PDA

View Full Version : while you were distracted by the tornado: Major immigration overhaul



Byte Stryke
05-22-2013, 08:11
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57585608/major-immigration-overhaul-passes-first-big-test/

Major immigration overhaul passes first big test


Updated 4:15 a.m. ET May 22, 2013
WASHINGTON Far-reaching legislation to grant a chance at citizenship to millions of immigrants living illegally in the United States cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a solid bipartisan vote Tuesday night after supporters somberly sidestepped a controversy over the rights of gay spouses.

The 13-5 vote cleared the way for an epic showdown on the Senate floor on the measure, which is one of President Obama's top domestic priorities yet also gives the Republican Party a chance to recast itself as more appealing to minorities.

The committee's action sparked rejoicing from immigration activists who crowded into a Senate committee room to witness the proceedings. "Yes, we can!" they shouted as they clapped rhythmically to show their pleasure.

In a statement, Mr. Obama applauded the committee's action and said the bill was "largely consistent with the principles of common-sense reform I have proposed and meets the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system" -- though he said there's still room for improvement.

In addition to creating a pathway to citizenship for 11.5 million immigrants, the legislation creates a new program for low-skilled foreign labor and would permit highly skilled workers into the country at far higher levels than is currently the case.

At the same time, it requires the government to take costly new steps to guard against future illegal immigration.

There was suspense to the end of the committee's deliberations, when Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who serves as chairman, sparked a debate over his proposal to give same-sex and heterosexual spouses equal rights under immigration law.

"I don't want to be the senator who asks people to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country," he said, adding he wanted to hear from others on the committee.

In response, he heard a chorus of pleas from the bill's supporters, seconding private appeals from the White House, not to force a vote that they warned would lead to the bill's demise.

"I believe in my heart of hearts that what you're doing is the right and just thing," said one of them, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "But I believe this is the wrong moment, that this is the wrong bill."


In the hours leading to a final vote, the panel also agreed to a last-minute compromise covering an increase in the visa program for high-tech workers, a deal that brought Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah over to the ranks of supporters.

Under the compromise, the number of highly skilled workers admitted to the country would rise from 65,000 annually to 110,000, with the possibility of a further rise to 180,000, depending in part on unemployment levels.

Firms where foreign labor accounts for at least 15 percent of the skilled work force would be subjected to tighter conditions than companies less dependent on H-IB visa holders.

The compromise was negotiated by Hatch, whose state is home to a growing high tech industry, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. It is designed to balance the interests of industry, which relies increasingly on skilled foreign labor, and organized labor, which represents American workers.
AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka attacked the deal sharply as "anti-worker," although he also made clear organized labor would continue to support the overall legislation.

Robert Hoffman, senior vice president for government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council, welcomed the deal. "We obviously want to keep moving the bill forward and building support for the legislation, and this agreement allows us to do so," he said.

The issue of same-sex spouses hovered in the background from the start, and as the committee neared the end of its work, officials said Leahy had been informed that both the White House and Senate Democrats hoped he would not risk the destruction of months of painstaking work by putting the issue to a vote.

"There have been 300 amendments. Why shouldn't we have one more?" he told reporters at one point, hours before called the committee into session for a final time to debate the legislation.

A few hours later, Republicans and Democrats both answered his question bluntly.

"This would fracture the coalition. I could not support the bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was a member of the bipartisan so-called Gang of Eight that drafted the core elements of the bill.

Republicans and Democrats alike also noted that the Supreme Court may soon issue a ruling that renders the controversy moot.

Despite the concern that bipartisan support for the legislation was fragile, there was no doubting the command over committee proceedings that backers held.

In a final reminder, an attempt by Sen. Ted Cruz., R-Texas, to delete the pathway to citizenship failed on a 13-5 vote.

In defeat, he and others said they, too, wanted to overhaul immigration law, but not the way that drafters of the legislation had done.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, recalled that he had voted to give "amnesty" to those in the country illegally in 1986, the last time Congress took a major look at immigration. He said that bill, like the current one, promised to crack down on illegal immigration, but said it had failed to do so.
The centerpiece provision of the legislation allows an estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally to obtain "registered provisional immigrant status" six months after enactment if certain conditions are also met.

Applicants must have arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 2011, and maintained continuous physical presence, must not have a felony conviction of more than two misdemeanors on their record, and pay a $500 fine.

The registered provisional immigrant status lasts six years and is renewable for another $500. After a decade, though, individuals could seek a green card and lawful permanent resident status if they are up to date on their taxes and pay a $1,000 fine and meet other conditions.
Individuals brought to the country as youths would be able to apply for green cards in five years.

brutal
05-22-2013, 08:22
He sure likes that word common-sense. Too bad there's little of it practiced.

Getting ready for 2016.

Kraven251
05-22-2013, 08:25
I can't wait... fuck us.

Dave
05-22-2013, 09:20
Go and try to enter Mexico illegally and see what their gov't and police do to you. Then we can gauge how to treat the illegals here.

Ronin13
05-22-2013, 10:14
This is something that just infuriates me!
"Under the compromise, the number of highly skilled workers admitted to the country would rise from 65,000 annually to 110,000, with the possibility of a further rise to 180,000, depending in part on unemployment levels."
Say what!? Why are we importing "highly skilled workers" when we have unemployed here in this country already!?
Here's something that'll upset you- a buddy of mine I've known since we were like 9 joined the Navy straight out of HS. Was stationed in the Pacific for 2 years, met the love of his life, who was a foreign national (Thailand I believe), over the next 3 1/2 years they spent thousands of dollars and countless hours to get her legal citizenship. She's been a US Citizen for 2 years or so now (they've been married just over 4 years), and she hates illegal immigration, she is a very sweet, loving, nice happy person, but you bring up illegals and she is a fire breathing dragon. She also hates Obama with the fire of a thousand suns and says "If he grants these border jumpers amnesty, he might as well just come over to my house and slap me in the face for real, instead of doing it in a roundabout way."
Yeah, great idea, let's have a pathway to citizenship because it's common sense. Want some immigration advice? I hate to say it, but look at what the Iranians do if you cross their border illegally. And Dave is right, Mexico has a very strict immigration policy- if you're not a citizen they make it very hard for you to live there. Isn't that ironic? [Mad] Plainly said, if you're here illegally (key word: ILLEGAL!) GTFO, if you can't do it the right way, don't fucking bother doing it at all!

KestrelBike
05-22-2013, 12:25
Fuck you CBS, they did not chant "yes we can" they chanted "Si se puede!" Which is part of the whole f'in problem of non assimilation. You gonna give us a count of all the mexican flags being waved outside too, cbs?

DireWolf
05-22-2013, 12:46
This makes me so mad that I can't even articulate the thoughts going through my head right now...

n8tive97
05-22-2013, 12:53
This makes me so mad that I can't even articulate the thoughts going through my head right now...

Well said....

roberth
05-22-2013, 13:04
This makes me so mad that I can't even articulate the thoughts going through my head right now...


Well said....

Yes.

Will this stop illegal immigration, oh hell no, more will come expecting amnesty and a free ride.

Why work to reform your own country when you can come to the US, do nothing and ride free.

Clint45
05-22-2013, 13:21
If this passes, will we be able to imprison or deport anyone who remains undocumented?

DingleBerns
05-22-2013, 13:58
so will they have to pay taxes and healthcare?

rockhound
05-22-2013, 14:45
saw they were going have their welfare checks taxed what a fucking joke

DavieD55
05-22-2013, 14:58
so will they have to pay taxes and healthcare?


Of course not, that is what the IRS is for.

kidicarus13
05-22-2013, 15:11
What Republican Party? That idea is so 2004.

Gman
05-22-2013, 15:28
We already had a "pathway to citizenship". Our rulers didn't enforce it. Now we have another wad of paper and red tape. Any bets on their willingness to enforce this one?

Remember, you have to respect the pattern.

roberth
05-22-2013, 16:14
If this passes, will we be able to imprison or deport anyone who remains undocumented?

Illegals already participate in "catch and release". There is no point in wasting resources trying to imprison or deport them just for being here illegally.


so will they have to pay taxes and healthcare?

LOL, you're funny. :) The (R) and (D) and all the businesses who use these subhumans will find a way to pin those costs on working American citizens.

Ronin13
05-22-2013, 16:26
LOL, you're funny. :) The (R) and (D) and all the businesses who use these subhumans will find a way to pin those costs on working American citizens.
Ummm... will? Already done. Unless something changed recently, St. Anthony's ER doesn't ask for proof of citizenship, and we (the taxpayer) end up picking up the tab already- this was long before Obamacare too.