Posted on 03/29/2007 5:12:09 PM PDT by Dubya
A White House plan devised in weeks of closed-door meetings with Republican senators would grant work visas to undocumented immigrants but require them to return home and pay hefty fines to become legal U.S. residents.
The draft immigration legislation is the first stab by the White House and Republican senators to address the presence of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in the country and the reliance by employers on illegal workers.
The White House draft plan was circulating Thursday around Capitol Hill and among groups with an interest in immigration legislation after elements of it were leaked late Wednesday.
Under the plan, undocumented workers could apply for three-year work visas, which the plan dubs "Z" visas. They would be renewable indefinitely but renewal would cost $3,500 each time.
The undocumented workers would have legal status with the visas, but to get a green card, making them legal permanent residents, they'd have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. embassy or consulate to re-enter legally and pay a $10,000 fine.
The plan also tries to make border security a priority by requiring 18,300 Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of physical fencing be in place, as well as electronic monitoring of the southern border ongoing before a temporary worker program could start.
The plan is far more conservative than the one the Senate approved last year with bipartisan backing and support from President Bush. That plan, whose principal architects were Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check.
Critics dismissed that bill as an amnesty.
Supporters of immigration reform say the draft plan shows the White House is serious about getting a bill completed this year. But immigration advocates were disappointed with the product and see it as a step backward.
"For us it's a no go," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum.
A plan to make more green cards available to skilled workers by limiting visas for parents, children and siblings of U.S. citizens and one that would prohibit temporary workers from bringing family members is one of the plan's more controversial provisions.
"President Bush said family values don't stop at the Rio Grande. Evidently they do," said Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Kennedy appeared at a news conference in support of immigration reform with evangelical leaders, including Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty. The leaders said they plan to exhort their congregations to push lawmakers and take other steps to get an immigration reform bill passed.
Family unification, said Kennedy, "has been an essential aspect of immigration policy since the history of this country" and letting immigrants work their way toward legalization is a framework for previous immigration bills that has received substantial support.
"You don't compromise on the morality of these issues," Kennedy said. "We're not going to."
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he favored gearing immigration toward the higher skilled and educated who he said would help the country.
The immigration plan is the result of about a month of meetings among White House officials, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Republican senators.
Democrats recognize they need Republican support to get an immigration bill passed this year and have been counting on Bush to deliver Republican votes.
A House bill introduced last week by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., also attempts to appeal to conservatives.
It provides six-year work visas to undocumented immigrants and requires them at some point during that period to exit the country and re-enter using their work visa.
The anchor baby clause of the 14th amendment needs to be repealed before any work visas are handed out.
NO AMENSTY. NO "GUEST WORKERS".
Illegal invaders should be denied jobs and benefits and most of them will leave. If they are apprehended, they should be deported.
If we need more immigrants, raise the immigration quotas across the board for LEGAL immigrants and give ALL nations a crack at the American Dream - we don't owe Mexico anything - not one tortilla. The ruling class there created a mess by monopolizing wealth and power in the hands of the few and they should have to deal with the consequences - not us.
Dubya doesn't get it.
I love it. Once again this makes GWB's WOT a complete farce.
These people should retire now and start their second career on Comedy Central.
Yea, let's TTTTRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYY to make our borders secure.
Yeah sure.
Pssst! I got a hot stock you should sink all your assets and your life savings into!
No Really!
Trust me! /hype
I have something to float by the White House, the look like Baby Ruth candy bars.
Well, let's float this...NO Amnesty.
Build the wall !!!
You bet, they only need to fool enough conservatives into thinking they're moving to the right just long enough to get their scam into conference committee where Bush and Kennedy can then write the bill they really want.
We don't need any new legislation, that's the whole point. They just need to enforce the current laws but since that's not going to happen it is insulting to everyone's intelligence that they're now pretending that if we only give them their amnesty this time they really really will in the future. Where have we heard that one before?
>>
They just need to enforce the current laws but since that's not going to happen it is insulting to everyone's intelligence that they're now pretending that if we only give them their amnesty this time they really really will in the future. Where have we heard that one before?
>>
So you are one of those that does not believe any laws will be enforced. Period. Full stop. No caveats. No moderation. Your hardline position is that you do not believe any immigration laws will be enforced.
You therefore should have no interest in new legislation, regardless of what it says.
If you DO believe laws will be enforced, then you must begin from that position in evaluating anything new that is proposed.
You can't have this both ways. Either you believe laws will be enforced, or you don't. There is no middle ground here.
Actually, #1 might be an effective compromise, though something tells me it'll disappear in committee. Is there anything in this bill about employers? The last amnesty bill was really amnesty for crooked US employers, though there wasn't much note of that in the press.
I agree, somewhat. The proposal is worth evaluating.
The folks here taking the position that no proposal whatsoever can be evaluated because no laws will ever be enforced are in an inconsistent position and they need to resolve it. They either believe laws will be enforced, or they do not.
If not, then they should have nothing to say about new legislation beyond a statement of disinterest since new legislation will never go into effect.
If they DO think laws will be enforced, then they are obligated to discuss and offer modification to what looks to me to be a solid approach to punishing people who have committed a crime. There is nothing in this proposal that relaxes current laws for anyone who does not register in the system.
You got that right. Any candidate who has not addressed that is not serious about immigration reform. And that leaves most of 'em out.
20 million guest workers with jackpot babies. Woohoo!! They are NEVER going home. Don't forget chain migration, the can bring in then entire clan.
AP doesn't mention if the plan would require that they wait in the quota line when applying for a green card.
Not sure the 14th amendment says what you think it says.
Anybody who didn't vote for the 25 pro-fence seats we previously held in the house is a fool.
You're right, I don't. And until they make an honest, consistent effort to enforce the laws and where it isn't done with any political motivation as is currently the case then I hope no one else does either.
No one who has been paying attention to the Bush administration should believe a new immigration law will be enforced.
Enforce the current law (it's the President's constitutional duty), and then ask us to believe you'll enforce a new immigration law. And, as a good faith gesture, how about seeing that the 700-mile fence that we've been promised is actually funded and built??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.