Immigration bills concern some experts - Legalization plans pose big problems, they warn

San Diego Union - Tribune ^ | 5/7/06 | Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer - CNS

[NormsRevenge]

Crackdown or welcome for illegal immigrants?

Major provisions of HR 4437, which the House of Representatives passed in December:

Make illegal presence in the U.S. a felony.

Boost surveillance at the border.

Stiffen penalties for immigrant smuggling.

Construct 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border.

Require employers to verify worker immigration status.

Increase criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Crack down on illegal immigrants who are members of gangs.

Major provisions of the bill under most active Senate consideration:

Illegal immigrants who have been in the country at least five years would receive a renewable work visa if they pay a $2,000 penalty and all back taxes, pass a criminal background check and learn English. They would be granted a chance to receive a green card, and eventual citizenship, if they stay employed and avoid major legal problems.

Illegal immigrants in the country less than five years but more than two years would have to report to a port of entry along the border to apply for one of the 450,000 green cards that will be available each year.

Illegal immigrants in the country for two years or less would be required to return to their native countries.

Up to 325,000 guest workers would be allowed in the country each year if employers are unable to fill jobs with American citizens or permanent residents.

Up to 1.5 million agricultural workers now in the United States illegally would be granted legal status and a path to citizenship over a five-year period.

The Border Patrol would be authorized to expand by 12,500 officers over a five-year period.

Tamper-proof identification cards would be required of all job seekers.

[Eastbound]

"Massive demonstrations nationwide have helped propel legislation to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants."

It might have helped propel those who legislate, but 10 to 1 says it propelled the general public in the opposite direction.

[hsalaw]

It's also consistent with the thrust of U.S. immigration policy in recent decades: pro-immigration but anti-immigrant.

I'm getting tired of this cr*p. No one is "anti-immigrant"; people, that is, real American citizens, are "anti-illegal immigration." Big difference.

[Publius6961]

Proponents argue that few of the 12 million people living here illegally will leave voluntarily and mass deportation is not feasible.

A lame self-fulfilling prophecy, not a statement of fact.

Congress intended the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act to shut the door on illegal immigration while creating a path to citizenship for many of the estimated 6 million illegal immigrants then living in the country.

Amnesty eventually was granted to 2.7 million of the 3 million people who applied. But the effort to halt illegal immigration never gained traction, and the illegal population ballooned to 12 million.

The "experts" missed it completely 20 years ago.
What is "different" about this time that will make it work?

The only certain way to be fair to all immigrants, primarily the legal ones (who pay the second biggest price, years of delays) second only to the taxpayers' burden.

[unfortunately a bluestater]

hsalaw said: "I'm getting tired of this cr*p. No one is "anti-immigrant"; people, that is, real American citizens, are "anti-illegal immigration." Big difference."

I agree completely with hsalaw. People try to paint those of us who are against amnesty and for strong border control as racist or bigots, and that just is not the case. We are against illegal immigration and amnesty and for control of the border because (1) we believe in the rule of law; (2) Mexico is deporting its poorest to us, which is costing the US taxpayer a lot of money for social services; (3) granting amnesty, combined with not controlling the border, means that the flow of illegal aliens will continue, and we'll be confronted with this same problem again in another 20 years; and,(4)we believe that controlling the borders is necessary for national security.

---

The article says: "Proponents argue that few of the 12 million people living here illegally will leave voluntarily and mass deportation is not feasible. For that reason, they say,legalization is necessary to draw the undocumented immigrants into society's mainstream."

IMO, "mass deportation" is not necessary. Go after the employers of illegals---penalize them heavily. Catch them by auditing their payroll tax returns, W-2s and salary deductions on their income tax returns. I know the IRS and SSA computers can do this because they do it with 1099s. By going after the employers, jobs for the illegals will dry up and, presumably, they will go back to Mexico. If they haven't gone back after 2 or 3 years, find a Plan B. In the meantime (or probably first) do whatever it takes to totally secure the border---zero tolerance.

---

I agree with the comment in the article that guest workers would "create a vast, new servant class". I heard Pat Buchanan refer to guest workers as "Orwellian proles". IMO, we should encourage immigrants who want to come here legally, stay here, assimilate and become American citizens. We don't need guest workers who have more loyalty to the country they come from than they do to the US.

[Malesherbes]

The House of Representatives is our only hope - the Senate is hopeless. If the Republican House caves, or if the Dims win it in November, then the game is over. The Senate will pass a monstrosity, in effect disolving the country, and Bush will sign it - all the while praising it as progress.

[11th_VA]

If the Pubbies go along with this, they'll be a minority party for a generation.

[devolve]

[AngelesCrestHighway]

A black square..Hmmm?...Jesse Jackson perhaps?

[mirkwood]

[moehoward]

"The House of Representatives is our only hope"

Sure as hell looks like it.

[goldstategop]

The ugly truth of the matter is both the academic Left and big business interests have a vested interest in cheap illegal labor, to the detriment of the country's overall well-being. And their voices are louder than those of average Americans because of their influence in the MSM and among the politicians who pay attention to them. Most Americans don't want increased immigration - they want less of it and want to see illegal aliens removed from the country. But the prospect we will get a sensible immigration policy adopted in this country is about as good as the prospect we will get abortion banned here - which is to say never.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[George W. Bush]

hsalaw said: "I'm getting tired of this cr*p. No one is "anti-immigrant"; people, that is, real American citizens, are "anti-illegal immigration." Big difference."

People have every right to be anti-immigrant if they want. There is no great inherent virtue in being pro-immigrant over being anti-immigrant. Citizens have the right to organize and exert their political will to reduce or stop immigration entirely.

It's still a free country after all.

[Kimberly GG]

"I'm getting tired of this cr*p. No one is "anti-immigrant"; people, that is, real American citizens, are "anti-illegal immigration." Big difference."

I've noticed the media trend. "illegal'" is just not being used at all as a descriptive of immigrant. We are either pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant. How the hell "they" (whoever 'they' are'?) have succeeded in completely obliterating 'illegal' from all converstations on this issue is beyond me. Very few in the media make the effort to point it out when it happens.

[Kimberly GG]

"Illegal immigrants who have been in the country at least five years ".................

"Illegal immigrants in the country less than five years but more than two years "..........................

"Illegal immigrants in the country for two years or less"...........

Maybe I missed something somewhere, but can anyone tell me HOW we are going to determine length of time in the country? If they are here illegally and undocumented, what proof is there?

[AmericaOne]

You want to send a message to the RNC that they will hear loud and clear??? Then do the following:

Send them one of these instead of a donation, using the RNC's own postage paid return envelopes!!!

Artwork originally created by FREEPER Prime Choice, of sacredcowburgers.com. Below is the link to the original:

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/leftovers/showpics.cgi?heres_my_donation

The RNC will miss your money more than they will miss your vote!!!

If you do want to give financially to Republicans, give only to individual candidates/politicians who support or vote to secure our borders and don’t cater to illegals!!!

[unfortunately a bluestater]

I agree.

[dixiechick2000]

OH!
I LOVE that one!

[DumpsterDiver]

ping

[DumpsterDiver]

HOW we are going to determine length of time in the country? If they are here illegally and undocumented, what proof is there?

There is no proof. Maybe the following will morph into the usual response to questions like yours:

Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said application fees would pay for the new bureaucracy to run the programs. She dismissed the prospects for fraud.