireland, in particular, has pressed for years for a path for legalization for the 50,000 Irish who are in the country illegally.

Ambassador Michael Collins brought the issue to the attention of Rep. Gutiérrez during a meeting Tuesday on Capitol Hill.

“Congressman Gutiérrez is a great friend of Ireland,” the embassy told The Hill. “Ambassador Collins was delighted to meet with him [Tuesday] for a discussion about U.S. immigration issues, on which the congressman is a key figure.”

And Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore told the Irish Parliament on Tuesday that he will “hold a series of telephone discussions with key U.S. senators over the coming days” about the issue.

Immigration is also expected to be high on the agenda when Irish leaders make their annual visit to the United States for St. Patrick’s Day, on March 17, an embassy source said. Ireland also hopes to be eligible for a greater number of immigrant visas allowing the Irish to stay and work in the country legally.

Cmd'r&Chief
02-11-2013, 10:13 PM
Whatever it takes to get these illegal mexifucks out of here I'm for. Add fining businesses several thousand dollars for every illegal they hire and we'll have a plan

Prison Bitch
02-11-2013, 11:20 PM
Whatever it takes to get these illegal mexi****s out of here I'm for. Add fining businesses several thousand dollars for every illegal they hire and we'll have a plan


You'll have to find a 3rd Party to go vote for, then.

Direckshun
02-20-2013, 09:12 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50864176#.USUEuGfYuH-

McCain defends immigration plan to angry residents
By CRISTINA SILVA
updated 2/19/2013 8:45:29 PM ET 2013-02-20T01:45:29

PHOENIX — Arizona took center stage in the national immigration debate Tuesday as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano toured the state's border with Mexico and Sen. John McCain defended his proposed immigration overhaul to an angry crowd in suburban Phoenix.

The presence of the top officials is the latest sign that Arizona will play a prominent role in the immigration debate as President Barack Obama looks to make it a signature issue of his second term.

Napolitano toured the border near Nogales with the highest-ranking official at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the incoming chairman of the Senate's homeland security committee and an Arizona congressman. Napolitano, Arizona's former governor, said afterward that comprehensive immigration reform will strengthen the nation's border against criminals and other threats.

Also Tuesday, McCain hosted two town hall meetings in Arizona, during which he defended his immigration plan to upset residents concerned about border security. A bipartisan group of senators — including Arizona Republicans McCain and Jeff Flake — want assurances on border security as Congress weighs what could be the biggest changes to immigration law in nearly 30 years. Arizona is the only state with both of its senators working on immigration reform in Congress, a sign of the state's widely debated border security issues.

Immigration activists and elected officials say it's only natural for Arizona to continue to take the forefront in the national conversation on immigration after years of internal debate on the topic.

"No state in this country has had more experience with enforcement-only immigration laws than Arizona," said Todd Landfried, executive director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, which opposes the state's tough immigration laws.

During a heated town hall gathering in the Phoenix suburb of Sun Lakes, McCain said the border near Yuma is largely secure, but he said smugglers are using the border near Tucson to pump drugs into Phoenix. He said immigration reform should be contingent on better border security that must rely largely on technology able to detect border crossings.

McCain said a tamper-proof Social Security card would help combat identity fraud, and noted any path to citizenship must require immigrants to learn English, cover back taxes and pay fines for breaking immigration laws.

"There are 11 million people living here illegally," he said. "We are not going to get enough buses to deport them."

Some audience members shouted out their disapproval.

One man yelled that only guns would discourage illegal immigration. Another man complained that illegal immigrants should never be able to become citizens or vote. A third man said illegal immigrants were illiterate invaders who wanted free government benefits.

McCain urged compassion. "We are a Judeo-Christian nation," he said. McCain's other town hall meeting took place in Green Valley, south of Tucson.

Arizona gained international recognition as an epicenter of the U.S. immigration debate when it passed its tough anti-immigrant law in 2010. A handful of other states — including Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have since adopted variations of Arizona's law.

Arizona has the nation's eighth-highest population of illegal immigrants, according to the Pew Research Hispanic Center. In 2010, illegal immigrants represented roughly 6 percent of the state's population.

Activists said Arizona's anti-immigrant laws inspired many illegal immigrants to demand more rights. Last week, some college students rallied outside Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's office for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

"They no longer are afraid to come and say, 'I am not able to vote, but I can make my voice heard, and they have to listen to me,'" said community organizer Abril Gallardo.

A report released in January showed the U.S. Border Patrol's Tucson sector remains the busiest along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tucson sector accounted for 38 percent of all drug seizures and 37 percent of all apprehensions along the border.

Brewer said last week the border cannot be declared safe until the people living near it feel secure from drug and human trafficking.

But Democratic Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona told Latino and black community leaders at a Phoenix luncheon Tuesday that Arizonans need to spread the word on how much more secure the border has become.

"There are lots of folks who don't live in Arizona who have no idea what the border is like," Sinema said.

Napolitano toured the border Tuesday afternoon with U.S. Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar, Democratic Rep. Ron Barber of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware. Carper is the incoming chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

She said in a statement after the tour that border crossings are down 50 percent since 2008 and 78 percent since their peak in 2000.

2bikemike
02-20-2013, 10:29 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/20/17035190-majority-of-americans-believe-illegal-immigrants-should-be-deported?lite

By Rachelle Younglai, Reuters

WASHINGTON — More than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system.

The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.

Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.

Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.

These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

"It's not Americans' views that are shifting. It is that the political climate is ripe for this discussion," after the November election when Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic President Barack Obama, she said.

"Democrats feel that the time is right to capitalize on their wins and Republicans feel that they had a bad blow and are eager to reach out to Hispanics," she added.

Polls show that most Americans back immigration reform, although they often have different ideas of what that means, with some people favoring looser immigration laws while others want to see greater border security.

A group of eight U.S. senators are working on a bipartisan deal to enact immigration reform, the first major attempt since a similar overhaul died in Congress six years ago.

The senators' proposal calls for a full path to citizenship for illegal immigrants once they pay back taxes and a fine and wait in line behind others applying to become Americans.

A plan by Obama has similar provisions, but the senators want any move to relax immigration laws dependant on boosting security on the southern border.

Attitudes toward immigration are polarized by party, according to another the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Seventy-five percent of Republicans think all or most immigrants should be deported, compared to 40 percent of Democrats who think the same.

Republican Senator John McCain, one of the eight senators in the group, had his own encounter with citizens angered by illegal immigration on Tuesday when residents of his state of Arizona complained bitterly at a town hall meeting about the lack of security on the border with Mexico.

One man asked why troops had not been deployed to the border.

"Why didn't the army go down there and stop them? Because the only thing that stops them I'm afraid to say, and it's too damn bad, is a gun," the man said.

Another resident, Keith Smith, got into a testy exchange with McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate whose views on immigration have fluctuated over the years.

"Cut off their welfare and all their stuff and they'll go back," Smith said, referring to undocumented workers.

McCain had been trying to explain his position: "You're not telling these people the truth. They mow our lawns, they care for our babies, they clean ... that's what those people do," he said.

The Arizona lawmaker, whose position on immigration hardened during the 2010 midterm elections before softening again, is a key part of the Republican side of the senators' bipartisan immigration effort.

Wednesday's Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted Friday through Tuesday and surveyed 1,443 Americans over the age of 18.

The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online poll is measured using a credibility interval. In this survey, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix

Direckshun
02-21-2013, 09:04 AM
Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/if-no-deal-is-struck-four-in-ten-say-let-the-sequester-happen/):

Immigration: Plurality Favors Border Security and Path to Citizenship

Nearly half (47%) say the priority for illegal immigration is better border security, stronger law enforcement and creating a way for people here illegally to become citizens if they meet certain requirements. Just a quarter (25%) favors an enforcement-only approach while an identical percentage says the focus should only be on a so-called path to citizenship. The percentage favoring a dual approach to immigration policy has risen modestly since June, from 42% to 47%.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws should be the bigger priority, while Democrats are more likely to want the focus to be on creating a way for illegal immigrants already here to become citizens if they meet certain requirements.

Obama holds a sizable advantage over congressional Republicans on immigration. Half (50%) say that Obama has a better approach to dealing with immigration, compared with 33% who say congressional Republicans have a better approach. Obama’s job approval in handling the nation’s immigration policy, in negative territory for most of his presidency, also has improved.

Currently, about as many approve (44%) as disapprove (43%) of Obama’s handling of immigration policy; in seven surveys since 2009, far more disapproved than approved. Hispanics, in particular, are much more positive about Obama’s job performance on immigration: 63% approve currently, up from just 28% in November 2011.

In short:

http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/02/2-21-13-5.png

Direckshun
02-21-2013, 09:39 AM
Sounds about right.

http://www.mathofpolitics.com/2013/02/17/immigration-reform-you-do-it-so-i-dont-have-to-really/

Immigration Reform: You do it…So I Don’t Have To…Really.
by admin
Posted on February 17, 2013

The US Senate is currently considering immigration reform (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&cad=rja&ved=0CHkQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fsenate%2F279539-senators-forge-deal-on-immigration-reform&ei=AyMhUdHJCcn8iwL9lYDoDA&usg=AFQjCNEMK4fk2CuKjCzz177_uYoKmkulpQ&sig2=JqAh28SIKgInnk9ans4Tuw), with a bipartisan group of Senators working toward a compromise on one of the higher profile post-election issues. At the same time, the Obama Administration has been preparing its own plan (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CF0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2013%2F02%2F17%2Freport-bill-would-set-8-year-path-to-residency%2F&ei=GyEhUdeTKKirigKtyYCYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEVvS83-JVraUi739vZ52ENDx-_RA&sig2=VqyaHGcaMj6BeZXeMwhWKQ&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE), which was leaked by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/16/obama-immigration-bill/1925017/). President Obama called on Congress to address the issue in his State of the Union address, and reaction was generally positive from both sides of the aisle (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2013/02/13/12549/sotu-and-immigration-interpretations-reactions/).

The strategic situation here is a classic, but nonetheless interesting one. Immigration reform is seen as necessary by both parties. The devil is in the details. President Obama’s gambit here is to present both Democrats and Republicans in Congress with a “way out.” For example, he is speaking in generalities about reform, encouraging the notion that there is a bipartisan consensus on the broad strokes of reform, and stating that he will sign a bill if given one by Congress. These strategies allow Obama to not take a position and also allow/require Congress to construct a policy that can cover enough members’ interests to secure passage. It is notable in this regard that reform is “starting” in the Senate—this highlights the cross-cutting nature of immigration reform. On the one hand, it is always tough to get 60 votes. Starting the process in the Senate suggests that securing the votes is seen as “doable” by some, if not all, Senators.

At the same time, members of the Obama Administration are making clear that that the President will present his own legislation if Congress does not act quickly. In addition, House Democrats are publicly claiming that President Obama can act unilaterally in meaningful ways (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-that-obama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform). For example, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) is quoted as saying that, with respect to immigration reform, Obama is “not just beating the drum … he’s actually the drum major.”

Obama may or may not have the stomach to make (further) significant unilateral moves on immigration. But making the argument that he does increases the bargaining power of Democrats in Congress. In particular, if Obama does proceed unilaterally on immigration, the pretense of bipartisanship is much less valuable to him. Accordingly, Republican members of Congress who seek a say in the details of reforms must envision a tough road securing those details in a unilateral Obama-led administrative/prosecutorial immigration reform push.

In a nutshell, then, Obama’s language can be read as “I don’t have any reason to not yield on many possible specific points/details of this reform. I also don’t have any reason to fight for them. You put in the effort, you get the discretion.” This gambit is possible precisely because of the cross-cutting nature of immigration reform: many of the details are themselves not partisan “per se.” This gambit is valuable to Obama for exactly the same reason: any reforms he implements through unilateral action can–unlike statutory reform–be undone with the stroke of a pen by his successor. That, regardless of your party, isn’t real reform at all.

With that, I leave you with this (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://theimmigrants2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/3-wanted-immigrant-labor-framing.jpg&imgrefurl=http://theimmigrants2010.wordpress.com/page/2/&h=471&w=600&sz=77&tbnid=qCENwr659TrvYM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=115&zoom=1&usg=__6nUXrV79117AqSOrYnSfQTxYCUQ=&docid=rZMVb_5OQ9AEYM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HyohUe3_D6nOiwLG_YCgDg&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=228).

Direckshun
02-21-2013, 11:12 AM
The Fix (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/21/how-immigration-threatens-to-tear-the-gop-apart/):

The Republican political establishment sees immigration reform as a political necessity. Much of the party's base sees it as the end of the rule of law. And therein lies the problem for a party trying to pick itself up off the mat following an across-the-board defeat in 2012.

It's not clear how Republicans can bridge the growing divide between how the establishment views immigration (a political problem that needs to be solved yesterday) and how some significant portion of the base views it (a foundational principle about not rewarding rule-breakers).

I imagine the establishment will just plow forth with it. The potential consequences are catastrophic in the near- and intermediate-term.

Immigration reform will almost have to pass the House with a minority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats.

Prison Bitch
02-21-2013, 12:06 PM
The Fix (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/21/how-immigration-threatens-to-tear-the-gop-apart/):



I imagine the establishment will just plow forth with it. The potential consequences are catastrophic in the near- and intermediate-term.
.

I agree, it will be catastrophic in the near and immediate term to the GOP to add millions of poor Democratic voters to the rolls.

Chocolate Hog
02-21-2013, 12:19 PM
How did McCain ever win the nomination? This guy is easily one of the worst politicians the last 20 years

Otter
02-21-2013, 12:25 PM
"There are 11 million people living here illegally," he said. "We are not going to get enough buses to deport them."

You know whats funny sad? The only disingenuous pricks using the 'we don't have the resources to round them up" are the ones lobbying for amnesty. Anyone with a half a ****ing brain knows you don't have to 'round them up'. You enforce the laws and they'll leave the same way they crawled and slimed their way into the country illegally.

But please, post another bullshit graph on how adding 11 million more people to a crippled economy is going to help.

KC native
02-21-2013, 12:34 PM
You know whats funny sad? The only disingenuous pricks using the 'we don't have the resources to round them up" are the ones lobbying for amnesty. Anyone with a half a ****ing brain knows you don't have to 'round them up'. You enforce the laws and they'll leave the same way they crawled and slimed their way into the country illegally.

But please, post another bullshit graph on how adding 11 million more people to a crippled economy is going to help.

Old bitter racist is old and bitter.

KC native
02-21-2013, 12:35 PM
Whatever it takes to get these illegal mexifucks out of here I'm for. Add fining businesses several thousand dollars for every illegal they hire and we'll have a plan

Hey, fuck you.