Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn immigration. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn immigration. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

A great country deserves a great immigration system

Immigration reform is, at its core, a human issue.  Good policy is driven by good data, but we must never lose sight of the fact that behind every statistic there is a person – a son or a daughter, a mother or a father.  

Last weekend, as I traveled through South Texas, I met some of these people.  The stories they shared with me illustrate the humanity of the immigration debate that all sides must acknowledge.

In Rio Grande City, I met a young woman who came to Texas to escape persecution in El Salvador several years ago. She did so illegally, paying thousands of dollars to be smuggled across the border.  

The basic challenge of immigration reform will be to reconcile our compassion as Americans to the fundamental importance of the rule of law, without yielding to either.

After arriving in Texas, she fell victim to the same man she had entrusted to bring her into the country. He beat her, raped her, and forced her into a life of prostitution. For years she endured this terror and misery, until she summoned the courage to reach out for help.

By the tragic standards of illegal immigration, some would say she’s among the lucky ones. Unlike so many others, she survived the grueling trek through South Texas that has needlessly taken the lives of so many. 

For ranchers in Brooks County, some 70 miles north of the border, the sight of illegal border-crossers traversing their land is routine.  

In my short time there, I saw many.  

Even so, it is often the migrants you don’t see trudging through the brush that offer the most heart wrenching reminder of the dismal state of our immigration system.

These ranchers told me how terribly common it is to find human remains around their homes.  These are the ones who didn’t make it – the ones who fell behind and were left to do die by a smuggler who treated them like expendable chattel.  In an effort to save lives, many ranchers leave stashes of water throughout their property, but the corpses continue to accumulate at an alarming rate.  

It falls upon the Brooks County Sheriff’s Department to respectfully retire the unidentified remains.  I met with County Judge Raul Ramirez in Falfurrias, where he led me through a section of the local cemetery that has been set aside for this purpose. 

Row after row of burial mounds cover three sections of the cemetery.  At the head of each mound is a simple aluminum marker bearing a serial number, a date, and a brusque description of what lies beneath: “female skeleton,” “skull,” “bones.”

Unknown and unidentified, they lay far from home and far from the American dream that lured them across the border.  

Each grave tells a story that ends in tragedy, and collectively they tell the story of a broken immigration system and a border that is still porous.  The notion that these people died for the chance to live and work amongst us is at once humbling and horrifying.  

As Americans, we have built a great country, but we have not built the immigration system necessary to serve it.

A great country deserves a great immigration system.  This means recognizing the incentives that lead to the growing number of nameless burial mounds. It means understanding the malevolent forces that transact in human flesh.  And it means giving federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies the resources they need to save lives and uphold our laws.  

The basic challenge of immigration reform will be to reconcile our compassion as Americans to the fundamental importance of the rule of law, without yielding to either.  As a policymaker, I have a responsibility to find real solutions to these issues that are all-too-familiar to Texans.  Anything less only perpetuates this grotesque human tragedy playing out every day on American soil.

Republican John Cornyn represents Texas in the United States Senate where he serves on the Judiciary Committee. He is a former state attorney general.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013

Lawmakers begin to fine-tune immigration bill, sponsors offer a few concessions

The authors of a sweeping immigration overhaul agreed Thursday to strengthen border security provisions, while turning back efforts that would likely slow the mass legalization of illegal immigrants, as they began to fine-tune the bill in hopes of creating a product that can pass Congress. 

Lawmakers began the delicate work of amending the legislation during a lengthy Senate committee meeting on Capitol Hill. 

The process could take weeks as they cycle through roughly 300 amendments -- but it is a critical phase, as sponsors try to lure additional supporters to the bill. 

In one concession, the bipartisan authors agreed to an amendment from Republican Sen. Charles Grassley to require that new border security standards in the bill must apply to the entire southern border, not just "high-risk" sectors with the most crossings as the bill now says. 

But the bill's authors stuck together to defeat a separate Grassley amendment that would have barred anyone from seeking citizenship until the U.S.-Mexico border had been secured for six months. Supporters of the bill charged that the real effect of that provision would have been to delay citizenship indefinitely for the estimated 11 million people living here illegally. 

The fate of the immigration bill -- which would be the biggest overhaul since the 1980s -- remains unclear. While the effort has the support of prominent Republicans like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, other powerful Republicans have spoken out against it. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in a testy exchange, claimed the bill has no "teeth" when it comes to border enforcement and warned that the current version would not pass. 

Grassley claimed it merely repeats the mistakes of the past. 

"It falls short of what I want to see in a strong immigration reform bill, so you will hear me say many times that we shouldn't make the same mistakes that we made in 1986," the last time Congress passed a major immigration overhaul bill, Grassley said. "You'll hear me say many times that we ought to move ahead with a bill that does it right this time." 

Supporters of the bill countered that the legislation represents the country's best hope to change the immigration system and a chance to break through the partisanship that's riven Congress and the country. They pleaded with opponents and senators who might be wavering to give the bill a chance and try to improve it -- not just look to kill it. 

"We have come up with a fair bill where no one gets everything they want, but at the end of the day, it will mean dramatic improvement for the American economy, the American people, and will make our immigration policy much more in sync with what is good for jobs and America," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the bill's eight authors. 

The bill would toughen border security, overhaul legal immigration to allow tens of thousands of new high- and low-skilled workers into the country, require all employers to check their workers' immigration status and create a 13-year path to citizenship for the millions already here. 

The hearing room where the senators met was packed with lobbyists and immigration activists, some of whom stood with their hands clasped in prayer before the proceedings began Thursday. 

The vote on the Grassley amendment requiring six-month control of the border before unauthorized immigrants could begin to legalize their status was likely the first of several in which the Republican authors sided with committee Democrats to vote down amendments from their own side. Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also are expected to lend their votes to the Republican side to defeat Democratic amendments that could improve the bill for immigrant families but cost Republican support. 

Although the bill allows citizenship to go forward only after certain border security goals have been met, those "triggers" haven't proven convincing enough for many GOP lawmakers, and even one of the bill's authors, Rubio, has said border measures need to be stronger. Although Rubio does not sit on the Judiciary Committee, he has pushed for some changes to be accepted, and the authors of the bill who do sit on the committee were going along with some of them Thursday. 

The committee also agreed to Grassley amendments to require more auditing of money collected under the bill, and to an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to add certain forms of trafficking in persons to a the list of violent crimes that must be reported by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. 

An amendment by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to give Congress a bigger role in signing off on border security steps in the bill was defeated, again by a 12-6 vote with Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham joining the Democrats on the panel. 

Democrats have the votes to ensure the bill passes the Judiciary Committee, but from its future is less clear, especially in the House. Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who's been cautious in his public comments on how to proceed on immigration, promised Thursday that the House would act. 

"I just want to say this: the House is going to work its will on immigration reform," Boehner said at a news conference. "This is an issue that has been around far too long and needs to be dealt with. And I intend to see that it is dealt with." 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013

Immigration bill would increase Social Security trust fund

A bipartisan immigration bill pending in the Senate would strengthen the Social Security trust fund by adding millions of workers to tax rolls, and provide a boost to the overall economy, according to an analysis Wednesday by the Social Security Administration.

The finding came in a letter to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who requested the analysis, from Stephen C. Gross, chief actuary for the agency.

It could provide a boost for the immigration bill, which has been attacked by some conservatives as overly costly, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to take up the legislation for amendments and votes beginning Thursday. Meanwhile, a separate dispute loomed as religious leaders warned that adding a gay rights provision to the immigration legislation could cost their support.

Gross' analysis said the immigration bill would boost Social Security's coffers by more than $240 over the coming decade and add $64 billion in new tax revenues to Medicare. It also would increase the size of the economy by a full percentage point by 2017, and increase employment.

Gross wrote that the overall effect of the bill on the long-range trust fund balance "will be positive."

Social Security has long-term financial problems because, as more people retire and live longer, there will be relatively fewer workers paying into the system. In 1960, there were 4.9 workers paying Social Security taxes for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary, a ratio that will drop to 1.9 workers by 2035 under current law, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

The actuary's letter suggests the immigration bill would slow this trend. Under the bill, there would be nearly 6.6 million more workers paying Social Security taxes in 2024, the actuary projects. That same year, there would be an additional 683,000 people getting benefits. That's nearly 10 additional taxpayers for each new beneficiary.

The Social Security analysis is the first government analysis to quantify economic impacts from the far-reaching bill authored by Rubio and seven other senators, both Democratic and Republican.  The legislation came under attack earlier this week in a disputed report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which claimed the bill would cost $6.3 trillion over 50 years as newly legalized immigrants consume government benefits without paying an equal amount in taxes.

The Social Security analysis doesn't attempt to determine the overall cost of the bill. That figure will be provided by the Congressional Budget Office, which has not yet released its projections.

But the analysis does measures some impacts of the bill, which aims to secure the border, create new avenues for workers to come legally to the U.S., ensure employers don't hire workers here without legal status, and give a path to citizenship to the millions already here illegally.

The analysis finds that of about 11.5 million immigrants here illegally who would be eligible under the bill, around 8 million would apply for and be granted legal status. Many would immediately become taxpayers, but the bill prevents them from receiving government benefits for over a decade.

In the longer term most of these new taxpayers would eventually receive benefits, but the actuary said he still expects the bill to improve the long-term health of Social Security.

The analysis also said that provisions in the bill would reduce by about a half-million per year the future number of people entering the country illegally.

On the gay rights issue, religious leaders issued a warning Wednesday about the impact on the immigration bill if Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., moves forward with an amendment to allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for U.S. residence like straight married Americans can.

"We're extremely hopeful that this bill will remain an immigration bill and not get tangled up with the issue of gay rights," Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told reporters on a conference call. "But if it did, if it did, the Southern Baptist Convention would not be able to support the bill."

Other religious leaders on the call echoed Land's warnings. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, labeled the gay rights provision "a divisive distraction that must not derail immigration reform."

Rubio and the three other Republican authors of the immigration bill have said that such a provision could cost their support and kill the bill.
  "If that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support," Rubio said last week in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

If Leahy were to offer a gay marriage amendment, attention would turn to Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to see whether they would support it. Schumer and Durbin are among Democratic authors of the bill and both sit on Leahy's committee. Both have expressed support for Leahy's goals on the gay marriage issue without saying how they would vote on his amendment.

Gay rights groups are lobbying aggressively for the gay marriage language to be included and they dispute suggestions that it would jeopardize the bill.

"It's not something that should be considered a poison pill or a hot potato," said Gregory T. Angelo, who runs the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans.

"There are 11 states and the District of Columbia that recognize relationships between committed same-sex couples," Angelo said in an interview. "These are individuals who are here legally, who are in marriages and who are denied the rights of their straight counterparts."

President Barack Obama included a provision recognizing gay partnerships in his own immigration bill, but he has made it clear in recent comments that the Senate measure meets his criteria for an immigration overhaul, even without the provision.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 4, 2013

Immigration officials holding two fellow students of Boston bombing suspect

  • Dzhokahar Times Square.jpg

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and older brother Tamerlan reportedly planned to drive to NYC after their deadly Boston attack to detonate devices in Times Square, which Dzhokhar visited earlier with friends. None of the others pictured here are suspected of being involved in the Tsarnaevs’ plot. Dias Kadyrbayev is standing left of Dzhokhar's right in the blue scarf, and Azamat Tazhayakov is immediately left of Kadyrbayev.

Two people seen in a photo with suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in New York's famed Times Square are being held by authorities on administrative immigration violations, Fox News has confirmed.

The two men were identified to Fox News as Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov, both citizens of Kazakhstan. They can be seen standing next to Tsarnaev in a photo believed to have been taken in April 2012 in Times Square, which authorities suspect was another of the bombers' intended targets.

Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov were arrested April 20 -- five days after the attack at the marathon -- at the Hidden Brook apartments by the FBI and Homeland Security in New Bedford Mass., and they are being detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement at the Suffolk County House of Corrections in Boston because of problems relating to their student visas, sources told Fox News.

New York City officials held a news conference Thursday confirming that the city was another target following the bombings in Boston, which killed three and wounded more than 200 near the finish line of the Boston race.

“We learned through the Joint Terrorist Task Force that the Boston Marathon bombers had planned to travel to Manhattan to detonate remaining bombs in Times Square,” New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said, though it is unclear when this information was relayed to New York City officials.

A law enforcement source also confirmed that task force investigators will be questioning Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov about their activity last week immediately after a surveillance video of the suspected Boston bombers was released. They also want to know whether the two young men took any action to help Tsarnaev.

The source said a "variety of techniques" led investigators to question Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov, with the goal of seeing “what’s there” -- though they are not charged with any crimes at this time. 

Kadyrbayev is a former student and Tazhayakov is a current student of UMass Dartmouth, a university spokesman said. Tsarnaev, 19, is registered as a sophomore at the university.

Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen and U.S. citizen, is being held on a federal charge of using a weapon of mass destruction. Authorities think he was recruited to help carry out the bombings by his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed days later in a shootout with police.

Kadyrbayev's father, Murat Kadyrbayev, told Kazak news website Tengri News that Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov were in Tsarnaev's social circle but nothing more. The father also said a "TERRORISTA #1" vanity plate on a BMW jointly owned by the two young men was just a joke.

Yerlan Kubashev with the Consulate General for Kazakhstan in New York confirmed in a statement to Fox News that the consulate is helping the young men with legal representation.

Kubashev said the two men are “shocked at the bombings,” and “they express sorrow to the bombing victims and their families.”

Attorney Robert G. Stahl confirmed to Fox News he is representing Kadyrbayev in an upcoming immigration hearing.

"He’s a 19-year-old with student visa problems, and he may or may not be returned to Kazakhstan," Stahl said.

Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.


View the original article here

The five best, worst things in the Senate's immigration bill

  • Graham Gang of Eight.jpg

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., center, speaks of immigration reform legislation outlined by the Senate's bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that would create a path for the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship, Thursday, April 18, 2013, on Capitol Hill in Washington. From left are, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Sen. Charles Schumer, Graham, R-S.C., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

I’ve spent a decade working as an advocate for immigration reform.  Finally, we’ve got a real bill to work with.  

This month, a bipartisan group of Senators released an 844-page immigration proposal that goes a long way to fixing our current failed system. Changing demographics and politics pushed the process forward.  

America has always been a country that values fairness, hard work and creativity. We’ve integrated waves of immigrants over the centuries and, together, built a stronger country.  

It’s that moment again to recognize the contributions of immigrants and to make sure we have an immigration process that reflects our American values.

There’s still a long way to go before we reach the finish line for immigration reform and we need fixes to the proposed bill to make it right for today’s America. Here’s my list of the five best and five worst things in the bill.

The Best

1. It’s bipartisan.  That’s a great start to securing the necessary votes in the Senate, and putting pressure on House colleagues to pass a similar bill.  

2. There’s a path.  Most undocumented immigrants, who formerly had absolutely no way to become legalized will now have the opportunity to become “registered provisional immigrants” and get on a path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship.  DREAMers and agriculture workers get a speedier path to citizenship, too.

3. The family immigration “backlog” will be cleared.  The current backlog of 4.7 million U.S. citizens or permanent residents who have applied for their family members to come to the United States will be processed over the course of eight years, with a certain number of applications guaranteed to be processed each year.  It’s high-time families get to be with their loved ones.

4. Women matter.  Throughout the bill, women do get attention. The definition of employment appears to recognize the work of stay-at-home mom and other caregivers, working moms, and domestic workers. Spouses of applicants for citizenship will be included and will also be able to petition for themselves in cases of divorce, domestic violence or death of the primary applicant. Visas for victims of domestic violence will almost double.  There’s more that needs to happen, but this is a great start.

5. The bill establishes the first ever federal Office of Immigrant Integration.  Instead of a host of decentralized state efforts, we can now coordinate, direct and fund integration efforts from a central place.  

The Worst

1. The path is long and still excludes many.  Undocumented immigrants will have to wait thirteen years to get their citizenship, which is a long time to be in limbo.  The sooner people know they are here to stay, the sooner they can fully contribute their skills and talents to America.  

The bill also sets a cut off date for qualifying at 12/31/2011, leaving anyone who arrived since then in limbo.  Some of the requirements—from the fees, to the renewal process after the first six year period, to the continuous employment requirements—could leave out millions of people.  

Reform that leaves out millions will not be reform—and we’ll end up dealing with the same issue all over again in a few years.  That’s not good for anyone.  We need fixes now.

2. The proposed shift to a purely merit-based system is bad for family values.  A point system that rewards higher levels of education and employment doesn’t recognize—as America always has—that our country is strongest when families are strong.

3. We’re still spending too much money on borders and fences. Spending more doesn’t help get real security—that comes when we have a common-sense immigration system that that meets our economic needs and our values.  

4. Discrimination against women in future employment visa categories still hasn’t been fully addressed.  Right now, only 27% of all employment visas go to women.

Future immigration flows need to give equal value to the work that women do in essential industries like domestic work and in-home health care. While the bill, assigns points for “caregiving,” it’s unclear if this will be enough for meaningful inclusion of women.

5.  We’re past time.  It’s good that Senators on both sides of the aisle are recognizing the need to get this done but we’re about a decade late.  So let’s get it done now.

In the end, it’s critical that we recognize that millions of immigrants are here, working to contribute to America and to make life better for their families.  This bill is the start to a real solution that honors those important American values and reminds us that we truly are one America.  

Pramila Jayapal is a writer and activist.  She is founder and former Executive Director of OneAmerica, the largest immigrant advocacy organization in Washington state.  She is currently the Distinguished Taconic Fellow at the Center for Community Change.  Follow her on Twitter @pramilaj.  


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

Here's the truth about my plan for immigration reform

Americans believe in the value of immigration. We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over one million people a year to come here legally. They come here in pursuit of what we recognize as the American dream – the chance to live in freedom and have the opportunity to work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families.

The problem is that our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It has enabled 11 million people to come here illegally or overstay visas. It is a bureaucratic and inefficient system that does not address the needs of our economy.

All this has further deepened the American people’s mistrust in the ability of their government to perform basic functions.

Leaving in place a broken immigration system -– and the millions of people whose identities are a mystery to us –- is simply not an acceptable option. This must be fixed.

We must do something to end today’s de facto amnesty, and conservative Republicans should lead on this issue.

That is why I am advocating for securing our borders, improving enforcement, modernizing our legal immigration system and changing it so that it prioritizes welcoming people to the U.S. based on skills, not just on whether they have a family member already living here.

And that is why I support a process to identify and register those who are here illegally. They will have to submit biometric data in order to pass multiple national security and criminal background checks, pay $2,000 in fines, pay taxes, and learn English and American civics. They won’t be able to get any federal benefits like welfare or ObamaCare.

Before they can even apply to become permanent residents, they will have to wait at least ten years. They will have to get in line behind those who are trying to come the right way.

They will have to wait until we have a system in place to prevent illegal immigrants from being hired.

They will have to wait until we have a system in place to track people who overstay their visas.

And they will have to wait until we implement plans to spend at least $5.5 billion dollars to secure the border through more border patrol officers, more technology and more fencing.

I thought long and hard before taking on this issue. I understand how divisive it can be. I’ve seen how the left has used it to accuse opponents of their version of reform of being bigots and racists. And I would much rather be having a debate on the more fundamental ways we can grow our economy and get our debt and spending under control. But with or without us, the president and the Democrats who control the Senate were going to bring this issue up.

And I believe conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies we believe are critical to fixing our immigration system.

The opponents of reform raise important points about not rewarding the violation of the law. I, too, have felt the frustration many feel that our nation’s generosity has been taken advantage of by some.

But policy-making is about solving problems. And to pick the right solution, you have to weigh the realistic alternatives. Deporting all illegal immigrants is not a practical solution. But ignoring the fact that they are here is just as bad.

For example, passing a law that only focuses on modernization and enforcement and leaves for another day the issue of those here illegally is not a good idea. Because as the enforcement measures kick in, millions of people living here illegally will be unable to work and provide for themselves and their families. The resulting humanitarian impact will then force us to scramble to address it. It is better to address it now as part of an orderly and measured process.

The only solution I know that can work is to reform legal immigration in a way that is good for the economy, do everything we can to secure the border, and allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn permanent residency by passing background checks, paying a fine, learning English and waiting at the back of the line for at least 10 years, at the same time that border security and enforcement measures are put in place to prevent this problem from happening again.

The bill I helped write is a good starting point, but it is not a take it or leave it proposition. I am open to any ideas others may have on how to do this, and I’ve been listening to the legitimate concerns people have raised with the expectation that we will be able to improve the bill as this debate continues.

We must do something to end today’s de facto amnesty, and conservative Republicans should lead on this issue. Because without conservatives at the table and in the fight, we are ceding this issue to President Obama and his allies in Congress. And as the last four years have proven, that is never a good idea.

Republican Marco Rubio represents Florida in the U.S. Senate. He is a member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.


View the original article here

The only way forward on immigration reform

  • immigration_losangeles_041013.jpg

    April 10, 2013: Activists rally for immigration reform in Los Angeles.AP

  • immigration_farm2.jpg

    Monday, April 22, 2013: The Rev. Eugene Barnes of Illinois, joins immigration advocates outside the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C.AP

  • immigration_farm.jpg

    People fill a committee room on Thursday, April 18, 2013 in Montpelier, Vt. A Vermont House committee is hearing testimony on a bill that would allow farmworkers in the country illegally to become drivers. Last week, the Senate gave final approval for a bill to create driver privilege cards for people not eligible to get an enhanced driver's license under the federal REAL ID law. The measure is expected to extend driving privileges to 1,200 to 1,500 immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Guatemala and mostly working on Vermont dairy farms who are in the United States without the legally required immigration papers.(AP Photo/Toby Talbot)

Nearly everyone agrees that we need to fix our nation’s broken immigration system but the way for Congress to get there is through regular order.  

For far too long, the standard operating procedure in Washington has been to rush large pieces of legislation through Congress with little opportunity for elected officials and the American people to scrutinize and understand them.  

Before we hurry to overhaul our immigration laws, we must methodically look at each of the various components that need to be remedied. Immigration reform is too important and complex to not examine each piece in detail.  

Immigration reform is too important and complex to not examine each piece in detail.  

By now, we’ve all learned what happens when Congress rushes legislation and bypasses regular order.  In 2010, the House jammed the 2,700-page ObamaCare bill through Congress without a single hearing or markup on the bill that was ultimately signed into law.  

Americans are now stuck with the consequences of this hasty decision—higher premiums, more taxes, over 20,000 pages in new regulations, and overall bad policy.  Even Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the bill’s chief architects, warned last week that he sees ObamaCare as a “huge train wreck coming down.”

Regular order is also important because it allows Congress to reflect on past legislative mistakes and avoid making similar ones in the future.  

For example, nearly 30 years ago Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, assuring the American people that it would fix our immigration system. 

We were promised tougher enforcement in exchange for the legalization of roughly three million people.  But these promises were never kept and our immigration laws remain broken.  The American people want to know how Congress plans to avoid this similar outcome in the current debate surrounding immigration reform.

Some critics may think the call for regular order is an attempt to kill a larger immigration bill but this could not be further from the truth—the two are not mutually exclusive.  

Regular order will help us get immigration reform right and win the trust of the American people so that we don’t face the same problems we do now down the road. 

While the Senate works its will, through the Gang of Eight’s bill or some other piece of legislation, the House will do the same. 

Once each chamber holds Committee hearings, markups, and passes legislation, the House and Senate can work out their differences.  That’s the American legislative process.  

This process can be long but it allows every representative and senator to have their constituents’ voices heard, rather than solely the opinions of a few members in a working group. And by taking a fine-tooth comb through each of the individual issues within the larger immigration debate, it will help us get a better bill that will benefit Americans and provide a workable immigration system.  

The members of the Senate Gang of Eight have worked hard to produce legislation and their efforts should be applauded.  

While it’s true that many in the House of Representatives have concerns about the Senate immigration bill, we are hopeful that we can produce better solutions.  

The House Judiciary Committee has held numerous hearings on immigration and also plans to hold one on the Senate immigration bill in the coming days to consider its merits and flaws.  

At the same time, we are receiving input from members from both sides of the aisle, as well as stakeholders and other interested parties, in order to reach consensus on many of the issues plaguing our immigration system.  

Consensus has been reached on some issues and the House Judiciary Committee this week will introduce a couple of stand-alone bills that tackle various issues within our immigration system.  

One bill will create a new temporary agricultural guestworker program that meets the needs of farmers so that they can continue growing our crops and providing a reliable food source for Americans. 

 The other helps ensure we turn off the jobs magnet that attracts illegal immigration by requiring all employers to use E-Verify.  This web-based program provides employers with a quick and easy way to check the work eligibility of their newly hired employees.  

Following regular order, the House Judiciary Committee plans to hold legislative hearings on these bills soon so that members can ask questions of the legislation and look for ways to improve them.

The introduction of these two bills doesn’t mean that a broader immigration reform bill isn’t achievable. We hope to reach consensus on more issues but in the meantime these stand-alone bills are a down payment on a larger bill. 

Immigration reform is not an easy task but a solution is not out of reach.  Through regular order we can make sure we get immigration reform right this time so that we don’t have the same problems in the future.  

Republican Bob Goodlatte represents Virginia's 6th congressional district in the House of Representatives. He is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013

My shattering experience with America's immigration system

It’s been my dream for years to immigrate to the United States. Originally from the United Kingdom, I was attracted to America’s embrace of freedom, capitalism, and proud traditions of liberty sorely lacking in my native country. I wanted to defend those liberties in America. Like other immigrants, I do a job that most Americans don’t want to – defend the Constitution.

Recently, however, I found out that my American Dream is over. I will shortly have to leave the land I love and return to the United Kingdom. 

What happened that put me in this position? 

The Department of Labor (DOL) ruled that the American non-profit that wanted to hire me cannot.

I was offered a staff attorney position at a Washington, D.C. non-profit committed to advancing right to work laws. I went to university here and then law school at William and Mary and have called Virginia home for years.

I will not commit fraud to get a green card through a sham marriage nor will I stay here illegally.

As part of the application for the visa, the non-profit had to show that no American was available to do my job and that I was being paid wage similar to other attorneys in the city.

The DOL compared my anticipated wage at a non-profit to what lawyers make in private practice. Of course I would have made less at a non-profit, that’s how they work, but the government did not adjust its one-size fits all way of measuring wages. 

Despite proof that my salary was going to be in line with other non-profit lawyer salaries in the city, the DOL rejected the paperwork and me along with it.

The DOL gave me no reason for why the visa application was denied. By law, they do not have to provide one. 

I have no opportunity to appeal. There is no possibility to re-file for the visa because the government grants so few every year that they ran out weeks ago.

But my experience is just a microcosm of America’s disastrous immigration system. There is no immigration line. There is no Ellis Island. I can’t go down to the local post office and apply for a green card. I have lived here legally—studying and working hard—but under the law there is no way for me to stay .

An overly complex, tortuously slow, and arbitrary immigration system at the whim of unaccountable bureaucrats rules the day.

The laws that so many of my fellow Americans want to be enforced make it impossible for me – and many others like me – from living the American Dream. These laws also hurt our country in the process, burdening employers with expensive regulations for no conceivable end, and leaving positions unfilled.

I don’t want a hand out. I’ll gladly sign a piece of paper saying that I am ineligible for welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. I’ve always paid taxes, bought insurance, and played by all of the rules. I’ve never committed a crime nor do I intend to. All I want is a chance to legally live, work, and defend the Constitution of my country.

Highly-skilled immigrants have been voiceless in the debate over immigration reform. Illegal immigrants wanting legalization, immigration enforcement hawks, and guest workers have sucked all of the air out of the room. 

I understand the concerns of all those groups and share many of them myself, but please do not forget the millions of highly skilled immigrants and potential immigrants who are trying to follow the laws.

My dearest friends have started a White House petition called “Let Sophie Stay.” I implore you, please visit it. 

I will not commit fraud to get a green card through a sham marriage nor will I stay here illegally. I will not break the law no matter how unjust I think it is.

I feel American in every way that counts but the federal government and its laws think otherwise. In our knowledge economy, we need to attract the most talented and hard-working people as high-skilled immigrants. 

This is crucial to our competitiveness and growth since it creates more jobs and provides a better quality of life for everyone. As a plea from one would-be American to the citizens of this great country, please change these immigration laws to include highly-skilled workers.

Sophie Cole is a graduate of Oxford Brookes University, the University of Westminster, and the College of William and Mary. Originally from Southampton, England, she is now a licensed attorney living and working in Washington, DC.
 


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013

How does immigration bill compare with failed 2007 proposal?

In a bold stroke, eight U.S. senators hope to pull off what the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and President George W. Bush could not -- pass a comprehensive immigration bill for the first time in decades. 

The sweeping proposal, set to be unveiled in a matter of hours, not only legalizes the estimated 11 million or more immigrants living here illegally, but could ease entry for some waiting in line legally abroad. It adds several new visa categories to provide labor for the hotel, housing and high-tech industries. Agriculture also would receive a big boost and up to 337,000 new workers over three years. 

Most of the new workers are eligible to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, either as legal permanent residents or citizens. 

After meeting with President Obama Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said: "While he certainly might not agree with every single part of it, he was very supportive of the bill we have put together and simply wants to make sure we keep moving it along and get something done." 

The new bill is a radical departure from the last major overhaul bill in 2007, which fell victim to numerous amendments and finally died in May that year by 14 votes in the Senate. Then-President Bush lost 37 of 49 Republicans. On the Democratic side, Kennedy lost 15 votes. 

The atmosphere today is different, shaped by a more secure border, a more subdued Republican Party on the issue, and a slower economy. The National Guard is gone from the border as are so-called vigilante groups like the Minute Men, which helped polarize public opinion. 

Today, Americans say dealing the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. is more important than securing the border, according to a new Gallup poll. That is a reversal from 2007. Even in places like Phoenix, the site of numerous immigration rallies in 2007, attitudes are changing. 

"It is not just an issue of just building a wall, not just kicking people out or border security," said Arizona State Rep. Martin Quezada. "But there are families involved, the economy, this affects our schools." 

So how does the 2007 proposal compare with the 2013 proposal? 

-- In 2007 illegal immigrants had to return to their home country "before" applying for a green card. Not so today. Those currently in the U.S. illegally would receive immediate probationary status and be allowed to work. They are not required to return to their country of origin. They are eligible for citizenship after 13 years, after paying fines and any back taxes. 

-- The 2007 bill required "operational control" of the border before legalization. The 2013 bill gives the Border Patrol six months to come up with "strategy." Within five years, the agency must be capable of apprehending 90 percent of those who cross in sectors that see more than 30,000 arrests per year. 

Currently that only applies to three of nine sectors on the southwest border -- Tucson, Rio Grande Valley and Laredo. Critics say the metric is vague, since in many areas it is impossible to know how many illegal crossers agents did not catch. 

"It's three strikes and you're out for the Senate's immigration proposal," Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas said Tuesday. "First, it legalizes almost everyone in the country illegally before the border is secured. This, of course, will encourage even more illegal immigration." 

Alex Conant, a spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., rebutted Smith, saying: "To have an honest debate, we need to be clear about the facts...Our legislation will implement the toughest border security and immigration law enforcement in US history before a single illegal immigrant is able to apply for permanent residence in the US." 

-- In 2007, up to 200,000 guest workers could stay for two years before being required to return home. An amendment, pushed by organized labor and supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama and sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, ended the program after just five years. 

Previously, under existing law the U.S. issued 480,000 additional visas, most for immediate family members of new immigrants and legal permanent residents. The 2013 bill increases America's overall number of allowable immigrants. It installs a new "W" visa for up to 200,000 low skilled immigrants, and another 120,000 "merit based" visas annually for extremely talented immigrants. It removes any caps for extremely talented individuals in the arts, education, sports and sciences. It also increases from 65,000 to as many as 180,000 visas for U.S. businesses, known as H1Bs. 

"The people of America want a secure border and the rule of law enforced," said Arizona state Sen. John Kavanaugh, who listened to conservative radio hosts help defeat the 20007 bill. "We can have limited legal immigration provided it doesn't depress American wages. 

-- Like the 2007 bill, the 2013 version dedicates substantial funding for border security, and even adds money for fencing, something the Obama administration has not considered a priority. 

The 2013 also requires employers use an electronic database known as E-Verify to verify all non-citizens are authorized to work. While this is a concession to hard liners, employers have two to five years to meet the mandate, depending on their size. The 2007 bill also made this an employer mandate, and implied that no part of the reform proposal could go forward until the all employers used E-Verify.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 4, 2013

GOP must get its act together on immigration now or live to regret it later

On immigration, voters in 2014, 2016 and beyond will judge Republicans on action, not intentions, and the window for action is closing.

As I said earlier this year, here in Fox News Opinion, it is not only politically imperative that Republicans get a comprehensive bill done this year and share credit for doing so, but that doing so is also consistent with their core ideals of promoting economic opportunity and preserving law and order.

To date, Sen. Marco Rubio, (R-Fla.), has shown a singular ability to talk to all sides in the immigration discussion. For the sake of his party, his country and his own presidential prospects, it is incumbent upon him to get his party to sign onto a plan and get it through Congress before the summer Congressional recess.

Sen. Rubio has prudently pushed back against several attempts to rush the legislation forward without building support for his initiatives. The last effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws in 2007 was derailed by too many secret internal negotiations and too little external building of support for action with advocacy groups and the general public.

On immigration Republicans have to ask themselves “if not now, when?” The world doesn’t offer many opportunities to catch lightening in a bottle.

Today, leaders face a supportive public and conservative advocacy groups that have moved from being opposed to neutral to supportive of comprehensive immigration reform. At this point, the job of selling the proposal to the public is best accomplished in tandem with the advance of the legislative process.

Sen. Rubio has insisted, and Democrats have agreed, to proceed through regular order. That’s the right course of action to getting a balanced bill that the public can support, but it will take time.

Getting a final product into legislative language, holding hearings and markups on it, and engaging in floor proceedings all take time. Then there are the routine delays that will happen as members propose changes, amendments, or just try to gum up the works through the multitude of dilatory procedures available in the Senate playbook.

The House can move legislation faster, but there is still a lot of sales work to be done within the Republican Conference. Any final product will need to get a significant number of GOP votes, as Speaker Boehner can’t afford to have the measure pass without a majority of his conference without putting his job at risk.

The House and Senate will only be in session for fourteen of the eighteen weeks before the August recess. Unlike earlier steps, the remaining work can’t happen over the phone or via email. Additionally, the government could hit the debt ceiling as early as May, which will undoubtedly take time away from an immigration push.

After August, the prospects for a deal look grim. It will likely be too close to campaign season for many members in Congress, and especially in the House, to take a vote as tough as the immigration bill.

Finally, President Obama has said that he stands ready to push for his own immigration bill if the efforts of the Gang of Eight in the U.S. Senate don’t move quickly enough. This may not preclude the possibility of getting a bill passed into law, but it would severely diminish any chance for Republicans to receive a share of the credit they would deserve if it succeeds.

Republicans have to ask themselves “if not now, when?” The world doesn’t offer many opportunities to catch lightening in a bottle. It is hard to imagine more favorable timing. 

The election has spurred much of the Republican base to pivot towards support. The bipartisan Group of Eight has the ball at this point and can drive the action. Just enough time remains to craft and sell meaningful legislation.

More and more Latinos become eligible voters every day, as the number of elderly white voters – a key Republican constituency – continues to dwindle. The GOP needs to start broadening the base soon, or else risk wasting away as its most reliable voters perish.

If this comprehensive immigration reform effort fails, Democrats have a politically potent alternative for immigration in 2014 and beyond: strengthen gains from 2008 and 2012 with Latino voters and demagogue Republicans for refusing to work with them. 

It could work quite well in November. 

Republicans don't have a backup plan. Plan B for Republicans is to take a beating at the ballot box on this issue for the foreseeable future. 

The GOP holds the keys to victory for themselves and the entire nation. Sen. Rubio should not miss his moment to help his party open the door.

Hon. Mark R. Kennedy leads George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management and is Chairman of the Economic Club of Minnesota. He previously served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and was Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Federated Department Stores (now Macy's).


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

Senate immigration plan could be ready by Thursday, followed by weeks of debate

The immigration reform legislation could be released in the Senate as early as Thursday, followed by a weeks of debate and amendments, a congressional aide told Fox News on Tuesday.

A bipartisan group of senators has been working on the legislation since early January.

Members had a major breakthrough last month when the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce agreed on a plan for work visas for low-skilled laborers. However, the group still faces other hurdles before reaching an agreement, including determining to what extent U.S. borders must be secured before creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. There are roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

The extended process, the aide said, was intended to win support from Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a key member of the so-called Gang of Eight senators.

Rubio has called for an extended debate and amendment process after the legislation is introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow related parties to have their say.

The aide said the senators had a good discussion Tuesday with committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

“We are optimistic that we will be able to introduce legislation soon,” the aide said. “Chairman Leahy has agreed to hold a hearing as soon as possible after the legislation is introduced and has promised to have unlimited debate and amendments during the committee mark-up.”

Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said the senator “has said from the outset that we will not rush this process, and that begins at the committee level. … It’s good that senators and the public will have weeks to study this proposal.”


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

Schumer hopes for bipartisan deal this week in Senate on immigration legislation

  • schumer_charles_050812.JPG

    May 8, 2012: Sen. Charles Schumer speaks to reporters following a weekly strategy luncheon.AP

Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday he's hoping for a bipartisan deal by the end of this week on a sweeping immigration bill to secure the border and allow eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living here illegally.

"All of us have said that there will be no agreement until the eight of us agree to a big, specific bill, but hopefully we can get that done by the end of the week," said Schumer, D-N.Y., who's leading efforts by eight senators to craft the legislation. "That's what we're on track to do."

Schumer spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation" alongside Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another leader of the immigration talks, who suggested there could be a tough road ahead for the contentious legislation.

"There will be a great deal of unhappiness about this proposal because everybody didn't get what they wanted," McCain said. "There are entrenched positions on both sides of this issue as far as business and labor."

A deal on immigration is a top second-term priority for President Barack Obama, and his senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday that the bill being developed in the Senate is completely consistent Obama's approach -- even though the Senate plan would tie border security to a path to citizenship in a manner Obama administration officials have criticized.

Pfeiffer didn't answer directly when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether Obama would sign legislation making a path to citizenship contingent on first securing the border, as negotiators in the Senate are doing. But he suggested Obama was supportive of the Senate plan.

"What they are looking at and what has been talked about in the Gang of Eight proposal is 100 percent consistent with what the president is doing so we feel very good about it," Pfeiffer said. "And they are looking at it in the right way."

Obama has stressed that a path to citizenship should not have major hurdles in front of it, and some immigration advocates believe that's what a requirement for a secure border would amount to. Obama's Homeland Security secretary, Janet Napolitano, has rejected the argument that border security must be achieved before a comprehensive immigration package or any pathway to legalized status can be done.

But Republicans involved in the Senate negotiations have made clear that border security is a must for them before those living here illegally can be allowed to move toward citizenship.

"We are going to secure that border and it will be tied to a pathway to citizenship or there will be no deal," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another negotiator on the bill, said Sunday.

Graham also suggested that disagreement over a new low-skilled worker program could still be hanging up an overall immigration deal -- even after an agreement a week ago between the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The hard-won deal between labor and business would ultimately allow up to 200,000 workers a year into the U.S. to fill jobs in construction, hospitality, nursing homes and other areas where employers now say they have a difficult time hiring Americans or legally bringing in foreign workers. Even after the deal was struck, some industries, such as construction, continued to voice complaints about the terms.

Without offering details, Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that negotiators were revisiting the low-skilled worker deal. But he issued a statement a short time later saying he was confident the agreement would hold.

Graham sounded optimistic overall, predicting the bill would pass the 100-member Senate with 70 votes in favor. Senators believe an overwhelming bipartisan vote is needed in the Democratic-led Senate to ensure a chance of success in the Republican-controlled House. Floor action could start in the Senate in May, Schumer said.

Meanwhile two lawmakers involved in writing a bipartisan immigration bill in the House, Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., sounded optimistic that they, too, would have a deal soon that could be reconciled with the Senate agreement.

"I am very, very optimistic that the House of Representatives is going to have a plan that is going to be able to go to a conference with the Senate in which we're going to be able to resolve this," Gutierrez said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union".


View the original article here

Congress returns to try to reach final deals on major issues of immigration, gun control

Congress returns Monday for a pivotal week in which lawmakers will attempt to reach agreements on proposals for gun-control and immigration-reform -- perhaps the two biggest issues in Washington this year.

Though the Senate has been working on both issues only since the new Congress began in January, Washington lawmakers have tried for years to draft comprehensive immigration reform, while the issue of gun-control was thrust upon them after 20 first-graders were killed in a December 2012 mass shooting.

A contentious public debate over the country’s flawed immigration system is expected as a bipartisan group of eight senators finalizes a bill to secure U.S. borders, allow tens of thousands of foreign workers into the country and grant eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living here illegally.

Lawmakers came close to an immigration deal on the Senate floor in 2007, but it collapsed amid interest group bickering and public backlash.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a member of the so-called “Gang of Eight,” was already warning about the sharp edges of compromise on Sunday.

"There will be a great deal of unhappiness about this proposal because everybody didn't get what they wanted," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation.” 

The group planned to have a final proposal ready in March. However, talks have been slowed in part because of wrangling over the extent to which securing U.S. borders, specifically the one with Mexico, will set the stage for the path to citizenship.

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer told CBS the group hopes to reach a final deal by week’s end. He also said the legislation would be introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee with all 50 senators voting by May.

Immigration reform is a top, second-term priority for President Obama.

On Sunday, White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the negotiators’ proposal is “100 percent consistent with what the president is doing so we feel very good about it."

However, he declined to say on “Fox News Sunday” whether Obama  would sign legislation making a path to citizenship contingent on first securing the border.

Pfeiffer also went on TV on Sunday to garner support for the president’s gun-control proposal.

With proposed bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity gun magazines off the table for now, Obama appears to be focusing his efforts on garnering public support and getting Congress to agree to universal background checks for gun buyers.

Pfeiffer said the president has “marshaled people to his side” and polls show a large majority of the public supports background checks.

“You cannot get 90 percent of the people to agree on the weather,” he told Fox. “The question is whether Congress is going to do the right thing.”

Pfeiffer said the president agrees with the efforts so far of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the other senators, following the mass shootings at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

“This is the best response to Newtown and gun violence in the country,” he said.

The president is going Monday to the University Hartford, in Connecticut, to talk about gun control. 

A White House official told Fox News on Sunday that Obama will speak about "the obligations we have to children lost in Newtown and other victims of gun violence" and the need to act on gun-control proposals.

Senators could start debating Democratic-written gun legislation before week's end. But leaders also might decide to give negotiators more time to seek a deal on expanding background checks for firearms buyers.

Passing expanded background checks would be viewed as a victory for gun-control advocates, after Democratic leaders made it clear that supporters were nowhere close to getting a majority of votes in favor of re-instituting an assault-weapons ban.

The NRA opposes the assault-weapons ban and the expanded background checks.

Even with a background check deal, Senate debate on gun legislation may begin at a slow crawl with some conservatives promising delays and forced procedural votes.

The Senate gun legislation would toughen federal laws against illegal firearms sales, including against straw purchasers, or those who buy firearms for criminals or others barred from owning them. The legislation also would provide $40 million a year, a modest increase from current levels of $30 million, for a federal program that helps schools take safety measures such as reinforcing classroom doors.

Many experts agree that the proposal with the widest potential reach is a broadening of background checks, now required only for transactions by the roughly 55,000 federally licensed firearms dealers. Proponents want to cover private sales, such as those between individuals at gun shows or online.

One major hang-up has been Democrats' insistence on retaining records of private sales, which they say is the best way to ensure background checks are actually conducted.

The system is aimed at preventing guns from going to criminals, people with severe mental problems, some drug abusers and others.

The NRA and other critics say the checks are ignored by criminals, and they fear that expanding the system could be a prelude to the government maintaining files on gun owners.

However, Senate aides said Sunday that West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey are working on a compromise to expanding required federal background checks to gun shows and to online firearms sales. Manchin is a moderate with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, while Toomey has solid conservative credentials. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity.

With immigration reform, a major breakthrough occurred a couple of weeks ago when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO reached a deal to allow as many as 200,000 low-skilled workers into the country each year to fill jobs in construction, hospitality, nursing homes and other industries in which employers say they have a difficult time hiring Americans.

The eight negotiators also have pledged to move the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee, then to the chamber floor to head off complaints that the legislation is being rammed through.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio -- a potential 2016 presidential candidate who has been frustrated by efforts since being elected to the Senate in 2010 to pass immigration reform -- has emerged as a key figure in negotiations.

On Sunday, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham called Rubio a “game changer” for their party and assured people Rubio will not walk away from final negotiations.

“He will be there,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

He also suggested, ahead of Obama releasing his 2014 budget Wednesday, Congress cannot reach a so-called “grand bargain” until it fixes immigration.  

 “I think if you do immigration and the grand bargain, this year will dominate the 21st century,” Graham told NBC. “The key to the grand bargain is can we solve immigration.”

Some sticking points remain -- including the plan for a program to bring in agriculture workers, who weren't included in the deal between the chamber and organized labor.

But Republicans are as interested as the president and other Democrats in reaching a comprehensive deal.

Roughly 71 percent of Hispanics voted to reelect Obama, a wakeup call to Republicans that Democrats may continue to hold the White House unless they make a better effort to bring Latino voters into the party.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

Republicans estimate immigration bill could cost taxpayers billions, Rubio challenges claim

Senate Republicans estimated Thursday that the annual cost to taxpayers of legalizing illegal immigrants could be in the billions, if they use their status to apply for federal benefits from Medicaid and ObamaCare. 

Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee -- responding to a draft immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants -- estimated that the cost could total up to $40 billion in 2022, "just for Medicaid and ObamaCare." 

"The net costs would be enormous and only increase once citizenship is granted," the office of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the committee, said in a statement Thursday. 

Payments from Medicaid and subsidies from the federal health care law represent just a fraction of federal government benefits that a green-card holder or U.S. citizen can apply for. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key member of the "Gang of Eight" which is drafting a proposal, has stressed that he would ensure there are limits on benefits being applied to these individuals. He told Fox News in January that the first phase for them would be to get a nonimmigrant visa -- not a green card -- "and you don't qualify for any federal benefits under that. You don't get federal benefits." 

Their eligibility, though, would change once they get a green card. 

Sessions' office voiced concern Thursday that a century-old law meant to prevent immigrants from taking root in the U.S. only to live on the government dole would not be applied here. 

That law is supposed to turn away those immigrants who are likely to become a "public charge." But the statement Thursday claimed nothing in the current plan would apply to those already in the country before they are granted legal status. 

Further, numbers recently provided by the Department of Homeland Security indicated the "public charge" standard is not aggressively enforced. The department found just one case for most of fiscal 2012 where the claim was leveled at an immigrant. "However, the charge was later withdrawn," DHS reported. 

The department blamed "data entry quality" for not having complete information on how many immigrants became public charges. 

Despite widespread reports and speculation about the immigration bill being drafted, a bill has not yet been introduced. Senators are working out the details in hopes of bringing it before Congress in the coming weeks. 


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 1 tháng 4, 2013

South Carolina becomes battleground in immigration debate

As the Senate inches closer to a deal on immigration reform legislation, South Carolina is emerging as a major battleground in the debate. 

It's not because of South Carolina's location -- after all, it's not a border state. Rather, it's because South Carolina is home to Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican champion of reform and member of the bipartisan "Gang of 8" negotiating a draft bill, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Immigration Subcommittee. Both will play an integral role in any reform legislation as it makes its way through Congress. 

"It's become ground zero," Graham said of the Palmetto State. "If you can sell it here, you can sell it anywhere. And the opponents of immigration reform see this as a test case." 

Which is why opponents of immigration reform have targeted South Carolina -- and Graham specifically -- with an ad campaign that plays the "job" card. The ad stokes concern that if given legal status, immigrants will steal American jobs. 

"The consequences of breaking immigration law is, you have to go home," said Roy Beck of Numbers USA. The group played an integral role in torpedoing immigration reform in 2007. "Everything about this says 'you don't have to go home.'  You get to stay here and you get to keep the jobs that you came here to steal." 

Graham and his House colleague dismiss the notion that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from unemployed Americans. 

"I would love for them to come join me the next time I have a conversation with my farmers," said Gowdy. "Because they advertise and post jobs and they can't get anyone to come except immigrant labor." 

Gowdy told Fox News the time has come for comprehensive immigration reform. And he is optimistic South Carolinians will buy in. 

"If there is one thing we have to do in South Carolina, it is convince our fellow citizens that this is the last time they're going to hear about this issue, problem, whatever word you want to use, in their lifetime." 

The two have powerful allies in the South Carolina business community, and among evangelical leaders who have launched an ad campaign to promote reform. 

Among the group is Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He insists there has been a sea change among religious conservatives regarding immigration reform. 

"They have come to understand that this in an intolerable situation that we have," Land told Fox News. "We have a broken system that needs to be fixed." 

While evangelical leaders are now on the same page with reform, the more difficult task is to effectively promote that position in neighborhood churches. One argument they make is that many illegal immigrants have become evangelicals and should be welcomed into the larger fold. 

The Republican Party would also like to welcome more immigrants -- particularly Hispanics -- into their ranks. In 2004, George W. Bush embraced immigration reform and captured 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Last year, Mitt Romney talked of "self-deportation." He ended up with just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. 

"If the Republican Party wants to remain a national party that can win national elections, it's going to have to get a significant portion of the Hispanic vote," Land told Fox News. 

Graham agreed. "We've gone from 44 percent to 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Not because conservatism is bad -- it's because the rhetoric around immigration has tainted the Republican brand with the Hispanic community for no good reason. We're going to fix this problem." 

Gowdy cautions anyone who thinks the Republican Party is just one immigration reform deal away from turning the tide with Hispanic voters. 

"We're not," he told Fox News. 

But he does see the potential to change perceptions of the Republican Party among Hispanics, and open the door to a broader conversation. 

"When you don't think the politician talking to you likes you or cares about you, or cares about the people that you have something in common with, it's kind of hard to hear the rest of what they have to say," he said.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 22 tháng 3, 2013

Senate Gang of 8 finalizing immigration deal

A bipartisan group of senators is nearing agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would put illegal immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship, officials with outside groups keeping up with the talks said Thursday.

The legislation also would install new criteria for border security, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. and hold businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally, according to outside groups and lawmakers involved. Together, the measures represent the most sweeping changes in immigration law in decades.

The senators in the so-called Gang of Eight were meeting for hours at a time daily this week trying to complete a deal. There were still big disagreements on some issues, but they hoped to resolve most of them before Congress began a two-week recess at week's end. That would allow them to meet a self-imposed deadline to present their legislation next month.

"About 90 percent of the issues, including the path to citizenship, are settled," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told Hispanic media Thursday, according to his office. He said he was putting "more time into this than any other single issue."

The group was under pressure to speed up its work. Protesters converged Thursday on Schumer's office to accuse him of breaking his initial promise to have the bill done in March. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., whose panel would take up the legislation, complained this week that the group was taking too long. As a result, Leahy said, his committee won't be able to complete writing the bill itself in April, as he had hoped.

Several officials with outside groups said the biggest remaining areas of disagreement dealt with legal rather than illegal immigration. Top among them was a proposed program to bring in tens of thousands of new immigrants to fill low-skilled jobs. It had been the subject of difficult negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO.

The two sides made substantial progress, including agreeing on a cap of 200,000 visas in the new program, but they continued to disagree on wages for the new workers, according to one official. Senators were mediating offers and counteroffers.

The officials described the status of the discussions on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about them.

As senators struggled with the legal immigration question, Schumer and others said consensus had formed on details of a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, even though that issue tended to cause the most public consternation.

The new bill would contemplate a 10-year wait for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. before they could get a green card allowing them permanent residency, senators have said. During that time they would be in a provisional legal status and would not have to return to their home countries as current law requires.

Once they got the green card, they would have to wait three years to be able to apply for citizenship, compared to the five-year wait that most green-card holders currently have to abide, outside officials say they've been told. The new three-year wait was first reported by The New York Times.

That added up to 13 years, which would put the Senate bill in line with immigration legislation drafted by President Barack Obama, which he has said he would offer only if the Gang of Eight process stalls.

There's also said to be substantial consensus among the senators on border security issues. The bill would require that the border be secured before illegal immigrants could embark on the path to citizenship and would put in place new border security criteria including a commission of border state officials to advise on the issue. The border security piece was critical to support from Republicans in the group including John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida.

The bill will be lengthy and cover numerous other thorny issues, including mandating a currently voluntary program called E-Verify that helps businesses check their workers' papers, as much as doubling visas that go to high-tech workers, and limiting family-based immigration to put a greater emphasis on skills and employment ties instead.

So far pro-immigrant groups have often been more visible in public than opponents of the bill, but that could change once it becomes public next month. A fierce backlash helped sink the last attempt at reform in 2007, and the unveiling of the bill will open volatile months of debate and votes in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor over the spring and summer, with success far from assured. The House also must act before the legislation could become law, and prospects there were cloudier still.


View the original article here