Senate Reaches Immigration Deal With White House

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:04:47 PM EST
Tags: immigrants, immigration reform (all tags)

Share This:

The Senate has reached a deal with the White House on immigration reform.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine and returning to their home countries — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.

More...

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

How long are those probationary cards good for? Can they go back and forth while waiting for their permanent residency or citizenship?

I don't think I like this plan. As for family reunification being a key goal, forget it. They are moving to a point system to give favored position on the basis of jobs and skills, not family.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill-level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

If the point is to bring the 12 million undocumented residents among us out in the open, I don't think this is going to do it.

Immigration reform legislation should only be supported, in my view, if it allows the undocumented already living in this country to remain here. They should not have to return and pay a huge re-entry fee. They are here, we benefit from their presence, a lot of them work and pay taxes and we're a big country. We can assimilate them, just as we have millions of others in prior decades and centuries.

< AZ Town Opposes Border Fence | Disinformation on Defunding >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Senate Reaches Immigration Deal With White House | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

More details. (none / 0) (#1)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:31:26 PM EST

They are good for eight year periods, and renewable indefinitely. Yes, they can travel, but they'd still be limited to the normal residency and continuous physical presence requirements for all folks who want to retain their status or qualify for naturalization.

As for family reunification being a key goal, forget it. They are moving to a point system to give favored position on the basis of jobs and skills, not family.

Automatic family unification is still a part of the bill, but only for spouses and children of USCs and LPRs. Parents and siblings would have to qualify in some other manner.

A $5000 fine??? (none / 0) (#2)
by desertswine on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:31:47 PM EST

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahah...

Hahahahaha??? (none / 0) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:47:31 PM EST

I don't get it, what's your point?

If your point is that that's too much money and they won't be able to afford it, well, you are very, very mistaken.

[ Parent ]

Why should.... (none / 0) (#12)
by desertswine on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:50:48 PM EST

anyone pay a $5000 fine... when they can just stroll across the border?

[ Parent ]

: Not a laughing matter. (none / 0) (#13)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:52:06 PM EST

Because without a visa they risk deportation and loss of all future eligibility for benefits.

[ Parent ]

Open Borders (none / 0) (#4)
by HeadScratcher on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:55:25 PM EST

Just open the borders. Unlimited immigration, especially from brown countries. It will lower wages, increase health care costs, cause housing problems as well as education problems (school shortages, teacher shortages, dual language instruction). I'm sure there will be an increase in crime.

However, it will the U.S. a more tolerant nation, it will relieve us of the guilt of Pilgrim Illegal Immigration, and increase the voting rolls for the Democratic Party.

Viva La Raza!!!!

Danger, Will Robinson... (none / 0) (#5)
by fafnir on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:08:58 PM EST

"Senate Reaches Immigration Deal With White House"

The title should inform you that this deal reached with the Bush Crime Family is a bad bill for everyone.

: fair is fair.... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:25:39 PM EST

congress is also a crime syndicate.

[ Parent ]

Gotta say (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:12:04 PM EST

What is the problem that this is supposed to solve?

With this or any legislation, illegal aliens either will or will not choose to become legal workers.

Those that do choose to become legal workers either will or will not choose to work in legal jobs.

Either way, any illegal jobs will quickly be filled by either legal workers working illegally or illegal workers.

Problems we would like to solve: (none / 0) (#8)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:20:56 PM EST

SUO, here are just a few problems with the current system that need to be addressed:

(1) The shadow population currently residing in the U.S. that cannot take advantage of the social safety features provided by the federal, state, and local governments.
(2) The inability of said shadow population to assimilate.
(3) The criminals that take advantage of said shadow population.
(4) The criminals that use the shadow population and its transborder movements for cover.

As the system currently stands, illegal aliens are the most disadvantaged class of people in the United States. A change has to be made for that reason alone. Fortunately, there are many other good reasons to make changes, too. These include economic and national security concerns.

[ Parent ]

GM (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:30:28 PM EST

(1) The shadow population currently residing in the U.S. that cannot take advantage of the social safety features provided by the federal, state, and local governments.

How long do you think it will take for the current "shadow population" to be replaced by a new "shadow population?" The problem of a "shadow population" will absolutely not be solved, as we have seen in the past with amnesty programs.

(2) The inability of said shadow population to assimilate.

Whu? Did we not just have a bunch of illegal aliens get busted for some bone-head plans to shoot up Ft. Dix who were so "assimilated" that they owned homes and businesses, were US educated, and no one who knew them had a clue they were illegal aliens for over 2 decades?

>(3) The criminals that take advantage of said shadow population.

See my answer to (1).

(4) The criminals that use the shadow population and its transborder movements for cover.

ibid.

[ Parent ]

SUO (none / 0) (#11)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:47:10 PM EST

How long do you think it will take for the current "shadow population" to be replaced by a new "shadow population?"

Indeed, in order to prevent new illegal aliens from entering the U.S. we need to secure the borders. Otherwise, we've just incentivised their illegal activity. That is why I emphasized above (and always mention when I'm writing about immigration) the need to undertake internal reforms after securing the borders.

The problem of a "shadow population" will absolutely not be solved...

Then we might as well give up and open the border? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Did we not just have a bunch of illegal aliens get busted for some bone-head plans to shoot up Ft. Dix who were so "assimilated" that they owned homes and businesses, were US educated, and no one who knew them had a clue they were illegal aliens for over 2 decades?

Yes they were assimilated. Unfortunately, they were also interested in undertaking criminal activities against the U.S. That doesn't mean that assimilation is bad; it means that some people are.

[ Parent ]

GM (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:10:53 PM EST

The only place I'm going is:

Define the problem.
If it's possible to enact legislation that solves the problem, do so. If not, do not.

We don't have secure borders so this legislation absolutely won't solve the problem of "shadow population."

That doesn't mean that assimilation is bad; it means that some people are.

That wasn't my point. My point was illegalness of their alieness (thanks roy) does not deny them assimilation.

[ Parent ]

: And further (none / 0) (#15)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:14:30 PM EST

that legalness does not guarantee assimilation.
And lastly, should it be our gvt's goal and responsibility to assimilate illegal aliens?

[ Parent ]

Gabriel (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:33:14 PM EST

Uh, when these criminal undertakings are in the name of a foreign terrorist organization they haven't been assimilated.

That's not a crime such as robbing a 7-11. That's a terrorist operation, or you may like guerrilla attack better.

[ Parent ]

Corrections (none / 0) (#17)
by LonewackoDotCom on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:39:21 PM EST

Illegal aliens aren't "the most disadvantaged class of people in the United States" by a long shot. They're fully protected by a) racial power groups like La Raza ("The Race") and by b) those who make money from them. They've even got representation from Democrats like TonyVillar, GilCedillo, and on and on.

And, a massive legalization will give even more political power inside the U.S. to the MexicanGovernment, something that will have a disastrous impact on our political system. As it is now, that government is allowed to engage in actions forbidden under consular protocols, they appear to have initiated prosecutions of BP agents, BP supervisors give them wide latitude when their nationals are detained, and they're allowed to spread pro-Mexico propaganda to U.S. public school children by giving away history books that present the Mexican side of the MexAm war. That will only get far, far worse, with Mexico eventually obtaining effective co-dominion over some parts of our country.

[ Parent ]

First Look (none / 0) (#7)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:14:10 PM EST

Okay, I've looked through everything I can find about this compromise and, with only a few reservations, I think this is a step in the right direction.

First and most importantly, it establishes that we must do something about illegal aliens currently in the U.S. without simply incentivising more illegal activity. Every benefit or form of relief we give to illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. must be matched with increased border security and regulation of illegal employers. This compromise, at a minimum, operates under that framework.

Second, the legalization of illegal aliens requires only that they meet the normal admissibility requirements (excepting their EWI, of course) and pay a fine. There's no forced return, just to get the "illegal immigrant visa."

Third, I have seen references to "refugee reform" which I am very much in favor of. Unfortunately, except for a few throw-away lines, there's not much info on what shape this reform takes at the minute. Let's all cross our fingers.

However, there are some parts of this that I'm not thrilled about. First, I'm not sure the changes to the family visa system are wise or necessary. On the one hand, parents and siblings are already disfavored by the present system. Generally, "family unity" has referred to parents and minor children, which is retained under the compromise. It does not usually mean grown children can petition for their aged parents so that they can retire in this country. There are good reasons for disfavoring such petitions, including the fact that retired immigrants add little to the economy and bring great healthcare costs with them. On the other hand, some families place great value on keeping the whole extended family together. We in the U.S. need to decide what purpose we want our immigration system to serve.

Second, I'm skeptical of any system which requires U.S. residents, be they formerly-illegal or not, to return to their home countries for immigrant visa processing. That is a hardship that I do not believe we can fairly place on illegal aliens. So long as they meet the admissibility requirements, they should be allowed to process at DHS, just like everyone else.

Gabriel (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:53:37 PM EST

That is a hardship that I do not believe we can fairly place on illegal aliens. So long as they meet the admissibility requirements, they should be allowed to process at DHS, just like everyone else.

Is there something about being here illegally that you don't understand??

BTW - Didn't you tell us your firm handles immigration matters? And won't this decrease your business??

I apologize in advance if I am wrong.

[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#18)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:38:16 PM EST

jim, I didn't say that they weren't here illegally. I know they're here illegally. The question is over what to do with them now. Logistics alone prevent us from just shipping them back to wherever they came from. Similarly, they're not stupid enough to voluntarily deport themselves in return for some potential benefits a decade from now. That means we need to do something about them here.

Also, yes, I work at an immigration firm. I think it extremely unlikely that new laws will be putting us out of business any time soon; Congress has a way of mucking up the existing system by making "comprehensive" changes. Things usually end up more in need of lawyers than before.

But that is extremely beside the point. I find it objectionable and more than a little ethically questionable to base my views of appropriate national policy on what I estimate will lead to the most work in my particular field. My clients aren't making frivolous civil claims; they're involved in a life-altering legal process. I'm in favor of doing the right thing, no matter the consequences for the field of immigration law.

[ Parent ]

Gabriel (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:30:01 PM EST

First, remember that I apologized in advance... didn't want to hurt your feelings, just wanted to be sure that I understood.

Secondly, we have two problems.

The 15 million that are here.
Keeping anymore from coming.

The best I can tell this bill does not address problem number 2. In fact, by allowing the previous wave of illegals to stay, you have insured another group to come as this group is being allowed in.

Horse Hockey.

The Demos and the DUMMY REPUBS and the Pres can talk to me when they have closed the border.

[ Parent ]

Normalizing (none / 0) (#10)
by jarober on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:39:35 PM EST

We tried this:

"Immigration reform legislation should only be supported, in my view, if it allows the undocumented already living in this country to remain here."

In 1986. Not surprisingly, the 1986 "reform" encouraged millions of others to come across and try to beat the system. At some point we have to figure out how to have a functioning immigration system - and just opening the borders isn't it