McClatchy News: A guide to the new Immigration Bill

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok, boys and girls here's a nice guide to what the proposed bill tries to do.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17251969.htm

Questions and answers about the new immigration bill

By Dave Montgomery

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Senate next week will plunge into its first confrontation over immigration when it debates a comprehensive bill crafted by a bipartisan group of senators and endorsed by President Bush.

Here's a guide for the upcoming debate:

QUESTION: Millions of illegal immigrants would be quickly legalized under this bill. Isn't that amnesty?

ANSWER: Depends on the perspective. The Bush administration and the bill's supporters say no, because illegal immigrants would pay fines and fees and would have to meet other conditions if they eventually want to get on a path to citizenship.

An array of critics, including many Republican lawmakers, assert otherwise. They say the financial penalties are designed primarily to give proponents political cover to deflect the amnesty tag. They say any process that lets illegal immigrants become legal is amnesty.

Q: How would legalization work?

A: Within six months after the law's enactment, illegal immigrants would be placed on probationary status and could work legally while the Department of Homeland Security completes background checks.

After the government certifies that certain border-security measures - so-called triggers - are in place, the illegal immigrants could pay a $1,000 fined receive a Z visa that would be renewable every four years. They would be permitted to stay in the country indefinitely if they obey the law and stay employed.

Q: Could they become citizens?

A: First they'd have to get a "green card," which would make them legal permanent residents of the United States. Z card holders could ultimately apply for a green card - but not until the government clears out a current backlog of more than 5 million other green card applicants, which will take eight years.

Then they would return to their home country to file their application, demonstrate proficiency in English and pay an additional $4,000 fine. Those who measured higher in a merit-based system giving weight to education and professional skills would have the edge.

The DHS estimates that a Z card holder's total wait time for a green card would be anywhere from nine to 13 years. They could also get approval to go to Mexico or Canada to apply if conditions prohibit them from returning to their home country.

Q: There are an estimated 12 million immigrants now in the United States. Will they all be eligible for Z visas?

A: Not likely. The DHS estimates that between 15 to 20 percent of those now in country would be disqualified because they'd fail to pass criminal-background checks.

Illegal immigrants, while on probation, would have a year - possibly two - to apply for Z cards. Those who failed to apply would be subject to deportation if they were arrested.

Q: What's the rationale for the legalization program?

A: The Bush administration and supporters of the bill say there is virtually no other option to deal with such a large shadow population dispersed across the country.

Mass deportation, they say, is unworkable and prohibitively expensive, while allowing undocumented immigrants to step forward makes them tax-paying legal workers and ends criminal enterprises associated with illegal immigration, including document forging and human smuggling.

Opponents of the bill say that rigid enforcement of existing penalties against employers of illegal immigrants would dry up the job pool and send undocumented aliens home. They also argue that the bill's enactment won't stop illegal immigration.

Q: Explain the trigger mechanisms.

A: They were included at the insistence of conservatives who wanted assurances that border enforcement will be significantly toughened before the legalization and guest-worker provisions take effect.

They include increasing the number of Border Patrol agents to 18,000 installing 70 ground-based radar and camera systems along the Southwestern border, and creating an electronic verification system to screen employment eligibility.

One politically troublesome pre-requisite is the construction of 370 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. Several leading House Republicans say it should be much longer - at least 700 miles - and many border-state landowners don't want it at all.

Barring any setbacks, the triggers are expected to be in place within 18 months of enactment.

Q: How will this bill affect me?

A: Perhaps the most broad-based effect is through the creation of the electronic verification system, which will require employers to match photo IDs, such as a passport or tamper-proof driver's license, against a national database.

Within 18 months of enactment, employers would be required to verify new hires. That includes anyone who changes jobs. After three years, employers would be required to verify all employees.

Privacy groups are suspicious that the plan could lead to a national ID system, a charge that the bill's supporters adamantly dismiss.

Q: Explain the guest-worker plan.

A: The bill enables U.S. employers to bring in up to 400,000 foreign workers a year to fill what they say is a chronic shortage in low- and unskilled jobs. The cap could be raised to 600,000 if the government determines that the need exists.

They would be given two-year Y visas, which could be renewed two more times for a total of six years. They would be required to return home for a year between each renewal. A limited number could be eligible for green cards, based on merit, but most would be required to go home permanently at the end of six years.

The provision is another lightning rod in the bill. Employers and pro-immigration groups believe the workers should be allowed to apply for green cards. Others believe the entire guest-worker program should be knocked out because it takes jobs from U.S. workers.

Q: There's been considerable attention about a merit-based system and its impact on family reunification. How would that work?

A: The current immigration system is heavily tilted toward family-based immigration, which allows citizens and legal immigrants to petition to bring in other family members, including siblings, parents and adult children.

Of the estimated 1.1 million immigrants admitted annually, roughly 750,000 are family members. The rest are admitted for employment, as refugees, for asylum and other factors.

Critics say this pattern of "chain migration" has created an enormous backlog of family applications that has overwhelmed the immigration system. Some applicants have been waiting for up to 22 years for a green card.

Consequently, the Bush administration wants to shift toward a system in which future immigrants would be admitted on the basis of their ability to contribute to U.S. society and the country's economic needs.

Points would be awarded on a number of factors, including education or experience in a profession or occupation in high demand in the United States. The concept is patterned after point-based systems in other countries, including Canada and Australia.

U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents could bring in immediate families - spouses and minor children - but adult children and siblings would no longer be eligible. Visas for parents of U.S. citizens would be capped at 40,000.

The issue looms as one of the most acrimonious in the coming Senate debate. Pro-immigration groups, Hispanic organizations and humanitarian groups say the bill would severely undercut family reunification. But Republicans advocating a merit system say they plan to stand firmly behind the provision.

[twa]

Question

What are they going to do about the estimated 1.5 million with criminal records?

Are the "safe" zones still going to exist,with local governments refusing to arrest/report them.

[Prosperity]

Huh... sounds reasonable enough for me

[Teller]

Question

What are they going to do about the estimated 1.5 million with criminal records?

Are the "safe" zones still going to exist,with local governments refusing to arrest/report them.

Yeah, the way I understand it, the safe zone stretches from the pacific coast in the west, to the atlantic coast in the east, north to canada, and south to...well...we don't have to worry about them going south now, do we?

[twa]

I notice Bush dropped the requirement for paying back taxes for illegals.

I wonder if they will prosecute for stolen identities or using false SS numbers?

[Fergasun]

Headache, headache, headache, headache...

This bill is a disaster...

I'm now thinking that any solution won't work because there won't be enough incentives for immigrants to enter the program, and the government still won't deport 10+ million illegal immigrants...

Question: What about Visas? My in-laws are here on E-2 visa, and want to apply for a green card. I don't know how this affects them, but it seems like illegal immigrants are going to jump ahead of those wishing to immigrate here legally.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Headache, headache, headache, headache...

This bill is a disaster...

I'm now thinking that any solution won't work because there won't be enough incentives for immigrants to enter the program, and the government still won't deport 10+ million illegal immigrants...

And therein lies the rub, they can buy the biggest, baddest, meanest watch dog on the block but if they are unwilling to make the difficult choices then they are wasting their time. Now, I'm not for deporting them, in fact I don't have a problem with a "responsible" approach to amnesty, frankly I don't see why granting them legal status is a bad thing, they're here now, they obviously aren't going anywhere, and the government obviously lacks the political will and the $$$ to depor them, soooo....what's left? This bill suggests that they voluntarily show up and pay a $5,000 fine and be sent back home for in order to get on a waiting list............explain how that is going to entice anyone out of hiding.

This bill if it passes will only serve to throw more money at the border, it does nothing to address the issue of undocumented people in this country now. Sooner or later we'll have to realize that fact, and stop creating ineffecitve legislation that only panders to certain demographics and acutally the last gasp of a flailing lame duck president.

[twa]

ASF, they will not be sent back home if they apply for a visa,as far as I can tell after 12 yrs of extended visas the head of household would have to return to be eligible for citizenship.

The bill is a convoluted mess (that they have not even finalised )just like our immigration policies and is being rushed thru.

How about we secure the borders(as has already been approved) and take a longer look at what to do with the ones already here?

Beginning with deporting the criminal element of at least 1.5 million.

[DjTj]

ASF, they will not be sent back home if they apply for a visa,as far as I can tell after 12 yrs of extended visas the head of household would have to return to be eligible for citizenship.

The bill is a convoluted mess (that they have not even finalised )just like our immigration policies and is being rushed thru.

How about we secure the borders(as has already been approved) and take a longer look at what to do with the ones already here?

Beginning with deporting the criminal element of at least 1.5 million.

Well deporting the criminal element is just about the only thing that is working in the current immigration system. If an immigrant is charged and convicted of a crime, deportation always follows. Of about 200,000 illegals that we deport each year, about 90,000 are criminals.

Part of the idea of amnesty is that the ONLY people that won't come forward are the criminals. It turns a 12 million person problem into a 1 million person problem.

I agree that this seems a bit rushed though, but the reality is that any reform has to be comprehensive: you need to increase security and provide amnesty at the same time: Workplace enforcement will never be effective without a more reliable ID system, and we can't give everyone ID's unless there is some incentive for them to come forward. Also, we need businesses to stop hiring illegals, and they won't do that unless there is a large enough legal population to hire from. Border security isn't going to be effective as long as there are millions of people without a legal way to enter the country who are paying smugglers to defeat any security measure we create. Conversely, it would be stupid to grant amnesty without significant improvements in enforcement because it would only encourage more and more illegals to come.

Both as a practical matter and a political matter (with not enough votes on either side for ONLY enforcement or ONLY amnesty), the only way our immigration system will be reformed is if the reform is comprehensive.

Question: What about Visas? My in-laws are here on E-2 visa, and want to apply for a green card. I don't know how this affects them, but it seems like illegal immigrants are going to jump ahead of those wishing to immigrate here legally.

As far as I know, E-2 visa holders don't get any special priority for green cards, so they're not really in line anywhere. Even under the current system, they would still need an independent basis for permanent residence (like being related to you, perhaps?)

If this bill passes, they're going to let everyone that applied for family reunification before May 1 to get their green cards, then they will switch over to the new system - it will take about 8 years. I imagine that under the new points system that probably weighs money and skills more heavily than family relations, an E-2 visa holder would probably have a higher preference than the Z visa holders who are more likely to be laborers.

[DrunkenMaster]

This is a complete BS bill. First off the people who broke our laws and entered this country illegally get to stay after they pay a fine that can be spread out over multiple of years. Not only are they rewarded for breaking the law, so is their family members who are still in their original country because they get to come here. Just those two things make this unacceptable. But there is more the criminals that are here that can't get a Z-Visa are not going to turn themselves in or go home and that includes any terrorist here. This bill does nothing but tell people if you don't like a law don't obey it.

Once the government secures the border and enforces existing law then we can discuss making new ones. If they do then the first change in the bill should be making it a felony to be here illegally so that any sanctuary area will fall under harboring a felon.

[AsburySkinsFan]

How about we secure the borders(as has already been approved) and take a longer look at what to do with the ones already here?

Beginning with deporting the criminal element of at least 1.5 million.

I honestly can agree with this, completely. I think that these are the two issues that need to be addressed first, figure the other stuff out after but don't slap something together and pretend that its going to be the magic fix for the whole problem, because this bill is certainly not the one that will fix the problem, in fact I believe it may just make the problem worse.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree that this seems a bit rushed though, but the reality is that any reform has to be comprehensive: you need to increase security and provide amnesty at the same time: Workplace enforcement will never be effective without a more reliable ID system, and we can't give everyone ID's unless there is some incentive for them to come forward. Also, we need businesses to stop hiring illegals, and they won't do that unless there is a large enough legal population to hire from. Border security isn't going to be effective as long as there are millions of people without a legal way to enter the country who are paying smugglers to defeat any security measure we create. Conversely, it would be stupid to grant amnesty without significant improvements in enforcement because it would only encourage more and more illegals to come.

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself!:applause: :notworthy Nicely done Dj!

[Cskin]

****roaches in Washington hellbent on destroying this country... .it's culture.. it's economy.... it's nationalism. TREASON it is.... begin building the gallos on the National Mall.

[Chief skin]

AMNESTY, the politicians in DC and spin it any way they want, if they pass this BS they should be accessories to the crime. 1986 same type of crappy legislation was passed

[twa]

AMNESTY, the politicians in DC and spin it any way they want, if they pass this BS they should be accessories to the crime. 1986 same type of crappy legislation was passed

Didn't work then either.

Can anyone tell me how this one breaks the cycle?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

This is WORSE than amnesty. This is PANDERING. Pandering to a bunch of worthless criminals who have come illegally into this country and stolen from those of us who are legal citizens.

[Destino]

How does the US go about deporting 12-25million people that are already here and have the right to argue their case in court?

I've heard the arguments on the President's side... they have a plan in place to document and put people on a path to legal status. I've yet to hear anyone tell me how you'd go about detaining and deporting 25million people. Not a single person arguing for this has addressed the political fallout, the possible dangers, the economic concerns, costs, or logistics.

Instead of hammering on and on about your blind ideals and how much you are against "amnesty" (which I don't think this is) try thinking about just how the hell the country could implement what you want to do.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

How does the US go about deporting 12-25million people that are already here and have the right to argue their case in court?

I've heard the arguments on the President's side... they have a plan in place to document and put people on a path to legal status. I've yet to hear anyone tell me how you'd go about detaining and deporting 25million people. Not a single person arguing for this has addressed the political fallout, the possible dangers, the economic concerns, costs, or logistics.

Instead of hammering on and on about your blind ideals and how much you are against "amnesty" (which I don't think this is) try thinking about just how the hell the country could implement what you want to do.

So far as I'm concerned these people do NOT have a right to any sort of hearing.

They have the right to leave the country before we catch them and MAYBE sometime down the road to get into the country LEGALLY (if they can prove a willingness to become AMERICANS and that they have something to offer this country) or to get caught and never have any chance of becoming American citizens.

How do you catch these people?.... Very simply. You require verifiable documentation for any employment or government services through the Social Security Administration. No SS #, no job, no government money, no medical care, etc...

When you do catch them, you take them and their families, force them to give DNA and fingerprints and inform them that if they're ever found illegally in the US again, they will be summarily executed WITHOUT TRIAL.

Personally, down the road, I'd like to see the entire way we deal with immigration and citizenship seriously revised, but that's a topic for another thread and time.

[Sarge]

How does the US go about deporting 12-25million people that are already here and have the right to argue their case in court?

I've heard the arguments on the President's side... they have a plan in place to document and put people on a path to legal status. I've yet to hear anyone tell me how you'd go about detaining and deporting 25million people. Not a single person arguing for this has addressed the political fallout, the possible dangers, the economic concerns, costs, or logistics.

Instead of hammering on and on about your blind ideals and how much you are against "amnesty" (which I don't think this is) try thinking about just how the hell the country could implement what you want to do.

First, take every illegal sitting in jail right now and put them on a boat. That alone will reduce the prison population by an average of 30%. Instant savings

Second, use the dreaded Patriot Act to round up the riff raff. Get them when they apply for jobs. Have "Job Fairs" and round them up there. Hell, walk into Wal Marts on Friday and Saturday nights and close the doors. You'll net thousands.

We can put a man on the moon, but we can't do this?

Baloney

[Destino]

First, take every illegal sitting in jail right now and put them on a boat. That alone will reduce the prison population by an average of 30%. Instant savings

Second, use the dreaded Patriot Act to round up the riff raff. Get them when they apply for jobs. Have "Job Fairs" and round them up there. Hell, walk into Wal Marts on Friday and Saturday nights and close the doors. You'll net thousands.

We can put a man on the moon, but we can't do this?

Baloney

Our current prison population is around 2.5million I believe. You make it sound like it wouldn't be a big deal to deal with 10 times that number. Our justice infrastructure is just not able to handle such an influx. Our courts would be tied up for god knows how long, we'd have to build camps to house them, and the reaction to such a move is hard to predict.

This isn't even considering the economic impacts. There is a reason businesses in the US aren't on your side of this debate Sarge. There would definately be some fallout... I wonder what happens when construction capacity falls by a hefty percentage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not going to happen. Most politicians are reasonable enough to see that and I wonder if the rest are just crazy (like Tom "bomb Mecca" Tancredo) or just pandering knowing nothing will happen.

[Sarge]

Our current prison population is around 2.5million I believe. You make it sound like it wouldn't be a big deal to deal with 10 times that number. Our justice infrastructure is just not able to handle such an influx. Our courts would be tied up for god knows how long, we'd have to build camps to house them, and the reaction to such a move is hard to predict.

This isn't even considering the economic impacts. There is a reason businesses in the US aren't on your side of this debate Sarge. There would definately be some fallout... I wonder what happens when construction capacity falls by a hefty percentage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not going to happen. Most politicians are reasonable enough to see that and I wonder if the rest are just crazy (like Tom "bomb Mecca" Tancredo) or just pandering knowing nothing will happen.

I'm not talking about keeping them long term. Nor am I talking about even giving them a trial.

You're here illegally? Boom, Guilty. Here's your cell, expect to be on a plane tomorrow.

With the room freed up from immediate deportation of 30% of the current prison population, there would be room to keep them overnight

[JMS]

How does the US go about deporting 12-25million people that are already here and have the right to argue their case in court?

Not much of an argument. You either have a legal right to be here or you don't. Also it's not about deporting them. All you have to do is to penalize the companies who are exploiting them illegally. Make the companies pay, the jobs will dry up; the people will leave. The guilty parties here aren't the immigrants, it's the companies who exploit them and us.

I've heard the arguments on the President's side... they have a plan in place to document and put people on a path to legal status. I've yet to hear anyone tell me how you'd go about detaining and deporting 25million people. Not a single person arguing for this has addressed the political fallout, the possible dangers, the economic concerns, costs, or logistics.

That's redicoulous. This administration and others have created this problem by lax enforcement of laws. Both at the boarders and in our communities. They created this problem and don't have the political will to stand up to the corporations who profit directly from the government policies. So they want us to allow them to continue to worsen the situation under the guise of solving the situation. This bill doesn't solve anything it makes it worse. Orders of magnatude worse.

Instead of hammering on and on about your blind ideals and how much you are against "amnesty" (which I don't think this is) try thinking about just how the hell the country could implement what you want to do.

25,000$ fine on any corporation which employs or pays an illegal immigrant. 10,000$ of that fine goes directly to the illegal immigrant in cash. 5k goes to pay for his return trip to his country. 10,000$ goes to revenue.

Done... The jobs are gone. The immigrants aren't drawn here anymore. Solving the problem isn't the issue. It's wanting to solve the problem that's the issue. American polititians in both parties don't want to solve the problem. They want to exploit the problem. This bill is horrible for many reasons.. The largest reason is it doesn't address the problem it exacerbates the problem. It's designed to make the problem worse.

Ronald Reagan passed the first amnesty bill back in 1986. The "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986". He legalized half of the then 5 million illegals, proclaimed he had solved the illegal immigration program. Put 2 million folks on the citizenship path, and started to enforce laws already on the books to stop more from coming in. What did we get. 10-20 million more illegals this time coming for citizenship. Granting amnesty doesn't address the problem it makes the problem worse.

This bill is also bad because it sets aside a huge segment of the population, 12, 25 million folks who are now legal immigrants; and locks them into that limbo no citizen status for more than a decade. The bill goes further and creates 400,000 - 500,000 temp visa's for farm workers who will have no path for citizenship. This goes a long way to create a permanent non citizen worker class, which American corporations have pined for. It's not a good thing for the republic.

This bill endorses the continued separation of family members. Families of citizens ( including so called anchor babies ) have fewer rights under this law. The emphasis is placed on skilled and educated workers not the poor migrants who currently flood across our boarders to the tune of hundreds of thousand a year. Not addressing the problem, but addressing/creating a different problem.

This bill is about destabilizing Mexico in the near long term so they petition the US for inclusion into the US. This might sound far fetched but think about what we are doing in Mexico. What this bill will do.

We are adding to but not enfranchising 10-15% of their current population, likely as much as 30% of their workforce. We are attempting to siphon off their skilled workers by fast pathing their Visas in this new bill. We are keeping up the pressure on families and poor folks who will not have more rights under this legislation, but fewer rights. We are holding out hope to them for additional amnesty programs so they will continue to come. As much as 80% of the Mexican economy is already dependent upon the United States. As many as 90% of the population of Mexico wants to come to the US even if it meant breaking our laws. This bill will only further hurt their economy and make them more dependent on us, As NAFTA did. It will also continue to disempower folks upon economic lines while allowing them to come here to be exploited by companies happy to pay lower wages to these folks than pay American workers.

Next 30 years the US boarders will extend down to Guatemala, perhaps beyond. This bill accelerates the problem and that eventuality. It isn't about stopping illegal immigration; it's about giving hope to inspire more such illigal immigration to effect this ends.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So far as I'm concerned these people do NOT have a right to any sort of hearing.

MSF, for someone who claims to be all about America you are awfully selective in the American things that you want to support, because you completely ignore the fact that ALL people regardless of how or why they are here are given the right to the same Constitutional rights and liberties as those of us who are citizens, and this is granted to them by the CONSTITUTION, and what can be more American than the Constitution? Your problem is that the Constitution doesn't even agree with your version of Isolationist Nationalist "Head in the Sand" American ideology. So stop saying that you support America when you so obviously do not suppor the very things that make America possible; i.e. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. :doh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not talking about keeping them long term. Nor am I talking about even giving them a trial.

Hmmm, no trial, interesting, see my above post to MSF, because you need to remember that the Constitution which you supposedly support grants all the RIGHT to a trial, regardless of what you want. Thank God you're not in charge because America would cease to be a Republican Democracy and would then become a facist state.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

MSF, for someone who claims to be all about America you are awfully selective in the American things that you want to support, because you completely ignore the fact that ALL people regardless of how or why they are here are given the right to the same Constitutional rights and liberties as those of us who are citizens, and this is granted to them by the CONSTITUTION, and what can be more American than the Constitution? Your problem is that the Constitution doesn't even agree with your version of Isolationist Nationalist "Head in the Sand" American ideology. So stop saying that you support America when you so obviously do not suppor the very things that make America possible; i.e. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. :doh:

Obviously we read the document differently. I believe it refers to AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY. I always have and always will. Personally, I think it's time for what America has become to be allowed to finally collapse and be reborn out of the ashes into a form much closer to what the Founders envisioned than this Sodom and Gamora that we have become.