Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years

(Update: On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.)

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.

The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.

To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:

1. Temporary Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time.

2. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. and are given the opportunity to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.

3. Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons in this category have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to naturalize and become citizens. As naturalized citizens, they have the constitutional rights to vote and to receive any government benefits given to native-born citizens.

A key feature of CIRA is that most immigrants identified as “temporary” are, in fact, given convertible status with a virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.

Another important feature of both CIRA and existing immigration law is that immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and may also become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.

Four key provisions of CIRA would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration.

Amnesty for Current Illegal Immigrants: CIRA offers amnesty and citizenship to 85 percent of the nation’s current 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Under the plan, illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years or more (60 percent of illegals) would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country between two and five years (25 percent of illegals) could travel to one of 16 “ports of entry,” where they would receive amnesty and lawful work permits.[1] In total, the bill would grant amnesty to 85 percent of the current illegal immigrant population, or some 10 million individuals.

After receiving amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years in a provisional status before attaining LPR status. After five years in LPR status, they would have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens and vote in U.S. elections. As well, the spouses and dependent children of current illegal immigrants would have the right to enter the U.S. and become citizens.[2] There would be no numeric limit on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR status; under the amnesty provision, such individuals would not be counted against any other cap or limit in immigration law.[3]

The New “Temporary Guest Worker” Program: CIRA creates an entirely new “temporary guest worker” (H-2C) program. There is nothing temporary about this program; nearly all “guest workers” would have the right to become permanent residents and then citizens.

Foreign workers could enter the U.S. as guest workers if they have a job offer from a U.S. employer. In practical terms, U.S. companies would recruit foreign workers to enter the guest worker program and immigrate to the U.S. Most likely, intermediate employment firms would specialize in recruiting foreign labor for U.S. employers.

Guest workers would be allowed to remain in the U.S. for six years.[4] However, in the fourth year, the guest worker could ask for LPR status and would receive it if he has learned English or is enrolled in an English class.[5] There are no numeric limits on the number of guest workers who could receive LPR status. Upon receiving LPR status, the guest worker could remain in the country permanently. He could become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections after just five more years.

The spouses and minor children of guest workers would also be permitted to immigrate to the U.S.[6] When guest workers petition for LPR status, their spouses and children would receive it as well. Five years after obtaining LPR status, these spouses could become naturalized citizens. The bill sets no limit on the number of spouses and children who could immigrate under the guest worker program. After workers and their spouses have obtained citizenship, they would be able to bring in their parents as legal permanent residents.

The bill does provide numeric limits on the number of guest workers who can enter the country each year, but the number starts high and then grows exponentially. In the first year, 325,000 H-2C visas would be given out, but if employer demand for guest workers is high, that number could be boosted by an extra 65,000 in the next year. If employer demand for H-2C workers continues to be high, the number of H-2C visas could be raised by up to 20 percent in each subsequent year.

The 20 percent exponential escalator provision allows the number of H-2C immigrants to climb steeply in future years. If the H-2C cap were increased by 20 percent each year, within twenty years the annual inflow of workers would reach 12 million. At this 20 percent growth rate, a total of 70 million guest workers would enter the U.S. over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. While it is unlikely that so many workers would enter, the program does have the potential to bring ten of millions of immigrants to the U.S.

The “guest worker” program, then, is an open door program, based on the demands of U.S. business, that would allow an almost unlimited number of workers and dependents to enter the U.S. from anywhere in world and become citizens. It is essentially an “open border” provision.

Additional Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families: The permanent entry of non-immediate relatives—such as brothers, sisters, and adult children—is currently subject to a cap of 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives (the parents, spouses, and minor children of U.S. citizens) admitted in the prior year. CIRA eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap.[7] This effectively increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year.

Additional Permanent Employment Visas: The U.S. currently issues around 140,000 employment-based visas each year. Under CIRA, the U.S. would issue 450,000 employment-based green cards per year between 2007 and 2016.[8] After 2016, the number would fall to 290,000 per year.[9] Under current law, LPR visas going to the spouses and children of workers with employment-based visas are counted against the cap. Under CIRA, these spouses and children would be removed from the cap and given legal permanent residence without numeric limits.[10] Historically, 1.2 dependent relatives have entered the U.S. for each worker under employment-based immigration programs.[11] This means that some 990,000 persons per year would be granted LPR status until 2016 and, after that, 638,000 per year.

Most provisions of CIRA are straightforward; in many categories, the number of future immigrants allowed is either directly stated or can be easily calculated from the law’s provisions. In some areas, however, the law’s impact is uncertain. To estimate future legal immigration under the bill, three assumptions have been used in this paper:

* Spouses and children of workers: Dependent spouses and children represent a major component of current immigration. In the current employment-based visa program, 1.2 dependents enter for each incoming worker.[12] This paper assumes this ratio will continue in the employment-based program and will also apply to those entering under the new guest worker program. This is a conservative assumption: guest workers are likely to have lower education levels and thus to have larger families. Finally, many current illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty under the bill already have families in the U.S.; therefore the ratio of incoming spouses and children to amnesty recipients is assumed to be only 0.6, or half the ratio of the employment-based program.

* Parents of naturalized citizens: Parents of naturalized citizens currently make up eight percent of all new legal immigrants. This paper assumes that half of all adult immigrants will naturalize after five years of LPR status and that 30 percent of the parents of these naturalized citizens will immigrate in the three years after their children’s naturalization.

* Growth in the guest worker program: The number of immigrants in the guest worker program will be driven by employer demand. The bill allows the number of H-2C visas to increase by 20 percent per year; this level of growth would result in an extraordinary 60 million guest workers in the U.S. over the next twenty years. This paper assumes that the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10 percent per year. Alternative estimates for 20 percent growth and zero growth in the program are also presented.[13]

Under CIRA, immigrants could enter the country or attain lawful status within the country through eight channels. In each channel, immigrants would be granted permanent residence and the right to become citizens. The first channel represents immigrants who would have entered under current law; the second channel represents illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and would be given legal permanent residence under the bill. The other six channels represent new inflows of legal immigrants that would occur as a result of the bill. The total number of new legal immigrants over a twenty year period would be as follows: (See Charts 1 and 2.)

1. Visas under current law: Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million. This represents the status quo under existing law.

2. Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. These individuals are currently living in the U.S.; amnesty would allow them to remain legally and to become U.S. citizens.

3. Expanded family chain migration: The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.[14]

4. Employment-based green cards: The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year. For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.[15]

5. The guest worker (H-2C) program: CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. Assuming 10 percent annual growth in the annual number of guest workers entering the country (well below the bill’s maximum), the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.

6. Spouses and children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.

7. Spouses and children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.

8. Parents of naturalized citizens. The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million.

Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. This is roughly one-third of the current population of the United States. All of these new entrants would be permanent residents and would have the right to become citizens. This would be a 84 million person net increase over current law.

All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.

The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10 percent per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate permitted by the bill, 20 percent per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. On the other hand, if immigration under the H-2C program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law. (See Chart 3.)

The tables in the Appendix show annual inflows of total legal immigrants in each of the eight channels mentioned above over the next twenty years. The tables show the estimated yearly rate of immigration under three scenarios for the H-2C program: zero growth, ten percent growth, and twenty percent growth.

Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration known as the “great migration”. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13 and 15 percent of the population.[17]In 1924, Congress passed major legislation greatly reducing future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5 percent of the population.

In the last three decades, immigration has increased sharply. The foreign born now comprise around 12 percent of the population, approaching the levels of the early 1900’s. However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population.[18] There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history.

If enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. In its overall impact on the nation, the bill would rival other historic milestones, such as the creation of Social Security or Medicare.

The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.

Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[6] See S.6211, Section 403 (m)(1). Some might argue that the number of guest workers who would be permitted to attain LPR status would be subject to the overall caps on employment-based permanent visas elsewhere in law. But Section 408(h) of the bill, which deals with the right of guest workers to convert to LPR status, clearly states that “employment-based immigrant visas shall be made available to an alien having nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) [the H-2C program] upon the filing of a petition for such a visa.” In other word, LPR status shall be granted to any guest worker upon his filing of petition; there is no mention of any numeric cap or other mechanism limits the number of such status adjustments. If the bill’s authors intend to limit the opportunity of guest workers to obtain legal permanent residence with a numeric cap, then the bill should explicitly state that fact.

[11] Ruth Ellen Wasem, “U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions,” CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 12, 2006, p. 18.

[13] Several factors have not been included in the estimates. The paper ignores future levels of illegal immigration. The paper assumes that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.; this widely used figure rests on the assumption that nearly all illegal immigrants are counted in annual Census surveys. In fact, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. may be much larger; this would mean that the number of immigrants eligible for amnesty would also be higher. The paper also assumes that there will be no successful fraud in applications for amnesty; in fact, the standards for proving prior residence and employment in the U.S. are very flimsy. Fraud may be prevalent, further boosting amnesty numbers. Finally, there is no attempt to estimate return to native countries or reverse migration by new immigrants. In effect, the paper assumes that returns will be matched by a corresponding increase in new entrants under the H-2C program.

[14] This number is the net increase in immigration due to the legislation and does not include the secondary family members who would have immigrated under current law.

[15] This number is the net increase in employment-based immigration and does not include persons who would have immigrated under current law.

[16] Jeffrey Passel Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C, June 14, 2005, p.6.

[17]National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1997, p. 35

[18] Currently there are around 35.7 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. (Passel, op.cit., p.3). With a new influx of 103 million immigrants, the total foreign-born population would reach around 124 million (adjusting for deaths in the interim.) Given the massive projected immigration, the population of the U.S. would have swollen to around 449 million by 2027. This would be up from a base projection of around 355 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, “U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin,” at http.://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/. The foreign born would comprise around 27 percent of the total population.

"It sounds to me like we are trying to give our "poverty," unemployment, "uninsured," welfare recipients and crime stats a boost. They've been on the decline lately. The 'RATS need high "misery index" stats in order to continue getting elected."---(so they can eventually do good by passing do-gooder laws).

Excellent point! I'm so happy I broke out of the Liberal mold I was born into. It took a long time, but it was worth it. I no longer have to share in this convoluted, self defeating thinking.

And I still believe that the end of the day enough of the American people will see what nonsense it all is. The key thing is, we must prevent Congress from passing any legislation at this time. The only way we will lose is if we legalize all these people soon, so they can defeat us in the polls. Otherwise, I believe the American people will eventually come to their senses. We conservatives have to get rid of this idea that we need to pass a bill right now.

what is your thinking on immigration policy based on what you just said. Mine is that the most important component is we should try to decrease the demand for illegal immigration by increasing the supply of legal immigrant passes from the western hemisphere. I accept that there is a theoretical number beyond which legal immigration is more bad than good. But our problem with illegal immigration is overwhelmingly - I think - with our friends on the south border. And there is a limit - if nothing else just based on U.S. population v. Mexico population - on how many want to come here from there. (If I am right, 1/8 of people born in Mexico are already now in the U.S., how much higher can that number get?)

My hypothesis is that we should allow say 1 million immigrants to, legally, come to the U.S. per year from Mexico. Over time I believe two things would happen: 1) we would exhaust the supply of people from Mexico wanting to come here after a while and b) at that figure we would never reach a point where our society was worse off for the new immigrants coming here.

I would leave the other non-western hemisphere caps at current levels. And I would expand somewhat the cap for highly skilled immigrants and eliminate the idea that immigrants in those categories should recieve "temporary" passes. That's my current thinking anyway.

Gee, it sure would help if you would actually READ Larry Kudlow's article, which I excerpted and linked in my post.

Larry's point is exactly that we need to allow in SKILLED, and EDUCATED workers, which the Senate bill, in their infitie wisdom, limited -- the Senate is the one, who wants to limit educated workers, and let in everyone else.

Kudlow: "Amazingly, the Senate has passed another amendment to limit temporary workers to a mere 200,000 per-year, even though numerous studies say we need at least twice that amount. The Upper Chamber is also limiting the volume of skilled H1B workers, primarily engineers and scientists. These workers are crucial to American competitiveness, "

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larrykudlow/2006/05/18/197947.html

"The W.H. put out a memo to conservative leaders in nuMedia "refuting" Heritage. What happened to the days when we were on the same side?"

This is bad all right. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, partly because I like to read about business and partly because their politics tends to be reasonably conservative.

But there is a point at which Big Business conservativism diverges from Free Republic conservativism. You can see it when the Wall Street Journal defends measures that help preserve giant dinosaur companies---at the expense of small businesses.

Here's another example, I suppose. Presumably, the Republican support for Open Borders (which they are now trying to achieve by handing out citizenship to anyone who wants it, just another way to achieve the same thing) comes from business's desire for cheap labor.

Ultimately, this is going to come down to a fight inside the Republican Party. And it will boil down to money versus manpower. That is why I am so amused by the many appeals the RNC makes to me for money. Lately, I'm starting to see them as closer to an enemy that a friend. I'm still a Republican however, and support the Republican Party overall.

I just feel that our leadership has turned against us. Their latest pledges are almost comical. I guess they realize that I am pretty much of a conservative and I don't support what they're doing. So they are arguing about how bad it will be if the Democrats get in---how liberal they are.

As opposed to how Liberal the Rockefeller wing controlling the RNC is, right? LOL

I never really liked the RNC releases, most of them could be written better by any Freeper. Now I look at them with scorn. It's never wise to treat your base as though you despise them, and that is what they've done. Worse they've treated us as tempermental children that can't understand "adult" affairs. As thought we can be mocked, spoken down to, and subject to spin. We're the ones that take the Libs apart well before the RNC does and better than they do, yet they believe they can fool us?

You might be interested in this, I just stumbled across it via a link from a poster on polipundit

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjIyYmRjMjMxZTViNWFlOWRmZWYyMGVhM2Y3Njk1MWI=

The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.

Essentially the cheap labor the businesses think they'll get have now been guarenteed union wages. The theory is that it was introduced to effectly kill the bill quietly, once the businesses find out about it. I'd be more impressed if the Reps had the guts to filibuster the bill in the Senate openly. This is probably why Sessions is stating he thinks it won't pass this year. Between the House taking so much heat from constituents and the poison pill for businesses he's wagering it's going to collapse. Which would be better than passing the bill, but not good enough as our borders are still unsecured.

I want the bill killed, don't get me wrong, but once it is I'm not letting up on bordr enforcement. I intend to make every politician answerable for this in their races.

Yes, your point about life being
"Such as that people have their own desires and life outside of being a cheap labor commodity (Mexicans) and being allowed to illegally immigrate en masse to the USA. They want families, women, children, housing, food, nice TV sets. AND THEY JUST MIGHT NOT WANT TO GO HOME! When George Bush & senile Senate hacks say they are supposed to! "

Good point. We need an honesty test on this debate, and if we did, we'd ask:
Q1) What is 'temporary' or 'guest' about the 'temporary guest worker' program?
A: It's not. Both the 'temporary worker' visa can be convertible to LPR, then citizenship, and the amnesty category also can be so converted.

If we were honest, the new visa would be called 'unskilled workers visa' or something like that.

"Essentially the cheap labor the businesses think they'll get have now been guarenteed union wages. The theory is that it was introduced to effectly kill the bill quietly, once the businesses find out about it. I'd be more impressed if the Reps had the guts to filibuster the bill in the Senate openly."

Actually this makes a bad bill worse worse worse in many ways. You see, the ONE GOOD THING about these provisions was the possibility that it would wean businesses off of cheap illegal labor onto cheap legal labor.

IF they dont get that, and davis bacon keeps those wages high, then they will *still* be using illegal labor ... and that means nothing will be solved, because the special interests will somehow gut enforcement.

This train wreck is going so so wrong .. what SHOULD have happened is that we make the bill conservative enough that it is (a) conservative enough GOP can get unity and/or (b) the Democrats are the ones to filibuster it, thereby enabling the GOP to paint the Dems as obstructing 'reform' of immigration.

If we get a horrid union-backed amnesty-filled monstrosity. The Dems pass it and the GOP splits and has to kill it. Worst case comes true.

Whos to blame? McCain and the RINOs.
And Bush too, for not tacing right on this issue enough to make a sensible strategy work on this. They are selling out to the Democrats and, one way or another, will get their heads handed to them.

The Senate bill must be killed, the sooner the better.

"Mine is that the most important component is we should try to decrease the demand for illegal immigration by increasing the supply of legal immigrant passes from the western hemisphere."

Devil's advocate question: Why is illegal immigration a big problem, but legal immigration of the same numbers of people not bad? Fact is, much of the social effects are similar.

Yes, we dont guard our border and we dont enforce the immigration laws. so we have de facto open immigration.

I think your prescription, of allowing 1 million mexican migrants, but keeping other legal immigration low, is grotesquely imbalanced/biased towards Mexico, and actually dangerous in many ways (think of la reconquista and bilingualism issues). It would actually be better for our country to see 1 million immigrants from 20 countries equally than from 1.

Already, we have 58% of illegal immigration comes from Mexico. In contrast, the legal immigration levels are more geographically balanced.

There are many skilled people from European countries who cant legally get in. As we allow these amnesties and let illegal immigration from 3rd world countries balloon, we are closing ourselves off to the more healthy skilled worker migration.

The most humane, sensible and balanced approach on immigration:

- secure our borders with fences and whatever else is most cost-effective.
Fences are force multipliers. You can guard a fence far more easily than wide open spaces.
($1.5 billion is not a lot compared with the cost of illegal aliens in our jails, and the
cost of healtch care - Fed govt spends $1 billion on border area health care compensation to
cover the costs of illegal immigrants coming over for emergency care and to have babies)
- employer verification and sanctions. Until we start hitting employers with violations and
fining *them*, the jobs will be there. we also have to repeal the 'anti-discrimination' laws
that forbid employers from even challenging working papers!!
- allow moderate levels of immigration to fill needs of the economy and desire for people to come here
- to give employers and the economy needed ability to hir legal immigrants,
have work permits and worker program - BUT, it should be a REAL temporary worker program,
or they should cut the pretense of calling the proposed visa that; (the Senate bill is
now written so that *anyone* can apply for permanent residency once on that 'temporary
worker program', completely oblitering the false claim that these folks will go home
after some time; this program, as written, is an unskilled equivalent of the H1B visa,
where the employer sponsors the vias and the green card application.)
- CLEAR Act to get state and local law enforcement enforcing immigration law; Many illegal alien
criminals are on the loose in this country (google Heather MacDonald for her
- streamline deportation process and end the hiddne amnesties and rampant fraud in them
(eg the amnesty where women can claim to be abused is subject to much fraud, and that fraud creates a lot of harm)
- end birthright citizenship, diversity quotas, and chain migration of families

Sure, they'd still use illegals, but the point is that the business community is pushing this on the Rep side. They are the "weight" behind the relunctance of many in the Senate on this. If this amendment is a part of the bill, suddenly that weight is lessoned.

Look, the whole bill is bad and should be killed, 100% agreement And it's quite evident they don't care that the majority of their constituents are in an uproar. What they care about is keeping the business funds flowing to their campaigns. This releases the death hold of the businesses on their throats enough to ease some strongarming tactics being brought down on the House members.

I'm worried about them. We don't have a conservative majority there either, and I know the administration, MSM and folks like McCain have been doing everything in their power to strip RINO's into their pocket.

Of course it would be better if 41 Senate Reps would be brave enough to tell the administration and RINO's they won't sell out our country and stage a filibuster, but most of them are spineless. So instead we get backroom manuveurs. It was the same with Miers. they didn't come out directly, but after a point they quietly related to the admin it wasn't going to happen.

"But there is a point at which Big Business conservativism diverges from Free Republic conservativism. You can see it when the Wall Street Journal defends measures that help preserve giant dinosaur companies---at the expense of small businesses."

Actualy WSJ is pretty good at being for free markets rather than for protectionism or big business breaks.

But ... On immigration issue, there is a conflict between business needs for labor supply and the demand in jobs. The WSJ favors free trade in capital, free trade in goods, and free trade in ... people. Thinking only in economic terms, and ignoring cultural contexts, Government investments/costs/welfare etc. it seems like a great idea to have free trade in people.

They miss the point that our own labor pool then gets underbid to the point of oblivion. 'immigration/labor protectionism' akin to 'business/goods protectionism' kicks in. But its one thing for businesses to adapt and suffer global competition, its another for people in their own communities to have to face global competition from immigrants from impoverished nations. This is exporting poverty from say mexico to the US.

The right answer is moderation: Moderate immigration levels to accomodate those demands and needs, but not higher than the economy can tolerate or to the point where wages suffer.

The 1 million immigrants we get legally today is probably about right, but we also have about 500,000 illegal immigrants.
You could make the case for even higher levels - perhaps - but it would be a strained one, as even at current levels, you can detect wage depression. Certainly there is no economic justification for the kind of absurdly high levels projected for the bill, as shown by Heritage.
But even then, Heritage updated estimates are for 60 million new will make our legal immigration levels, or 3 million a year ... this about triples our immigration levels.

Maybe business will like that, but will they like higher welfare load creating tax burdens, stagnant wage levels for the unskilled, and the social dislocations of more and more immigrants from impoverished countries - crowding, traffic, etc.

The other right answer is for us to be selective about the *kind* of immigrant who comes - a self-reliant contributor to society. If we get that type, no problem.
What we COULD do is to stop having chain immigration and make more immigration employer sponsored. This is easily achieve by limiting family migration further than it is ...
If business wants to raise the H1B caps, fine, but lets lower the family migration caps.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.