Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

I like the Provided if this bill passes. I have only one question to all. Suppose if the bill is not passed one of the house. [The real fight is going to be in the republican lead congress] Will the President include Legal Immigration in his Executive order... Un necessary waste of time debating this bill... Legal immigration USCIS can take care.. Or just recapturing the unused Visa. everyone is happy. If the Bill passes then it is a different scenario altogether. Other 11 million will be ready at Mexico to cross the border! again another amnesty.. The saga continues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

"The statement was careful not to explicitly endorse the Senate measure".

I think it was courteous of them to acknowledge that the Senators at least came out with a starting Bill which the House so far has not been able to.

---

Yeah, but it's getting reported as praise. See e.g

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-bill/2090019/

The countdown begins
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...e-lee.html.csp

My prediction is that Senator Hatch will eventually endorse and play a larger role in its passage than some of the co-sponsors (like AC21).He is one of my 15 Republican YES votes

Sen.Warner likes the proposal but he was a foregone YES vote anyway
http://augustafreepress.com/2013/04/...tion-proposal/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

I like the Provided if this bill passes. I have only one question to all. Suppose if the bill is not passed one of the house. [The real fight is going to be in the republican lead congress] Will the President include Legal Immigration in his Executive order... Un necessary waste of time debating this bill... Legal immigration USCIS can take care.. Or just recapturing the unused Visa. everyone is happy. If the Bill passes then it is a different scenario altogether. Other 11 million will be ready at Mexico to cross the border! again another amnesty.. The saga continues.

---

I would bet my money on passing this bill than executive order on legal immigration.

I have just managed to break away from work now and have a couple of hours to go through the bill. I like what i see so far, but i'm well behind justvisiting, vizcard, rupen, abc, Spec and some others. Although the bill looks huge, the relevant sections are relatively few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

I like the Provided if this bill passes. I have only one question to all. Suppose if the bill is not passed one of the house. [The real fight is going to be in the republican lead congress] Will the President include Legal Immigration in his Executive order... Un necessary waste of time debating this bill... Legal immigration USCIS can take care.. Or just recapturing the unused Visa. everyone is happy. If the Bill passes then it is a different scenario altogether. Other 11 million will be ready at Mexico to cross the border! again another amnesty.. The saga continues.

---

Shant gadhadhari bhim, shant! This bill is a game changer alright, and there is a going to be a lot of fight to get it over the finish line, especially in the House. But, as long as it is still alive and breathing, the President will issue no executive orders, and even if it dies, he may prefer to wait until the next elections to reintroduce it again with the hope that the House composition is closer in his favor then. If he gives relief to the legal immigrants, he can't hold us as a bargaining chip to get what he wants for the illegals. As to another 11 million at the border, E-verify is being significantly strengthened (pages 395 to 504) and not a single GC will be issued to an illegal immigrant until the borders are secure. Except for a supreme court ruling that it is unconstitutional, the border security provisions seems pretty ironclad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

I have just managed to break away from work now and have a couple of hours to go through the bill. I like what i see so far, but i'm well behind justvisiting, vizcard, rupen, abc, Spec and some others. Although the bill looks huge, the relevant sections are relatively few.



Shant gadhadhari bhim, shant! This bill is a game changer alright, and there is a going to be a lot of fight to get it over the finish line, especially in the House. But, as long as it is still alive and breathing, the President will issue no executive orders, and even if it dies, he may prefer to wait until the next elections to reintroduce it again with the hope that the House composition is closer in his favor then. If he gives relief to the legal immigrants, he can't hold us as a bargaining chip to get what he wants for the illegals. As to another 11 million at the border, E-verify is being significantly strengthened (pages 395 to 504) and not a single GC will be issued to an illegal immigrant until the borders are secure. Except for a supreme court ruling that it is unconstitutional, the border security provisions seems pretty ironclad.

---

Pedro,

Thanks, I understand all these. But what I meant is just for "Bargaining" for the dirty political gain, whoever is in the top is playing with Individual's and families life!. That does n't seems to be the case when he projects himself though. (Still alive and breathing we have seen for the last year. H.R.3012.. just that small bill if they can't pass think about this 800 + pages bill. I will be surprised if this bill passes.

Comparison of CIR reforms of 2006/2007/2013.

WRT visa reforms, it starts on page 7.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/...de-by-Side.pdf

I was very happy to see this-please read my post from yesterday AM
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf..._us_senat.html

Unless conservatives have truly changed-his vote will be crucial not just for the entire Bill's passage but also critical amendments.We should remember that the conservative and/or liberal opposition is only just beginning

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...0-7F7D7D010966
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...1-54F2CCADD415

C&P a tweet I just saw

Senate Gang of 8 holding 2:30 presser to discuss immigration bill.Opponent Sens Sessions & Vitter set their newser for 2:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjS0HL6MC5Q

Live link for the Gang of 8 Explaining Senate Immigration Reform Proposal

The opposition on the right seems pretty tough... just heard Rubio trying to convince radio show talkers.

Following up on Q's suggestion, I suggest creating just 1 new thread and allowing each of the folks Q suggested (Spec, Rupen, GS1968, Justvisiting) and a few others (Q, vizcard, and I humbly include myself) to create place holders for their summary posts. Each of us can split and summarize the bill however we wish to. Once we think we are done, we can have a grand summary of the bill as it stands. Although the first step will get done in the next few days, it will be an ongoing exercise as amendments come in and are incorporated, and as the house bill is released.

Sound good?

If so, aforementioned subject matter experts, go hold your spot here: http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...4716#post34716

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjS0HL6MC5Q

Live link for the Gang of 8 Explaining Senate Immigration Reform Proposal

---

I love it when they say you have to learn english .. in spanish :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

I love it when they say you have to learn english .. in spanish :)

---

You are right... its funny.. But I still do not understand why a developed country's immigration give priority to Illegals. Rather than law abiding Legals... Please do not say that, "That is the way it is..and no difference between Legal and Illegal and blah blah blah... Legal immigration has been held hostage for long time just for bargaining, just only reason for bargain with the extreme Right!.. Fence jumpers issue should be dealt with criminal cases.. jumping a country's border Illegally is Crime!.

11 millions Path to citizenship.. for that Legals need to wait decades! and they say they treat everybody EQUAL! what an irony.

If this bill passes its a lottery for Legals!

This from Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ion-90297.html

It is hard to get any specifics from this article perhaps because there aren't many yet.However the path to citizenship may take 2 decades.

I am copying a tweet from Rep.Lamar Smith

"It’s hard to believe, but the Senate #immigration bill is worse than we thought." and links to this statement

Washington, Apr 17 -

Congressman Smith delivered the below statement on the House floor today criticizing the Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal, which was introduced late last night.

Congressman Smith: “It’s hard to believe, but the Senate immigration bill is worse than we thought. Despite assurances, the border is not secured before almost everyone in the country illegally is given amnesty. The bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty.

“And the Senate proposal offers amnesty to far more illegal immigrants than we thought. In addition to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, the bill offers to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home. So current immigration laws are shredded.

“The Senate bill is bad news for the American people. The good news is that the House Judiciary Committee will come up with a better plan that improves our immigration system and puts the interests of American workers first.”

In addition to discussing specifics of the Bill,it is also important to watch the process carefully to see any shifting of opinion among the key players in both chambers.I am hoping that the above statement is not shared among the larger House judiciary committee. He was our hero last year for swift passage of HR3012 and I hope he does not become the villain

Chairman Goodlatte's statement on the Senate CIR

http://goodlatte.house.gov/press_releases/387

Not a ringing endorsement but not a rejection either. Other reports also confirm the go-slow approach from the House

A different report seemed to suggest that Rep.Steve King did not think there were enough votes in the House yet to defeat the Senate Bill although I doubt that is the version which will be debated in the House

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

Chairman Goodlatte's statement on the Senate CIR

http://goodlatte.house.gov/press_releases/387

Not a ringing endorsement but not a rejection either. Other reports also confirm the go-slow approach from the House

A different report seemed to suggest that Rep.Steve King did not think there were enough votes in the House yet to defeat the Senate Bill although I doubt that is the version which will be debated in the House

---

Different assessment by Nancy Pelsoi
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...before-august-

I agree that this bill if brought in the house will pass.

To rupen86
If the House Group does not come up with a Bill soon this might become the default Bill if the intention is to move a Comprehensive Bill instead of piecemeal.
A group to keep a close eye on is the Congressional Black Caucus-this was a recent article

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...migration-bill

A perusal of previous Statistical Yearbooks substantiates the fact that the immigrants of African & Caribbean origin do constitute about 50% of the visas issued.They also have a good amount of FB usage.The CBC has 42 members and is usually a very united voting block.I am unable to find the article where they aslo raise concerns about elimination of FB categories affecting Caribbean immigration.Hon.John Conyers is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and will influence the progress of any legislation. Their votes may be crucial to passage and they have nothing to lose by voting against the Bill as they represent heavily minority dominated districts as a result of the Voting Rights Act

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86
If the House Group does not come up with a Bill soon this might become the default Bill if the intention is to move a Comprehensive Bill instead of piecemeal.
A group to keep a close eye on is the Congressional Black Caucus-this was a recent article

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...migration-bill

A perusal of previous Statistical Yearbooks substantiates the fact that the immigrants of African & Caribbean origin do constitute about 50% of the visas issued.They also have a good amount of FB usage.The CBC has 42 members and is usually a very united voting block.I am unable to find the article where they aslo raise concerns about elimination of FB categories affecting Caribbean immigration.Hon.John Conyers is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and will influence the progress of any legislation. Their votes may be crucial to passage and they have nothing to lose by voting against the Bill as they represent heavily minority dominated districts as a result of the Voting Rights Act

---

Very fair article. I'd love to see how they address this issue. While I personally think the DV is a joke, there has to be some way in which "the tired, poor and huddled masses" can immigrate here. Maybe its a "quota" within the merit-based umbrella for such immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To rupen86
If the House Group does not come up with a Bill soon this might become the default Bill if the intention is to move a Comprehensive Bill instead of piecemeal.
A group to keep a close eye on is the Congressional Black Caucus-this was a recent article

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...migration-bill

A perusal of previous Statistical Yearbooks substantiates the fact that the immigrants of African & Caribbean origin do constitute about 50% of the visas issued.They also have a good amount of FB usage.The CBC has 42 members and is usually a very united voting block.I am unable to find the article where they aslo raise concerns about elimination of FB categories affecting Caribbean immigration.Hon.John Conyers is the ranking member of the judiciary committee and will influence the progress of any legislation. Their votes may be crucial to passage and they have nothing to lose by voting against the Bill as they represent heavily minority dominated districts as a result of the Voting Rights Act

---

Senate and house republicans are very much against diversity visa and if this block is going to vote against it because of that and if their votes are needed, some compromise will have to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

Senate and house republicans are very much against diversity visa and if this block is going to vote against it because of that and if their votes are needed, some compromise will have to be done.

---

i agree. i didn't get the impression they would be violently opposed it considering someone in the article states that the merit based thing caem from the CBC when there was talk about removing DV.

To Q,Pedro,Vizcard,Spec and other moderators

I was wondering if it would be a wise idea to split this thread into two-one dealing with the actual provisions and impact of the Bill and the other dealing with the political process involved.I only mention this because some members read this thread to see how it will impact while others like me are more interested in how the politics plays out. There are also thousands of other visitors who are probably not registered here but still visit daily to get their information and analysis(of extremely high quality).I feel that some of my posts seem to interrupt a chain of critical analysis of the Bill's actual provisions

To vizcard
I agree that this is not a deal-breaker and something will be worked out like adding some more points value.I only pointed it out as one of the various moving parts that has impact in the House and not in the Senate where there are only 2 African American members both of whom are replacement appointees and not elected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...87f_story.html

Agree about 2 diff threads.

We can use the thread i created as one to discuss the bill's language, once we have the anchor posts. However, I don't think you can fully disconnect the politics from the bill's provisions, since a lot of the politics will be based on specific provisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

We can use the thread i created as one to discuss the bill's language, once we have the anchor posts. However, I don't think you can fully disconnect the politics from the bill's provisions, since a lot of the politics will be based on specific provisions.

---

Pedro,

The potential problem with that is that existing posts may not be able to be moved to your thread, since they mostly predate the anchor posts and would appear above them. I haven't seen a way to "sticky" individual posts in a thread in the same way that can be done with threads in a forum.

I have a solution for that. We can move and edit other old posts to make them the anchor posts. I'm working on that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...87f_story.html

Agree about 2 diff threads.

---

Good Analysis in the article. Politicians will vote on a bill which would benefit them politically however small or big it may be. In this case, both have incentive to vote for it. But by no means it is easy. There might be killer amendments which might sink the bill. Earlier Gang of 8 had announced the strategy that they all will vote against the amendments affecting the core of the bill. However, to decide what is core will be difficult. The bill which is produced after intense negotiations will be fragile. If it is put up as it is, it might have better chance of passing than the one with amendments.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...7#.UXFz4crt5dM

Grassley using Boston tragedy to manipulate CIR movement.

Quote:

---

Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the conversation was "especially important in light of everything that's happened in Massachusetts."

"This hearing is an opportunity to refocus" on important issues, such as "securing our homeland," Grassley added.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...7#.UXFz4crt5dM

Grassley using Boston tragedy to manipulate CIR movement.

---

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...earing/275140/

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...p-to-our-vaues

I think the Bill is just a starting point as the Gang of Eight has mentioned before. Based on this article-there is clearly a lot of room for amendment & improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...earing/275140/

---

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washi...7#.UXGKhMrt5dM

Quote:

---

After a meeting with President Obama Friday morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also a member of the "Gang of Eight," said he "doesn't see any connection" between what's happening in Boston and the effort to change U.S. immigration laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...p-to-our-vaues

I think the Bill is just a starting point as the Gang of Eight has mentioned before. Based on this article-there is clearly a lot of room for amendment & improvement.

---

I am very concerned about Leahy's comments. He seems to be questioning everything that democrats have compromised including same-sex marriage, siblings, border security and triggers and wait period for illegals. If he tries to move this bill to the left, it will fail. Hopefully as agreed principle, gang of 8 would oppose all amendments which change the core of the bill. As some of the gang members are part of the committee, I hope those amendments would fail. Nancy Pelsoi who is such a liberal has praised the bill. Leahy, if he is serious about the bill, should stay away from those amendments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I am very concerned about Leahy's comments. He seems to be questioning everything that democrats have compromised including same-sex marriage, siblings, border security and triggers and wait period for illegals. If he tries to move this bill to the left, it will fail. Hopefully as agreed principle, gang of 8 would oppose all amendments which change the core of the bill. As some of the gang members are part of the committee, I hope those amendments would fail. Nancy Pelsoi who is such a liberal has praised the bill. Leahy, if he is serious about the bill, should stay away from those amendments.

---

On one side I am concerned about Leahy's comments. Wondering what he was thinking when gang of 8 members were negotiating. It was obvious it is going to be a compromise. So both sides won't get everything they want. I assume he is just posturing.

On the other hand, having a strong left leaning guy as committee chairman would balance out anti-immigrant Grassley. For Nancy Pelosi, she is the house minority leader. There is no way she can criticize the bill. It is her responsibility to get all the democrat votes in house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Pedro,

The potential problem with that is that existing posts may not be able to be moved to your thread, since they mostly predate the anchor posts and would appear above them. I haven't seen a way to "sticky" individual posts in a thread in the same way that can be done with threads in a forum.

---

It's done. Discussion on the bill's contents have been moved here, and placeholders created for anchor posts. To the extent folks don't want to fill in their thoughts there, we can always delete those anchor posts later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

It's done. Discussion on the bill's contents have been moved here, and placeholders created for anchor posts. To the extent folks don't want to fill in their thoughts there, we can always delete those anchor posts later.

---

Pedro,

Well done!

I realize the effort involved in doing that.

Ive changed the title of this thread to Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise) to make it clearer.

Thank you Pedro for all the work-I did not intend to be disruptive but I felt that not everyone of the many visitors daily to this site is a political junkie and are more interested in sound,technical analysis of the various implications of the Bill.

To gcq/rupen
Most likely posturing to create an impression of impartiality. The other Senator to watch is Mazie Hirono who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.She has from day#1 focused on the family aspect of the Bill being of Asian origin

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/art...ll-4442246.php

A picture of the CIR Bill on Twitter-how can this be complicated?

https://twitter.com/Geoff_Holtzman/s...461440/photo/1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...dd9_story.html

Quote:

---

BOSTON — As Congress readies for a drawn-out immigration debate, an expanding network of Republican fundraisers is pressing for a path to legal status for millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
Business leaders and donors who raised tens of millions in the last election are meeting with top GOP fundraisers and Republican lawmakers who may be reluctant to support what critics call “amnesty” for immigrants who broke the law.

In most cases, the donors have ties to Wall Street and businesses that want more high- and low-skilled immigrants in the nation’s legal labor pool. Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, these business-minded Republican fundraisers say they’re getting a relatively receptive audience in the face of an undeniable new political reality. Record Hispanic turnout helped President Barack Obama defeat Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney last fall. And projected population growth ensures that immigrants’ political clout will grow stronger.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3092929.html