Replies

Thanks for the link.

One thing jumped out at me from Sen. Kyl's proposal: "Authorizes $50 million over 5 years in grants for American Indian Tribes on border adversely affected by illegal immigration..."

What in tarnation is that? Much as I like Sen. Kyl, that sounds to me like a hand-out. Pandering.

As for Kyl's critique of the Senate compromise...

"The proposal by Sens. Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), would separate illegal immigrants into groups depending on the length of time they have resided illegally in the country. Based upon the length of stay, one group would be immediately placed on a legal path to citizenship, while the other group could get on a legal path to citizenship after going to a land port of entry (presumably in Mexico) and reentering the U.S...."

Well, Senator Kyl's proposal would do exactly the same thing for the second group ["get on a legal path to citizenship after going to a land port of entry (presumably in Mexico) and reentering the U.S."]. As I understand it.

As for those described by Kyl as the first group (those "immediately placed on a legal path to citizenship") --Kyl is talking here about illegals who have been in this country for many years.

While it's true the Senate compromise would place such long-term illegals "on the legal path," the path proposed in the Senate compromise is not easy. To qualify for this status, they would have to:

- Prove their length of residency (through copies of bills or paid taxes for example).
- Prove they had paid taxes, and they would have to pay back-taxes on anything owed (I know, it would be hard to estimate this, but it could be done).
- Prove they could speak English.
- Get "in the back of the line" and wait years for final legal status to be granted.
- And they would have to pay a fine for having broken the law to be here in the first place.

I really think this is a reasonable and fair proposal. None of that sounds like an easy path to me. And it certainly isn't amnesty.

Why is Kyl opposed to it?