Senate Nearing Immigration Bill
This won’t make conservatives happy:
Senators negotiating a bipartisan immigration reform bill have settled on the details of a plan that would immediately grant legal status to all illegal immigrants currently in the United States.
The deal on “Z visas” for illegal immigrants is one of several issues where Democrats and Republicans have reached broad agreement.
[...]
The plan to award legal status to all illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications would occur only after other “triggers” are met. These triggers would require that certain border security and work-site enforcement measures be in place before other aspects of the overhaul go forward.The Z visa plan would start with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States going on a probationary legal status. If the triggers are met — a process that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated would take 18 months — then illegal immigrants who qualify could get Z visas. Those who have committed felonies would not be eligible, Graham said, and all participants would have to pass security checks, pay a fine and a processing fee and pass an English proficiency test.
Z visa holders would be able to apply for legal permanent resident status, a step toward citizenship. But at some point, the heads of households with Z visas would have to return to his or her home country and then reenter the United States. They would have to take their Z visa to the U.S. Embassy or consulate and would be guaranteed reentry. The Z visa would include a photo and fingerprints, Graham said.
What’s the first thing one does when one reads news like this? That’s right, one visits conservative blogs to see what they are saying:
- Ed Morrissey: “conservatives could have done worse… Conservatives don’t get everything they want, of course, but we don’t control Congress any more, either. While one could argue that no bill beats a bad bill, this compromise does not look all that bad. Its focus on border security and identification of illegals as part of the process of normalization addresses two significant national-security concerns, and it still penalizes illegals — just not to the extent desired by conservatives.”
- Hot Air: ‘Not a word is mentioned in the piece about border enforcement, but you will be pleased to know that they’ve agreed to let illegal aliens attend state colleges at in-state tuition rates as part of the deal… I fear we need a miracle, my friends — a savior, like Bruce Campbell in “Evil Dead 2,†to deliver us from the amnesty demon.’
- Red State: “as the immigration deal comes together, Senate conservatives are growing uneasy about the state of the negotiations, fearing that Republican leadership will sell out to the Bush Administration and liberal Democrats to give amnesty to illegal aliens.”
- The Politico: “this shouldn’t necessarily be taken as a sign that a deal is imminent.”
Probably more reactions to come, for now that’s it.
What do you all think? Happy? Unhappy? Make illegal immigrants legal, or should they not be rewarded for, essentially, breaking the law?
24 Responses to “Senate Nearing Immigration Bill”
Michael, don’t fall for the line that “conservatives” are all anti-immigration. Some are, others aren’t. “Conservatives” of the more traditional pro-business bent (like the Wall Street Journal) are often very strongly pro-immigration because of the positive effects that immigration has on economic growth.
“Conservatives” from the more recent nationalist bent (i.e. Pat Buchanan, Laura Ingraham) are strongly anti-immigration but they are not, in spite of their claims, the totality of the “conservative” political movement.
A friend of mine once wrote a song with a line that I love: “There’re no big decisions, just the small ones you chose not to make.”
Our government granted amensty back in the 80′s but chose not to address the harder issues of guest workers or creating a reasonable path to citizenship. They also chose to turn a blind eye toward enforcement, with a wink to all of the businesses that are enjoying the glut of cheap labor.
Now all the small decisions they chose not to make are coming back to haunt them, because there is no good solution. Trying to round up all the illegals is inhumane (IMO- how can you fault someone for trying to feed his family?) and pragmatically it’s impossible anyway. But granting amnesty (again) isn’t really right either, especially when you consider that the people who are waiting in line for legal citizenship will have thousands cutting to the front of the line.
Bush had it about right, as much as is possible. Too bad the GOP Congress wouldn’t back him on it, because now the Dems will probably do something similar and get the credit for it (cue Superdestroyer to tell us how this will play right into the coming of one party rule as all of the new citizens will automatically vote Dem! LOL)
That’s a good point Christine.
Jason, agreed, I should have said “quite some conservatives.”
Well, it’s “nice” to see that some things don’t change no matter where you go. Spain is going on two amnesty programs now, and the illegals keep on coming, stronger than ever. Both times we’ve been told it was the last time, just to get the submerged market to the light, that the promised, for real this time, to enforce immigration laws. Naturally it was all lies. They kept, or rather keep, on coming.
While being in the receiving country is more pleasant and money-making than being in the home country, the illegals will NEVER stop coming. Those who obtain legal status will suddenly find themselves without jobs, as illegal countrymen step in to take their sub-minimum wage sub-human conditions work. Meanwhile those individuals who patiently wait for legal status (often those who have the most to offer, with actual professional skills) will see how much their legality is appreciated.
This is the stereotype, but research indicates that it probably isn’t true.
I’m not sure how I feel about immigration–but this seems like a reasonable compromise between the opposing sides.
The continuing march for the one party state continues. I guess the goal of the Democratic party is to make all of the U.S. like California. The only problem is what to do with all of the native born non-hispanic Americans who will not have any place to live and will be aliens in their own country.
I wonder when to live in certain parts of the country Spanish speaking will be required but English will be unnecessary.
Thanks, SD! I knew I could count on you.
They want the US to be ruled by a Republican?
Davebo,
that would be a “Republican-In-Name-Only” since I doubt if Arnold has done anything in the last six months that Gray Davis would not have done.
C STanley,
Take a look at the demographic trends in California. The total number of whites and blacks is decreasing due to the population pressures of the illegal immigrants and their off spring.
I probably don’t need to point out that Jason Steck omitted a key word here and there: “illegal”.
And, of course, it’s not just “conservatives” who oppose amnesty, and once everyone sees what it actually does about 85% of Americans will not be happy at all.
Some issues I have are that the current immigration numbers would be changed to basically allow a huge amount of immigrants in the future. I guess that is their way of getting around illegal immigrants. There is also an effort underway to change the law and allow federal assistance benefits to legal immigrants if not illegal immigrants. Many states do not check immigration status for even federal benefits so they really do not know if it is legal or illegal anyhow, and assume they are citizens.
I do not believe that the social infrastructure we have in place can continue to handle the burden. Immigration brings increased drivers, increased needs to medical, increased needs for schools, etc. There is a point where we just can’t handle the burden.
I also have concerns about what crimes qualify for deportation. Using a fake social security number doesn’t from a case I read. Often DUI doesn’t, or driving without a license or insurance. Only specific felonies, “crimes of moral turpitude” qualify. Crimes committed prior to age 18 do not qualify for deportation or denying a visa. It is interesting to note that for “crimes of moral turpitude” the motivation is what counts.
If illegal immigrants are here for the low paying jobs we do not want, then we will just get more illegal immigrants. After all they join unions now, so they are are under the same laws. Indeed it is likely that many will unionize once they are legal, even in jobs that are not unionized now. This is why the labor movement supports illegal immigration amnesty. Then the employers no longer have cheap labor. So how does this solve the problem.
“This won’t make conservatives happy:”
That needs to be amended to “This won’t make the blue collar working class happy.”
It isn’t right-left on this issue Michael, it’s middle-lower middle class vs. upper middle-elite. The people at the top or near there love the idea of maximizing business profit, and could care less what the do to workers of the country to achieve this end.
And people wonder how socialism got started.
Jason — oh, how you know it. You can expect pro-immigrant behavior as well from CATO (which merely purports to be libertarian but has adopted and been adopted by Washington, DC for ages — go check out their splendid facilities on Massachusetts sometime, especially at Christmastime — and is often blatantly a prostitute for the business community when it gets emotional, “Anyone who risks death to come here DESERVES to be in this country!”).
As for the Wall Street Journal, its stance is obviously in support of the business community:
“There shall be open borders” (constitutional amendment)
They are arguably even more pro-immigration than the idealistic, irritating liberals in the 1960s who wanted our policy changed from the way it was before to a policy based on “family reunification.”
Most people (including a number on the Left) who favor immigration reform want something like the points systems used by so many other countries, and possible exceptions for those who would make $ub$tantial inve$tment$ if they immigrated here.
Lynx:
> Spain is going on two
> amnesty programs now,
Socialism = exploiting the Herd
> and the illegals keep on
> coming, stronger than ever.
Consider the “push factors” in northern Africa in about 10-20 years compared to now. That’s setting aside any rise in terrorism.
1. Most countries have lowered fertility but some are still high, and the Middle East faces exponential growth (rather than decline) in an urbanized desert with retarded economic development and a struggle to find (potable) water.
2. You in Spain face a more-narrow Mediterranean than elsewhere. Just dodge the large tankers and freighters, and…you’ve arrived.
> There is also an effort
> underway to change the
> law and allow federal
> assistance benefits to
> legal immigrants if not
> illegal immigrants.
Next come voting rights. Another advantage for the Dems.
The omission was intentional, for several reasons:
1) I listen to a lot of right-wing political analysis. It has been striking the degree to which it is obvious that the “illegal” distinction is a red herring. Opposing “illegal” immigration is only a part of their general opposition to immigration generally. They perceive foreigners as security and cultural threats. Even if every potential immigrant were following the rules, they would be (and are, in fact) supporting highly restrictive rules.
2) The research documenting the positive economic effects of immigration include illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants pay taxes, purchase goods and services, and do basically all the same things that legal immigrants and native-born citizens do. In fact, some studies indicate the increased immigration (legal OR illegal) is our only hope to avoid collapse of the social security system, catastrophic labor shortages, and other problems of an aging population.
3) I am not aware of any evidence that indicates unique problems from “illegal” immigration. Right-wing immigration opponents throw around claims of increased violent crime and disease, but utterly without credible evidence of any type. This increases my suspicion from #1 that the “illegal” focus is just a red herring designed to make these people sound way worse than they actually are.
Anyone who reads my stuff knows I’m not a right-basher by any stretch of the imagination. But on the issue of immigration, the right wing is absolutely infested with bad thinking and even poorly concealed racism.
I think the best immigration policy is simple: Give all applicants AND all current immigrants a basic criminal background check and check against international “watch lists”. If they come up clean, let them come in or let them stay, period. I am aware of no moral argument about the nature of justice that justifies excluding these people.
DLS two things to note:
1. Of the two amnesty programs, one came under Popular Party (conservative) rule and the other under PSOE (socialist) rule, so claiming that amnesty is purely left is unreasonable, in this case.
2. Just generally speaking, you would be advised to understand that your understanding of “socialist” and the REALITY of “socialist” in Spain is vastly different. In Spain “socialist” is just the brand-name for the liberal party, they could be called labour or anything else, it’s just an ornament, don’t take it literally.
“Give all applicants AND all current immigrants a basic criminal background check and check against international “watch listsâ€.”
A few things here, again from Spanish experience.
1. Many illegals claim identities that aren’t real, they lack identifying documents. Actually they don’t lack them, they hide them in order to avoid problems.
2. In order to give resident status we ask for certificates stating no criminal record. They all bring them, nice and shiny. This happened with the “monstruo de machala” an Ecuatorian who had raped and strangled multiple women in his country, and then did it again here. He had all his papers in order. Getting a clean record from your country is just a matter of payment. As for the US, illegals, being illegals, don’t always give the same name, so when you check against their REAL name, you may find nothing, since they have never given their real name.
“Next come voting rights. Another advantage for the Dems.”
Blame Bush for not upholding his oath of office on that one, because this happened on his watch.
Do you have any evidence that a significant portion of the 11 million “illegals” (nothing like a label to taint people without evidence) in this country are violent criminals?
Do you even have any evidence that violence is more common among “illegals” than among the general population?
From what research I have seen, the reverse is true.
> In Spain “socialist†is just
> the brand-name for the
> liberal party
I capitalized “Socialism” because it began the sentence of note in my posting, not because I was referring to Dr. Z’s party in Spain.
I read an article about the history of immigration less than a year ago but can’t find it again. It claimed that for most of history (until the 20s and it looks like it started again between WWII and the early 60s) we had an open border for Mexican migrant workers and that an equal percentage came over the border to work each year that are here now. The difference is that after the picking season was over they all went back to Mexico to be with their families. It claimed that it wasn’t until we closed the border and they feared being caught that they would stay once they crossed over. Anyone know what I’m talking about?
Anyway I haven’t lived in the southwest, but in CO there were lots of Hispanics and my blue collar friends never said they were feeling a squeeze from them. And in the South they were getting far more shut out because of overseas outsourcing (my mom’s job was to go in to places were there were layoffs and help them find new jobs so she had a finger on the pulse of what the blue collar economy was doing) and only once did I hear of people being replaced by migrants.
Jason — everything I’ve read illegals are much less likely to be violent. I’d have to find it again, but the second generation is too…it’s the third generation that has normal crime rates.
The labels are just to easy to apply, but anti-illegal immigration, immigration controls are not conservative views alone. Rather from reading the polls they seem to be more in line with the main stream American voter view.
The whole key is to look for the polls on voters, rather then polls on Americans in general. Basically the definition of American in these polls is you have a phone in the US, it has no basis in actually being a U.S. citizen.
Republicans and Democrats are against amnesty.
Even Hispanic/Latino voters prefer that enforcement happen first and no amnesty.
Union members polled are against amnesty.
Yet the groups themselves, Democrats, Republicans, Unions and hispanic groups support amnesty in general anyhow.
So the American voter is being ignored and it is the groups that have banded together to support amnesty and high immigration numbers.
One thing you might want to ask is what the groups hope to gain, because the groups themselves are not in existence for altruistic reasons. We should be concerned.
By the way, illegal alien is the official term in the law, undocumented worker is an unofficial term used to decrease the perceived negative connotations of the official term.
The thing that I find disturbing is the press so often using the term immigrant to apply to both illegal immigrant and immigrant, often done when talking about anti-illegal immigrant views or laws even.