Bi-partisan agreement reached on illegal immigrants - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 05-17-2007, 02:40 PM

Well, it seems to me that the Kennedy-McCain-Bush plan of last year has been agreed upon by the new Congress. I had heard that unions in the Democratic camp would prevent this from passing Congress, but I guess we'll see if this deal is passed in the Congess.

I took note of this part of the article: Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens.

To me, that stook out. It means that we are looking at a temporary worker program, and not amnesty. I wonder how many illegals will actually be allowed to become citizens under this plan. I still feel that I don't fully grasp the details.

Agreement reached on immigration reform - Yahoo! News

Quote:

Agreement reached on immigration reform
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer

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

The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally. The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement. "Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.

Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law." The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards. The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first. The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed. A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

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

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

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

emptypepsi · 05-17-2007, 04:08 PM

*winces*...I don't know. It looks like a fair compromise, but when D.C. looks as if it's doing something that appears flawless, there is usually a catch.

But I guess it will do for now. It's not exactly what I want, but at least they have to leave in between the times of signing up. My only concern (and this would be with any bill passed) is the enforcement. I want to know that we will actually be enforcing this, unlike last time. I'll have more to say on this after I get back on later this evening.

So long as these people do not get benefits before citizens and legal immigrants do, I'm generally happy.

emptypepsi · 05-18-2007, 11:09 AM

On a related note...

Mexicans fear U.S. immigration plan - Yahoo! News

So, let me get this straight. A divided country like the United States comes to compromise on Illegal Immigration (a very divisive issue currently) that is likely to get passed. It focuses on what the Mexican Government has been griping about, it focuses on what millions protested over: dealing with the illegals we have here now. That is what this does.

Yet here we have a story about the United States still being unfair. Jesus, I all I ever hear is this fucking "more, more, more" in regards to what we do. This is just plain emotive and stupid. (Rant warning now activated.)

We built a country here, that apparently many, many millions want to get into. Let's focus on Mexico for this instance, seeing as we hear a substantial amount of complaints from them. We made laws saying only so many immigrants per year could get in. That's considered "unfair". Right.

Tell me, what exactly in this instance did we do to the people outside, that was so unfair? I really must know (and really, I'm just aching for some wise-ass to pull out the Mexican-American War at me, as if it has any relevance to current day issues). If the land that's the United States had sunk under the sea a million years ago and the country we have today never existed, would present-day Mexicans have been better off? By building a nice country and putting immigration quotas in place, we haven't done a THING to the people south of us. Sorry, but that is that. If there was nothing here at all, they still wouldn't have been able to move north. And many of their problems would likely remain.

You have a country of your own. Don't blame us because you screwed aspects of it up. And now that you've screwed those aspects up so badly, the LAST thing we want is for you to come here and try to run ours, or dictate how we legislate anything. Even in cases where we give the benefit of the doubt, you continue this diatribe of "American injustice". What-the hell-ever. I'm sick of this endless cycle of "Give, give more, get nothing but griping back".

The problem is not that we want to take in a few hundred thousand. The problem is that they want to send millions. And please exuse me, but that's YOUR problem, not ours. You need to fix the reasons why millions want to flee your country and come to ours. We fixed it here, as the immigrations desires prove. You'll have to fix the problem there. Or else you'll always have the problem, no matter what we do.

Rant over.

Scribbler1 · 05-18-2007, 12:01 PM

It's too bad we don't have politicians on this board. My question to them would be: If they were illegal from the beginning, and they actually sign up for this, what is stopping them from disappearing again after their two years runs out?

And will we be expecting ALL illegal aliens to sign up for this, and since we don't know where they are NOW, how will we know how many signed up?

Ygorl · 05-18-2007, 12:53 PM

This won't pass.

It's another nonsense diversion.

They don't WANT to solve our illegal immigration problem.

They'll keep this up forever. Make a "new agreement" that cannot BE agreed on and back to the back burner it will go. Meantime, illegal immigrants will KEEP flooding into America.

Scribbler1 · 05-18-2007, 04:35 PM

I think it will eventually pass, but bear little to no resemblance to what they are telling US.
I can't believe Congress will cut off the supply of dirt cheap labor to the very people who fund their campaigns.

Ygorl · 05-18-2007, 05:10 PM

Here's part of why I think it's only a diversion. Purely a governmental boondoggle.

Stop the 'I Bomb' on America

Calling the new comprehensive immigration reform bill the "I Bomb," top talk-show host Michael Savage vowed to "derail this train of treason."

Said Savage in an e-mail to NewsMax.com our "Culture [is] being destroyed by greed, greed, greed.

"Bush is the chief culprit. He's wanted this from day one. In fact, we played a sound bite yesterday of him gleefully looking forward to the Democrat-controlled New Congress last Fall! At last he could push through his ultra-internationalist agenda."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chief proponent of the bill also "is now finished," he added.

"Romney is the new front-runner and will beat Hillary if he maintains his conservative positions, especially on immigration.

"I instructed my listeners to bombard Congress with millions of e-mails saying, 'No Amnesty . . . We'll Vote You Out.' I reminded them [that] we stopped the Dubai Ports Deal and we have the voting power to stop Bush from dropping the I Bomb on America.

"As of today, I think we are going to derail this train of treason. The I Bomb will be defused."

Savage: Stop the 'I Bomb' on America