Gang of Eight releases proposed immigration reform

[davmat787]

The Gang of Eight's awaited proposal for immigration reform was released this week. I think it was due to be released tuesday, but they must have held off a day or two due to the Boston Marathon bombings. The latimes.com article (link at bottom) includes a 7 page summary of the proposed legislation at the bottom of their article.

What do you like and dislike? What do you think will be effective or a waste of resources? Do you even think we need any immigration reform?

Personally, I am still reading and digesting, but on the surface I like that there is a concrete path for those living here illegally while at the same time providing money to secure the border. AND there are metrics included, for example the border will be secured if 90% of illegal crossing attempts are turned back or apprehended.

I have always thought that any sensible reform must include both a path for citizenship and funds to finally secure the southern border. It can be a tough pill to swallow for some, but let's face it: no one is deporting 11 million illegal immigrants and dealing with the "anchor baby" issue.

Thoughts?

-----------------

From the latimes.com article:

Six months after the bill becomes law, most of the 11 million people in the country without authorization — those who have been in the country before Dec. 31, 2011, and have no serious criminal record — would be eligible to apply for a new probationary legal status. That would allow them to live and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation. They would be required to pay a $500 initial penalty as well as an application fee and back taxes. The probationary status would be good for six years and could then be renewed after payment of another $500 penalty.

At the end of 10 years, if the border security targets have been hit, those on probationary status would be able to pay another $1,000 to apply for a green card, which provides permanent legal residency. Three years later, they could apply for citizenship. Those granted probationary status would not be eligible for government benefits during the decadelong wait.

The new plan requires a secure border with Mexico before the other provisions of the bill, including the citizenship proposals, could take hold. It provides $3 billion to increase surveillance, including the use of unmanned aerial drones. The Southwest border would be considered secure if, within five years, 90% of those attempting to cross illegally are turned back in areas that have had more than 30,000 apprehensions a year.

An additional $1.5 billion would go toward a double-layer fence constructed with help from the National Guard. Money would also go to local authorities to prevent border crossings, to triple prosecutions in some areas, and to dispatch 3,500 more customs agents.

After five years, if the border security goals remain unmet, a commission of border state governors and attorneys general will be given money and authority to implement further measures.

From the yahoo article:

The bill will include a requirement for all employers to check new workers against E-Verify, an electronic verification system.

The bill would establish new guest worker programs of low-skilled workers in farming, construction and other trades and increase the number of skilled workers who can obtain visas.

Under the Gang of Eight proposal, those who obtain provisional visas would not be eligible for most federal benefit programs, including welfare and assistance purchasing health insurance under the 2010 health reform law, until they receive green cards or citizenship. But those given provisional legal status would eventually be allowed to draw benefits once they receive green cards or citizenship.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ate-immigration-20130416,0,2949219,full.story (includes summary of proposed legislation)

http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-aim-defeat-immigration-bill-stressing-economy-160432309.html

 

[Matt1970]

Immigration reform means nothing more than amnesty for law breakers. It's a sign that we have given up keeping people out and do not wish to go through the trouble of deporting those already here. Popular or not it means that if enough people commit a crime, we will just turn around and make it legal.

And to those who went through all the trouble of coming to the US legally, sorry bout dat.

 

[davmat787]

Immigration reform means nothing more than amnesty for law breakers. It's a sign that we have given up keeping people out and do not wish to go through the trouble of deporting those already here. Popular or not it means that if enough people commit a crime, we will just turn around and make it legal.

And to those who went through all the trouble of coming to the US legally, sorry bout dat.

Does the fact that the bill include funds to secure the border with incentives to reach 90% secure make the amnesty bit any easier to swallow? And if I understand correctly, it is not straight up amnesty, rather a more defined path to citizenship. And employers would have to use the e-verify system to ensure employees and applicants are eligible to work in the US.

I am not trying to sell this, I just don't see another realistic way.

So, in short: would you trade "amnesty" for the current illegals for a secure southern border?

 

[Agent11]

I like the border plan. Especially that if they do not meet deadlines the money is diverted to the governors to get it done.

 

[Matt1970]

Does the fact that the bill include funds to secure the border with incentives to reach 90% secure make the amnesty bit any easier to swallow? And if I understand correctly, it is not straight up amnesty, rather a more defined path to citizenship. And employers would have to use the e-verify system to ensure employees and applicants are eligible to work in the US.

I am not trying to sell this, I just don't see another realistic way.

So, in short: would you trade "amnesty" for the current illegals for a secure southern border?

Anything other than deportation is amnesty. I do not support any form of amnesty.

 

[Slew Foot]

For every working illegal getting amnesty, someone on welfare gets shipped to mexico

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Immigration reform means nothing more than amnesty for law breakers. It's a sign that we have given up keeping people out and do not wish to go through the trouble of deporting those already here. Popular or not it means that if enough people commit a crime which brings beneficial results to politicians in the form of more votes or more campaign money/support (e.g. we literally did not prosecute some banks who were caught laundering money for terrorist organizations and drug cartels because they were "Too big, too fail"), we will just turn around and make it legal.

And to those who went through all the trouble of coming to the US legally, sorry bout dat.

FTFY

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...g-laundered-money-does-it-take-shut-down-bank

http://www.policymic.com/articles/10959/bank-of-america-laundered-drug-cartel-money-according-to-fbi

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Does the fact that the bill include funds to secure the border with incentives to reach 90% secure make the amnesty bit any easier to swallow? And if I understand correctly, it is not straight up amnesty, rather a more defined path to citizenship. And employers would have to use the e-verify system to ensure employees and applicants are eligible to work in the US.

I am not trying to sell this, I just don't see another realistic way.

So, in short: would you trade "amnesty" for the current illegals for a secure southern border?

90% as in 90% chance of that measurement of that goal will be to vague and to broad or unachievable to mean anything in regards to dealing with the actual issue.

Oh and if you want a realistic way to deal with the issue well the solution is in going after employers who employ illegals, landlords who rent to illegals and certain state governments offering state services to illegals.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I like the border plan. Especially that if they do not meet deadlines the money is diverted to the governors to get it done.

Diverted more likely to political parties in states toward gaining votes in the end. Mark my words some of that money won't be used for its intended purposes if its funneled into states, especially California with our Democrat majority.

 

[Svnla]

So we are going to give these ILLEGALS amnesty again (remember similar promise/reform in 1986?) while million of people with money, knowledge, and skill have to wait for years to get in the LEGAL way?

Why even bother to enforce immigration law?

<do not compute>

 

[davmat787]

90% as in 90% chance of that measurement of that goal will be to vague and to broad or unachievable to mean anything in regards to dealing with the actual issue.

Oh and if you want a realistic way to deal with the issue well the solution is in going after employers who employ illegals, landlords who rent to illegals and certain state governments offering to illegals.

I too wonder how they will determine the 90% figure. The proposed legislation says something to the effect of "apprehend or turn back 90% of attempted crossings". Ok, to do that means you have to know 100% of all crossing attempts, and knowingly have let 10% or less cross right?

I too think that figure will end up being whatever is most self serving to the interests of those who are in power at the time.

As for the employers, the proposed legislation does require employers at least to use the e-verify system.

 

[davmat787]

Anything other than deportation is amnesty. I do not support any form of amnesty.

I don't like it that much either, especially when my father used legal route when coming to this country. But, how in the hell do we deport 11 million people? What do we do with a family where the mom and dad are illegal, but their 2.3 kids are legal citizens having been born here?

Again, would you trade amnesty for current illegals for a secure border that stopped 90+% of illegal crossing attempts? And from what I understand, it isn't pure amnesty, but rather a 9-13 year plan for a path to citizenship that does require some criteria to be met on the illegals behalf.

I know it is tough pill to swallow, but what other realistic option is there? At least this is tied to (supposedly) securing the border.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I don't like it that much either, especially when my father used legal route when coming to this country. But, how in the hell do we deport 11 million people? What do we do with a family where the mom and dad are illegal, but their 2.3 kids are legal citizens having been born here?

Again, would you trade amnesty for current illegals for a secure border that stopped 90+% of illegal crossing attempts? And from what I understand, it isn't pure amnesty, but rather a 9-13 year plan for a path to citizenship that does require some criteria to be met on the illegals behalf.

I know it is tough pill to swallow, but what other realistic option is there? At least this is tied to (supposedly) securing the border.

If we honestly wanted the illegals out, we could achieve it without that many deportations. by doing the following:
1. Cracked down on employers to the point where it didn't make economic sense to hire illegals
2. Made it known that we would put anyone found in the country illegally in prison and not just give them a free ride home

If we did both of those things most of the illegals would leave on their own. Now, I'm open to having a debate about whether our goal should be to get them to leave, and what the tradeoffs of the above policies are, but I hate that every discussion on the topic starts with the false premise that removing the illegals is not possible.

 

[Moonbeam]

I want to see a pure solution to this that does not involve compromise.

 

[Wreckem]

If we honestly wanted the illegals out, we could achieve it without that many deportations. by doing the following:
1. Cracked down on employers to the point where it didn't make economic sense to hire illegals
2. Made it known that we would put anyone found in the country illegally in prison and not just give them a free ride home

If we did both of those things most of the illegals would leave on their own. Now, I'm open to having a debate about whether our goal should be to get them to leave, and what the tradeoffs of the above policies are, but I hate that every discussion on the topic starts with the false premise that removing the illegals is not possible.

It is not possible with out dedicating tons of money to it. Your ideas cost just as much money, if not more as deportation enforcement. Deportation and your suggestions still require huge human capital investments. Investments politicians are unwilling to make.

Also putting them in jail would require federal criminal trials for each one put in jail. The federal courts could not handle it. Jail is a punishment that requires due process of law, whereas deportation is NOT A criminal punishment and does not require the same level of due process.

 

[IronWing]

If the bill still includes the mandatory e-verify use for all employers that amounts to a national ID card with federal photo ID database of all citizens I do not support that aspect of the bill.

If the border security measures require the Border Patrol to actually patrol the border rather than the 100 mile buffer zone they currently patrol then that would be a dramatic improvement. If, on the other hand, the bill simply throws more money at the Border Patrol for their current policy of harassing US citizens up to 100 from the border then no, I do not support the bill. In fact, the Border Patrol currently has more money than it knows what to do with as evidenced by the amount of time they have to spend harassing US citizens and funding should be reduced.

If the bill still contains the language allowing DHS to run rough shod over environmental laws within the 100 mile border zone then I do not support the bill. There is no need for the provision.

The guest worker provisions of the bill are promising as is the tangled path to citizenship.

 

[Wreckem]

If the bill still includes the mandatory e-verify use for all employers that amounts to a national ID card with federal photo ID database of all citizens I do not support that aspect of the bill.

If the border security measures require the Border Patrol to actually patrol the border rather than the 100 mile buffer zone they currently patrol then that would be a dramatic improvement. If, on the other hand, the bill simply throws more money at the Border Patrol for their current policy of harassing US citizens up to 100 from the border then no, I do not support the bill. In fact, the Border Patrol currently has more money than it knows what to do with as evidenced by the amount of time they have to spend harassing US citizens and funding should be reduced.

If the bill still contains the language allowing DHS to run rough shod over environmental laws within the 100 mile border zone then I do not support the bill. There is no need for the provision.

The guest worker provisions of the bill are promising as is the tangled path to citizenship.

Personally I would like to see a provision added that would disallow anyone from getting immigration benefits off of someone who got citizenship through the tangled path to citizenship. IE: Person gets "amenesty" they can't get use their new status to get other people over legally.

Or if that cant be done legally. Don't ever give them a path to citizenship, just LPR status. That means they can stay her legally, at least until they do something illegal and then they are deportable.

 

[IronWing]

Personally I would like to see a provision added that would disallow anyone from getting immigration benefits off of someone who got citizenship through the tangled path to citizenship. IE: Person gets "amenesty" they can't get use their new status to get other people over legally.

Or if that cant be done legally. Don't ever give them a path to citizenship, just LPR status. That means they can stay her legally, at least until they do something illegal and then they are deportable.

I kind of like the idea of no path to citizenship but a clear path to LPR for folks already here. For the children of these folks, there pretty much has to be a path to citizenship. I don't want to see a system like the Japanese came up with where ethnic Korean families had been living in Japan for over three hundred years without ever being granted citizenship. At some point, we have to say if you're in, you're in 100%.

 

[BoomerD]

I will support NO immigration reform that doesn't require any person here illegally to immediately return to his/her native country and apply for re-entry.
Should they refuse to do so, they should be immediately deported and refused entry for a minimum of 5 years.

 

[peonyu]

I think the entire issue is useless as long as Anchor babies are still allowed, that alone makes it a legal nightmare trying to deport the illegal parents when their kids are US citizens by simply being birthed here days after hopping the fence.

 

[peonyu]

I will support NO immigration reform that doesn't require any person here illegally to immediately return to his/her native country and apply for re-entry.
Should they refuse to do so, they should be immediately deported and refused entry for a minimum of 5 years.

Thats what SHOULD happen, but you and me know it isn't going to happen. The entire issue with illegals revolves around cheap labor and the money they generate for companies, if there wasn't a need for cheap labor then there wouldnt be a need/tolerance for illegal aliens from our so-called leaders.

 

[ivwshane]

I think all illegals should be deported. We should spend money on having government going house to house asking for proof of citizenship and if they don't have it they should be rounded up and deported. Of course there will be those that try to run from these inspections so we should also have teams of government officials who police the streets asking anyone that looks illegal to show their proof of citizenship.

That's the only way to get rid of illegals.

I certainly wouldn't want them given amnesty and forcing them to pay taxes like everyone else! And I wouldn't want to bring them out from the shadows and have them integrate into American life, they need to be kept separate and isolated from true Americans.
If it wasn't for illegals businesses wouldn't have any desire to hire these people in the first place.







How did I do Sophitia?

 

[finglobes]

California was lost because of the first amnesty. All the illegals were able to bring family in. That's the worst part. The 11 million number for illegals is wrong because its been used since 2002. Bear Stearns estimated 15-20 million in 2005. All those people gettting their relatives in is bad because they only want cheese. They only vote cheese. CA is already bankrupt and the rest of the country will be right behind them. Many illegals will keep going to CA, NY etc. They will have good chance to take over Texas and other states. All votes will be about cheese. The pope told Hispanics not to vote for abortion (Obama) and they voted for cheese anyway by over 80%. They don't care about Constitution, security, defense etc etc - just the cheese - more cheese. The US will become an extension of the second and third world if not saved by a war of some kind. That's an easy situation to see looking at California - the land of cheese on debt

 

[Fenixgoon]

rewarding people for breaking the law? do not want. i don't care if it's citizenship in 10 years or 10,000 years. people breaking immigration law should not be provided a special means of attaining citizenship just because so many of them came here. they should have to go through the LAWFUL SYSTEM, just like everyone else.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Being able to tax these people who are working on this "amnesty" will pay for those on welfare three times over. The problem will be employers paying under the table and there is still a ton of that going on.

Imagine if we did this and ended the drug war, then let all those DEA & local sting cops become border control, private security for dispensaries, and growth warehouses; that would create a virulent boost to the tax stream and end a lot of the street wars we have now.

People can have their fun, nobody loses their jobs, and some could move up in the world (imagine a for drug enforcement cop opening a dispensary and hiring all his buddied to run it. They would make so much more money, keep the peace, and generate millions in tax revenue.).

Giving them a fair shot at citizenship is fair, as many of them have helped us build this country over the last century, give or take; but we do need to make sure they are paying taxes and working towards being legal if they are of working age. Again, the ones who are drug dealers now could run a professional dispensary and hire officers at a nice rate to collect more tax revenue for the government.

Please understand that when I say end the drug war I do not mean put meth on the counter in gas stations. I do think less harmful things should be decriminalized in an evolved country. I think our oppressive drug laws are harmful to our society and downright destroying others. Prohibition of commonly accepted non harmful intoxicants should be a proven failure at this juncture. Tax it in it's refined corporate form and Joe America won't even want to grow their own. It will be the next alcohol industry. Revenue, jobs, more revenue, happy citizens, more revenue.