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

[gs1968]

To abcx13/kuku82
Thanks for the info which sounds very positive indeed but I never believed that this was the dealbreaker or would have held up the legisation.Most likely the Bill would have been introduced and if it generated enough momentum,an agreement would have been reached. When we followed the debate in 2007 there was a lot of finger-pointing and Senator Obama's amendment was singled out. I still think it was the amnesty provisions that destroyed any chances of the Bill. We will never know what the Democratic House under Ms.Pelosi would have achieved.

As of now what should be of concern is that the House does not seem to be in any hurry to proceed and has a completely different idea of "comprehensive"
House Majority Leader Mr.Cantor is only focussing on narrow,piecemeal approach and seems to think that CIR is a tall order

http://thehill.com/video/house/29077...gration-reform

http://www.agri-pulse.com/Congress-f...s-03282013.asp

House Speaker Mr.Boehner's memo has no mention of gun control or immigration and is mainly going to focus on economic issues in the next few months

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...519_story.html


I feel that the House strategy is to let the Senate pass a Bill after whatever blood-letting there might be and approach the issue only if it clears the Senate. This theory of mine however conflicts with earlier statements made by House leadership that the House would attempt to pass its own Bill concurrently and reconcile that with the Senate version in conference.

As abcx13 mentioned a few posts ago-all will be known in 7-10 days.

[abcx13]

To abcx13/kuku82
Thanks for the info which sounds very positive indeed but I never believed that this was the dealbreaker or would have held up the legisation.Most likely the Bill would have been introduced and if it generated enough momentum,an agreement would have been reached. When we followed the debate in 2007 there was a lot of finger-pointing and Senator Obama's amendment was singled out. I still think it was the amnesty provisions that destroyed any chances of the Bill. We will never know what the Democratic House under Ms.Pelosi would have achieved.

As of now what should be of concern is that the House does not seem to be in any hurry to proceed and has a completely different idea of "comprehensive"
House Majority Leader Mr.Cantor is only focussing on narrow,piecemeal approach and seems to think that CIR is a tall order

http://thehill.com/video/house/29077...gration-reform

http://www.agri-pulse.com/Congress-f...s-03282013.asp

House Speaker Mr.Boehner's memo has no mention of gun control or immigration and is mainly going to focus on economic issues in the next few months

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...519_story.html


I feel that the House strategy is to let the Senate pass a Bill after whatever blood-letting there might be and approach the issue only if it clears the Senate. This theory of mine however conflicts with earlier statements made by House leadership that the House would attempt to pass its own Bill concurrently and reconcile that with the Senate version in conference.

As abcx13 mentioned a few posts ago-all will be known in 7-10 days.

One of the articles I posted recently also mentioned that the House was considering releasing their legislation before the Senate group since the latter seemed to be held up by the guest worker issues. I think the climate for amnesty is significantly different with Rand Paul and Rubio, both tea party favorites, endorsing it. I think Boehner is serious about getting something done but I could be wrong. I just hope the differences between the two versions will be reconcilable.

[rupen86]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ses...3/28/id/496793

[gs1968]

I realize that the fate of piecemeal legislation is unclear in either chamber but it is heartening to see the I-squared Act quietly adding cosponsors on both sides of the aisle and the number of Senate supporters now stands at 24 (23 co-sponsor + original sponsor). However apart from Sens. Flake and Rubio the other members of the Gang of Eight have not signed on yet. It does count 6 of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The only reason I bring this up is that there is a faint hope that some of the provisions of the Bill may be rolled into the eventual CIR Bill. It does appear from initial reports that the increase to 300000 annually for H-1B visas is not happening

[ROCK72]

My first post...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...360247518.html

[abcx13]

WSJ reports they have a deal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...360247518.html

[rupen86]

WSJ reports they have a deal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...360247518.html

"Every American worker, union and nonunion, is right to be concerned about a large guest-worker program, combined with a large amnesty of illegal workers," Mr. Sessions said, adding, "There is no doubt that such a plan will reduce Americans' wages and job prospects."

This guy seems to have problems with everything including provisions which republicans support. That's why when he says committee should be given enough time, there is every reason to be suspicious. It would be meaningless to hope that committee would unanimously pass something. I believe it is a good idea to rush this through committee process and put it on the floor as Leahy has indicated.

[rupen86]

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde..._on_immig.html

"The workers would be able to change jobs and could seek permanent residency. Under current temporary worker programs, workers can't move from employer to employer and have no path to permanent U.S. residence and citizenship."

If these tens of thousands of workers are added to existing EB system, the backlogs will dramatically increase in few years time if EB numbers are not increased.

[gs1968]

To rupen86
Here is more information on Senator Sessions thoughts

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...mmigration.php

We should realize that the process of reform and legalization of undocumented aliens is fraught with dangers & risks for both parties and it is important for legislation to be passed with overwhelming majorities in both chambers to provide political cover and to ensure that neither party is punished during the mid-term elections. If the Bill comes out of the committee in a rushed process with a 10-8 vote, it will likely not clear cloture in the Senate. It is no coincidence that both in the House and the Senate there are equal numbers of Republicans & Democrats working on these Bills. We should also allow for the fact that if the details are not acceptable to Democrats-they can stall on the Bill too especially on the FB provisions. Since there is no meat on the bone yet,it is difficult to see the opposition clearly. We will wait in hope that there will be some light at the end of the tunnel for both FB & EB backlogs.

[abcx13]

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde..._on_immig.html

"The workers would be able to change jobs and could seek permanent residency. Under current temporary worker programs, workers can't move from employer to employer and have no path to permanent U.S. residence and citizenship."

If these tens of thousands of workers are added to existing EB system, the backlogs will dramatically increase in few years time if EB numbers are not increased.

I doubt anyone will petition for these lower skilled workers - the cost and hassle won't be worth it.

[gcq]

To rupen86
Here is more information on Senator Sessions thoughts

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...mmigration.php

We should realize that the process of reform and legalization of undocumented aliens is fraught with dangers & risks for both parties and it is important for legislation to be passed with overwhelming majorities in both chambers to provide political cover and to ensure that neither party is punished during the mid-term elections. If the Bill comes out of the committee in a rushed process with a 10-8 vote, it will likely not clear cloture in the Senate. It is no coincidence that both in the House and the Senate there are equal numbers of Republicans & Democrats working on these Bills. We should also allow for the fact that if the details are not acceptable to Democrats-they can stall on the Bill too especially on the FB provisions. Since there is no meat on the bone yet,it is difficult to see the opposition clearly. We will wait in hope that there will be some light at the end of the tunnel for both FB & EB backlogs.

The chance of passage of CIR is closely linked to the framework of the legislation. If the negotiators has not carefully crafted the legislation to bypass filibuster in senate, it won't pass. The essence of these negotiations is finding this right balance. When different negotiating teams announce they have "reached a deal", we assume it is smart deal aimed at passing the legislation.

People like sessions will try to find all kind of reasons why legislation should go slow ( so that he gets enough time to screw it up). His ultimate aim is the failure of CIR. Sessions and Grassley are well aware that they cannot block the bill by "hold" as it will be forced through a cloture motion where they have no leverage. These statements by Sessions is hopeless yet last ditch effort by him to stall the legislation. Democrats are well aware of hist tactics hence trying to rush it through which is the right strategy.

[rupen86]

To rupen86
Here is more information on Senator Sessions thoughts

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...mmigration.php

We should realize that the process of reform and legalization of undocumented aliens is fraught with dangers & risks for both parties and it is important for legislation to be passed with overwhelming majorities in both chambers to provide political cover and to ensure that neither party is punished during the mid-term elections. If the Bill comes out of the committee in a rushed process with a 10-8 vote, it will likely not clear cloture in the Senate. It is no coincidence that both in the House and the Senate there are equal numbers of Republicans & Democrats working on these Bills. We should also allow for the fact that if the details are not acceptable to Democrats-they can stall on the Bill too especially on the FB provisions. Since there is no meat on the bone yet,it is difficult to see the opposition clearly. We will wait in hope that there will be some light at the end of the tunnel for both FB & EB backlogs.

I do not agree that if bill is discussed in the committee for months (What Session wants) versus Weeks (What Leahy wants), it will have a good chance of passing. Time is of essence. Even Labrador who is conservative and tea party favorite and who is actively taking part in immigration in the house believes that if it does not pass by this year, we should not expect anything next year because of elections. I do not believe this bill can pass without cloture irrespective of whether it is discussed for months or weeks in the committee. Even if all committee members agree to the bill and bill is brought to the floor, it won't be hard to find one another senator who will have problem with the bill and would put "hold" on the bill.

[gs1968]

We should all watch this tomorrow for further information

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...-on-meet-press

[abcx13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/us...tion.html?_r=0

This part was mildly concerning:

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and a member of the bipartisan group, sent a letter Saturday to Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging against “excessive haste” in considering the soon-to-be-introduced legislation.The support of the voters will be crucial for passing any immigration law, Mr. Rubio said in the letter, and “that support can only be earned through full and careful consideration of legislative language and an open process of amendments.”

[gs1968]

To abcx13

Senator Rubio's stand is nothing new and he has mentioned this in a previous interview with Rush Limbaugh

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/se...igration-rush/

Here is a more detailed link

http://washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-...rticle/2525850

However I will need all the Gurus/Pandits/Oracles etc to tell me what Rep.Labrador is saying in this op-ed piece in the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5351681.story

Is he for citizenship or against it?

[rupen86]

To abcx13

Senator Rubio's stand is nothing new and he has mentioned this in a previous interview with Rush Limbaugh

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/se...igration-rush/

Here is a more detailed link

http://washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-...rticle/2525850

However I will need all the Gurus/Pandits/Oracles etc to tell me what Rep.Labrador is saying in this op-ed piece in the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5351681.story

Is he for citizenship or against it?

On Rubio, I was surprised to see that he also supports Session in spending more time in committee. I do not understand the logic though. Logically speaking, hearings should be held first and then the bill should be written after taking inputs from the hearing. Here, there will be bill and hearings are held after that. So, if people are putting amendments to the bill after hearing, will he agree to that? If guest worker program deal is achieved after so much deliberation, and if it is changed in the committee the way Rubio would not like, would he then support the bill?

On Labrador, it seems he is in line with path to citizenship. This para is clear enough about that.
"I am not advocating a two-tiered immigration system or second-class status — those who can become citizens and those who can never become citizens. Anyone who wants to become a naturalized citizen of the United States is welcome to apply. But Congress must not make it any easier for those who entered our country illegally to obtain citizenship. Those who qualify for the new guest worker and visa programs and desire citizenship would be placed at the end of the line behind others immigrating legally. It would be a travesty to treat those who violated our laws better than those who have patiently waited their turn to come to the United States the right way."
But I was surprised about this.
"The starting place — the trigger for reforming and modernizing our immigration system — must be securing our borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws before any legal status is granted to those here illegally."
It seems he does not want to give any kind of legal status before "Security trigger" which if included in the bill would not pass. Senate bill would give legal status immediately but it would link green card to border security.
But overall, it seems that he is in line with broad points. So, I think house bill will also include path to citizenship the way senate bill would. I think there will be very limited differences between senate and house bill if above is true.

[gcq]

IMO Marco Rubio was never sincere about Immigration reform. A tea party star, he was against amnesty. It is the vote bank politics and opportunism that made him a "champion" of CIR. So I am not surprised about his stand. Any CIR proponent will know that too much baking time for CIR on the floor or committee will kill it.

[gcq]

Why should people who are legal through CIR be denied Obamacare ?

http://news.yahoo.com/video/immigration-reforms-political-dance-obamacare-024842084.html

[gs1968]

To rupen86
As abcx13 has mentioned,it is concerning in that if he feels that adequate process was not given to the Bill that would mean one less vote for cloture. We still need 5 republican votes for cloture assuming all Democrats support it. The GOP can always make the argument that although they support the principle of CIR they would like to wait till all questions are resolved through committee process.

One other legislative consideration is that a Bill of such scope is usually referred to multiple committees. Fortunately consideration by additional committees is usually time-limited unlike the primary committee where there is no such limit. In the case of this legislation-after the Judiciary committee has dealt with it,most likely the Committee on Homeland Security will act on the Bill ( they are responsible for border security)

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/ch...on-immigration

There is a similar process in the House also.

Also it is not unheard of to have hearings on a Bill after introduction to gain further information before the mark-up stage.

Regarding Rep.Labrador-this is the paragraph that concerned me

"The legislation should not provide a special pathway to citizenship for the millions who have willfully violated our immigration laws. Those who entered the U.S. as children, through no fault of their own, will be allowed to have a pathway to citizenship. But those who entered illegally as adults will only be allowed to participate in the new and improved guest worker and visa programs."

The Senate plan is envisaging 13 years for citizenship while he is saying they should avail of guest worker programs.The difference in numbers here is so huge that I cannot see how it is possible. There are a maximum of 200000 visas annually while the number of undocumented aliens is greater than 11 million.

[gs1968]

I doubt anyone will petition for these lower skilled workers - the cost and hassle won't be worth it.

I found this article in the USA today interesting although I would like to see other sources or the actual Bill itself to believe it-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...visas/2039043/


In the middle of the article is this paragraph

"Once granted a W-Visa, workers would be able to switch between U.S. employers — a possibility that does not exist under current law — and stay in the U.S. year-round. They would also be able to apply for legal permanent residence, or green cards, on their own. Current law requires employers to do that on their behalf."

It claims that the low-skilled workers can self-petition which at this point is not available to high-skilled workers. Is it possible that CIR may allow high-skilled workers to also self-petition and remove employers out of the equation?

[abcx13]

I found this article in the USA today interesting although I would like to see other sources or the actual Bill itself to believe it-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...visas/2039043/


In the middle of the article is this paragraph

"Once granted a W-Visa, workers would be able to switch between U.S. employers — a possibility that does not exist under current law — and stay in the U.S. year-round. They would also be able to apply for legal permanent residence, or green cards, on their own. Current law requires employers to do that on their behalf."

It claims that the low-skilled workers can self-petition which at this point is not available to high-skilled workers. Is it possible that CIR may allow high-skilled workers to also self-petition and remove employers out of the equation?

Probably will be a separate queue that will get backlogged soon.

About Rubio playing tough, maybe he's just posturing to appeal to the party base or to be nice to Sessions even though he'll go along with a short committee markup...

[rupen86]

I found this article in the USA today interesting although I would like to see other sources or the actual Bill itself to believe it-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...visas/2039043/


In the middle of the article is this paragraph

"Once granted a W-Visa, workers would be able to switch between U.S. employers — a possibility that does not exist under current law — and stay in the U.S. year-round. They would also be able to apply for legal permanent residence, or green cards, on their own. Current law requires employers to do that on their behalf."

It claims that the low-skilled workers can self-petition which at this point is not available to high-skilled workers. Is it possible that CIR may allow high-skilled workers to also self-petition and remove employers out of the equation?

Wow, if they can petition themselves, and if that will be counted against EB numbers, I do not know how EB backlog will work out. I do not think this will apply to high skill immigration. That will be limited to H1 discussion and some changes in manipulating EB numbers.

[rupen86]

To rupen86
As abcx13 has mentioned,it is concerning in that if he feels that adequate process was not given to the Bill that would mean one less vote for cloture. We still need 5 republican votes for cloture assuming all Democrats support it. The GOP can always make the argument that although they support the principle of CIR they would like to wait till all questions are resolved through committee process.

One other legislative consideration is that a Bill of such scope is usually referred to multiple committees. Fortunately consideration by additional committees is usually time-limited unlike the primary committee where there is no such limit. In the case of this legislation-after the Judiciary committee has dealt with it,most likely the Committee on Homeland Security will act on the Bill ( they are responsible for border security)

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/ch...on-immigration

There is a similar process in the House also.

Also it is not unheard of to have hearings on a Bill after introduction to gain further information before the mark-up stage.

Regarding Rep.Labrador-this is the paragraph that concerned me

"The legislation should not provide a special pathway to citizenship for the millions who have willfully violated our immigration laws. Those who entered the U.S. as children, through no fault of their own, will be allowed to have a pathway to citizenship. But those who entered illegally as adults will only be allowed to participate in the new and improved guest worker and visa programs."

The Senate plan is envisaging 13 years for citizenship while he is saying they should avail of guest worker programs.The difference in numbers here is so huge that I cannot see how it is possible. There are a maximum of 200000 visas annually while the number of undocumented aliens is greater than 11 million.

Regarding cloture, you are assuming that all democrats will support it and only 5 republican votes are needed. I do not think that's how it will be played out. It would be a mix of republicans and democrats supporting it with more democrats than republicans. If this bill just gets 5 republican votes, we can forget about it passing in the house. Only strong senate vote can put pressure on the house to pass it. I do not think republicans can get away with the argument that they want to pass the bill but they are not given enough time in the committee. They want this issue behind them and won't be looking forward to again have to defend themselves on immigration.

What Labrador, he is saying that he does not support special pathway to citizenship and that they should go back at the end of the line. That's what gang of eight is also saying but it is true that they have come up with 13 year plan for citizenship which I have not understood yet that if someone is going at the end of the line then how do you define specific timeline like 13 years.

[gs1968]

Something to think about as you are having morning coffee

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/31/ru...-amnesty-bill/

[rupen86]

Something to think about as you are having morning coffee

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/31/ru...-amnesty-bill/

He might be creating cover for himself in the event that the bill does not pass or that opposition to the bill is larger than anticipated or he might be positioning himself little on the right. Or, since he has specifically asked for security related hearing, if one such hearing is held, he might be satisfied with that and can claim that he forced democrats to have such hearing.