Posted on 06/02/2007 6:53:21 PM PDT by Stultis
Complaining from the Sidelines is not a Solution
By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl
In last year’s election, voters said one thing loud and clear: DO SOMETHING ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Of course, there were a lot of different opinions about what should be done, but more inactivity was clearly not an option.
Separate bills approved by the U.S. House and Senate last year were considered unpalatable by the vast majority of Americans. One version did not adequately address our broken immigration system, and the other was too permissive in its automatic path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. So, nothing changed. Meanwhile, every day, thousands of illegal immigrants continue to pour across our border (roughly 10 percent are serious criminals), workplace enforcement is a joke, and crime and violence are escalating.
Now the Democrats control Congress, and it’s clear a Democrat-only bill would be more liberal than the bill passed by the Senate last year, over my objection. I was presented with a choice: sit on the sidelines and complain about a bad bill; or work hard to ensure that any bill that passed the Senate is one influenced as much as possible by my conservative principles.
For weeks, senators and administration officials worked to forge a bill that secures our border, creates workable and effective interior and workplace enforcement, realistically deals with the people illegally here, and designs a truly temporary worker program that responds to the nation’s fluctuating labor needs.
In these meetings, Republicans insisted on achieving certain milestones in interior and border security (like hiring 18,000 border patrol agents and constructing 370 miles of fencing) before allowing any visas for illegal immigrants – marking a departure from last year’s approach, which resisted any attempts to provide “triggers” before the border was substantially secured.
Republicans also insisted on an effective and enforceable electronic employment verification system that would prevent employers from hiring illegal workers and provide stiff penalties for those who violate the law. This verification system also must be fully operational before “triggering” other features of the bill.
Within one year, all illegal immigrants would have to come forth and begin a process to become legal; those who don’t will be deported when they’re caught. Those who cannot meet the conditions of their probationary period also will be required to return home.
Republicans also successfully demanded that the temporary worker program require workers to return home after two years and that the program not serve as a path to citizenship.
Opponents of amnesty have always insisted that Congress end the opportunities for “chain migration” – bringing in relatives who ultimately become U.S. citizens – and that is done in this bill. In addition, future green cards will be given on the basis of merit, favoring those with key job skills, education, and English-language proficiency.
Providing a path to legalization was always a non-negotiable priority for Democrats, but Republicans were still able to deny an automatic path to citizenship. Under the bill, all permanent resident applicants must apply from the back of the line, from their home country, pay higher fines than in last year’s bill, pass a criminal background check, and show a nearly perfect work history, English proficiency, and familiarity with American civics. Those with the best records would have the highest priority for a green card, but none could earn citizenship in less than 13 years.
Obviously there is much more to the bill than these few highlights. There are certainly many provisions I don’t like, and equally as many that some Democratic Senators don’t like. I think that is the reason why you’re seeing groups from both sides opposing the bill. A number of special interest lobby groups are already screaming for changes.
The bill is now being debated and amended. If the core of the bipartisan consensus is not accurately reflected in the final legislative language, or is seriously undercut by amendments in the Senate or House, it will lose support, including from me. What we have shown is it that a bipartisan consensus is possible. The American people will have to determine if it is what they want; but for me, failing to try is not a solution.
A version of this text first appeared on May 20, 2007, in The Arizona Republic.
5, 4, 3, 2....
REFORMING OUR NATION’S IMMIGRATION LAWS
Last year, the United States Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that legalized the status of millions of illegal immigrants, yet was devoid of many of the tough steps required to secure the border, prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants in the workplace, and establish an effective and workable temporary worker program. I opposed the bill, which passed the Senate with 62 votes. It was later stopped in the House of Representatives.
The question is, what kind of bill is likely to pass this year? The Senate Majority Leader had early on indicated that immigration reform would be on the Senate’s agenda, and, on May 21, he reintroduced last year’s permissive bill. With that in mind, I had a choice: remain on the sidelines and let what I considered to be a bad bill (perhaps one even more permissive than last year’s bill) pass, knowing the President was ready to sign it into law, or participate in negotiations to ensure as much as possible that Arizonans’ views are represented in any new legislation. I decided to help put together a bipartisan group of senators who could work with the administration to try to craft a new consensus bill. I believe that the bill that resulted from these negotiations, though not perfect, reflects a far better approach.
Here are some highlights of the bill as it stands now.
First, the new legislation learns from the lessons of the 1986 immigration bill, and, in a major departure from last year’s bill, emphasizes enforcement first. It requires a significant strengthening of border security before anything else can occur. More specifically, the bill will:
This bill will require that these benchmarks be met before other provisions relating to legal and illegal immigrants can take effect. But, it doesn’t stop with just these milestones. I won’t consider my work done until we have built all 700 miles of fence as specified in the Secure Fence Act last year and implement other steps necessary to secure the border (for example, continuing to hire even more Border Patrol agents).
Second, the bill will stiffen laws and penalties against criminal aliens, gang members, and persons who illegally cross our border or engage in immigration fraud. It will:
Third — and something that I claim particular credit for — is a provision that I believe is key to preventing the hiring of illegal immigrants in the United States. The bill will require the implementation of a new, mandatory electronic employment verification system, requiring all employers to verify electronically the immigration status of job applicants before offering them a job. This part of the bill will:
Fourth, the bill will establish a temporary worker program that is truly temporary. This program will:
Fifth, the bill will end family-based “chain” migration forever and establish a new merit-based immigration system. The bill will:
Sixth, the bill will provide a new visa for most current illegal immigrants in the United States. Some people say this is amnesty. While I disagree, it is not something I would have included if I could have written the bill myself. But recognizing that there were insufficient votes to stop it outright, I worked hard to ensure that it would not take effect until after border enforcement provisions are implemented, and that illegal immigrants taking advantage of the new program would really have to work for legal status. The bill will:
Finally, the bill includes a number of miscellaneous provisions involving assimilation and increased funding for the Office of Citizenship and Immigrant Integration. The bill will:
The whole point of negotiating with Senators like Ted Kennedy about the shape of the legislation was precisely to take a firm stand in support of my conservative principles. Simply ceding the development of an immigration bill to the liberals in the Senate would have ensured the worst possible result. Obviously, I didn’t get my way on every point — but neither did the liberals who now control the Senate.
No law is self-enforcing. This bill, unlike the 1986 immigration bill, is enforceable. It authorizes the needed manpower on the border and in the interior to do so. And provisions like the border fence and electronic employee verification system must be in place before the illegal immigrants currently in the country can adjust their status. Congress must exercise aggressive oversight to ensure the law is being enforced.
Some people have expressed concerns that this is an expensive bill. But the immigration problem cannot be solved without spending what is necessary to do it. One thing is certain, however, and that is that the cost of inaction will be far greater for our country.
MITIGATING THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
When the federal government fails to secure the border, immigration-related costs to state and local governments, and American citizens, can skyrocket. For example, a study by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition estimated that hospitals in Arizona were required to provide $31 million a year in uncompensated health care for illegal aliens.
Think what that means to health-care delivery in Arizona. A mother about to deliver her baby may encounter overcrowded emergency rooms and long wait times because hospitals must devote scarce resources to also treat illegal aliens. Since they are not compensated for the care they are required to provide to illegal immigrants, hospitals have only a few choices: pass on the costs to paying patients (usually American citizens); absorb the costs; or limit (or eliminate) services they provide to the community.
Recognizing that health-care providers and state and local governments are required to bear these costs because of the federal government’s failure to secure the borders, Congress has begun to provide reimbursement. Before 2001, Congress reimbursed some of the states that were most affected by illegal immigration just $25 million a year; Arizona’s hospitals were unable to obtain a significant portion of that funding. That changed when, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee and a member of the House-Senate conference committee on the Medicare prescription-drug bill, I won passage of a provision to provide $1 billion through 2007 to reimburse hospitals for the federally mandated, but otherwise uncompensated, emergency medical care they provide to illegal immigrants. This year, I will work to extend that funding. And, I made sure Arizona is finally assured a fair allocation of those funds. I have continued to pressure the Mexican government to accept expeditiously the transfer of stabilized Mexican patients from Arizona hospitals when those Mexicans are illegally in the U.S. and unable to pay for their care.
Aside from uncompensated health-care costs, communities are also required to bear the costs of arresting, prosecuting, and jailing illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. According to a study by the University of Arizona, those costs amounted to as much as $125 million per year – and that was just in the 28 southwestern border counties in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Authorization to reimburse States and localities for these costs is included in the current immigration bill under consideration; I will continue to support legislation to ensure the federal government reimburses States and localities for the costs incurred in dealing with such criminals.
“If the core of the bipartisan consensus is not accurately reflected in the final legislative language, or is seriously undercut by amendments in the Senate or House, it will lose support, including from me.”
Good, it sounds like he is looking for a way out.
“Doing something” doesn’t mean do anything, even if it’s bad!
Bwahahahahahaha
More likely, given Kyle's record, he means exactly what he says.
But in the present atmosphere of panty-wadded caterwauling over immigration reform we apparently feel free to ignore the character, record and integrity of someone like Kyle who has served the conservative cause long and well.
Sounds like Senator Dickhead thinks we shouldn’t have say. We are merely the sideline. Yeah, right. I think it’s time to sideline this miserable scum.
Crap from Senatewhore kyl.
Heritage Foundation analysis of z-visas. More at the site if anyone wants the truth.
“Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law
by Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil., J.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1468
The most controversial component of the Senate’s Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is Title VI, euphemistically entitled “Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status.” It would create a new “Z” visa exclusively for illegal aliens. This title would change the status of those who are here illegally to legal, essentially granting amnesty to those “previously in unlawful status.” This seriously flawed proposal would undermine the rule of law by granting massive benefits to those who have willfully violated U.S. laws, while denying those benefits to those who have played by the rules and sometimes even to U.S. citizens.
Flawed Provisions
The following are ten of the worst provisions—by no means an exhaustive list—of Title VI of the bill:
A Massive Amnesty: Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens. It is also a larger amnesty than that proposed in last year’s ill-fated Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Indeed, the Senate’s bill imposes no cap on the total number of individuals who could receive Z-visa status.
To initially qualify for a Z visa, an illegal alien need only have a job (or be the parent, spouse, or child of someone with a job) and provide two documents suggesting that he or she was in the country before January 1, 2007, and has remained in the country since then. A bank statement, pay stub, or similarly forgeable record will do. Also acceptable under the legislation is a sworn affidavit from a non-relative (see Section 601(i)(2)).
The price of a Z visa is $3,000 for individuals—only slightly more than the going rate to hire a coyote to smuggle a person across the border. A family of five could purchase visas for the bargain price of $5,000—some $20,000 short of the net cost that household is likely to impose on local, state, and federal government each year, according to Heritage Foundation calculations.
Expect a mass influx unlike anything this country has ever seen once the 12-month period for accepting Z visa applications begins. These provisions are an open invitation for those intent on U.S. residence to sneak in and present two fraudulent pieces of paper indicating that they were here before the beginning of the year.
That is precisely what happened in the 1986 amnesty, during which Immigration and Naturalization Services discovered 398,000 cases of fraud. Expect the number of fraudulent applications to be at least four times larger this time, given the much larger applicant pool.
The Permanent “Temporary” Visa: Supporters of the bill call the Z visa a “temporary” visa. However, they neglect to mention that it can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies, according to Section 601(k)(2) of the legislation. This would be the country’s first permanent temporary visa. On top of that, it is a “super-visa,” allowing the holder to work, attend college, or travel abroad and reenter. These permissible uses are found in Section 602(m).
A law-abiding alien with a normal nonimmigrant visa would surely desire this privileged status. Unfortunately for him, only illegal aliens can qualify, according Section 601(c)(1).
And contrary to popular misconception, illegal aliens need not return to their home countries to apply for the Z visa. That’s only necessary if and when an alien decides to adjust from Z visa status to lawful permanent resident (”green card”) status under Section 602(a)(1). And even then, it’s not really the country of origin; any consulate outside the United States can take applications at its discretion or the direction of the Secretary of State.
Hobbled Background Checks: The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist. Unless the government can find a reason not to grant it by the end of the next business day after the alien applies, the alien receives a probationary Z visa (good from the time of approval until six months after the date Z visas begin to be approved, however long that may be) that lets him roam throughout the country and seek employment legally.
The problem is that there is no single, readily searchable database of all of the dangerous people in the world. While the federal government does have computer databases of known criminals and terrorists, these databases are far from comprehensive. Much of this kind of information exists in paper records that cannot be searched within 24 hours. Other information is maintained by foreign governments.
The need for effective background checks is real. During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center. Using his new legal status after the amnesty, he was able to travel abroad for terrorist training.
Amnesty for “Absconders”: Title VI’s amnesty extends even to fugitives who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge but chose to ignore their removal orders. More than 636,000 absconders are now present in the country, having defied the law twice: once when they broke U.S. immigration laws and again when they ignored the orders of the immigration courts.
The Senate’s bill allows the government to grant Z visas to absconders. Though the bill appears to deny the visa to absconders in Section 601(d)(1)(B), Section 601(d)(1)(I) allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials to give an absconder the Z visa anyway if the absconder can demonstrate that departure from the United States “would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent or child.”
This is a massive loophole because so many things can be construed to constitute “extreme hardship.” This might include removing a child from an American school and placing him in a school in an impoverished country, or deporting a person with any chronic illness. Attorneys representing aliens would also argue that if any member of an absconder’s family is a U.S. citizen, then the other members must remain in the United States, because the separation of family members would constitute extreme hardship.
This would also be a reward to those who have defied U.S. immigration courts. Those who have successfully fled justice could receive the most generous visa ever created, but those who complied with the law and have waited years to enter legally would have to wait longer still. (Indeed, the massive bureaucratic load caused by processing Z visas would undoubtedly mean longer waits for those who have played by the rules.) Further, those who have obeyed the law and complied with deportation orders would not be eligible for Z visas.
The effect of this provision may already be felt today. Why would an illegal alien obey a deportation order while this bill is even pending in Congress? If the alien ignores the deportation order, he may be able to qualify for the amnesty; but if he obeys the order, he has no possibility of gaining the amnesty.
Reverse Justice: The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is “prima facie eligible” for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.
Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws: The bill would transform Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law enforcement agency into an amnesty distribution center. Under Sections 601(h)(1, 5) if an ICE agent apprehends aliens who appear to be eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain them. Instead, ICE must provide them a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. Instead of initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.
Amnesty for Gang Members: Under Section 602(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or “MS-13”), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a “renunciation of gang affiliation.”
Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens: The Senate bill incorporates the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). The DREAM Act effectively repeals a 1996 federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623) that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. Ten states are currently defying this federal law. Section 616 would allow these and all other states to offer in-state tuition rates to any illegal alien who obtains the Z visa and attends college.
The injustice of this provision is obvious. Illegal aliens would receive a taxpayer subsidy worth tens of thousands of dollars and would be treated better than U.S. citizens from out of state, who must pay three to four times as much to attend college. In an era of limited educational resources and rising tuitions, U.S. citizens, not aliens openly violating federal law, should be first in line to receive education subsidies.
Further, legal aliens who possess an appropriate F, J, or M student visa would not receive this valuable benefit. Nor would they be eligible for the federal student loans that illegal aliens could obtain by this provision.
Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens: The Senate’s bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens’ lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers. Proponents of the Senate approach have consistently claimed that it would allow delayed amnesty only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The text of the bill, however, tells a different story. Section 1(a) allows provisional Z visas to be issued immediately after enactment, and Section 601(f)(2) prohibits the federal government from waiting more than 180 days after enactment to begin issuing provisional Z visas.
These provisional Z visas could be valid for years, depending on when the government begins issuing non-provisional Z visas, according to Section 601(h)(4). Moreover, the “provisional” designation means little. These visas are nearly as good as non-provisional Z visas, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and the ability to exit and reenter the country (with advance permission). These privileges are listed in Section 601(h)(1).
Conclusion
What becomes unmistakably clear from the details of the Senate’s bill is that it is not a “compromise” in any meaningful sense. Indeed, the sweeping amnesty provisions of Title VI cripple law enforcement and undermine the rule of law.
Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil, J.D., professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, served as counsel to the U.S. Attorney General in 2001-2003 and was the attorney general’s chief adviser on immigration law. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.”
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The standard and quality of debate from this side is depressing. I thought conservatives aspired to higher.
Count down till the appeasers resort to namecalling...
5, 4, 3, 2, ...
Countdown until someone mentions the "promises, promises" in the 1965 bill and Reagan's 1986 bill.
Or even the 700 miles of fencing in last year's bill.
Yeah, I live in Phoenix. Go sit on a Saguaro and spin...;-)
Cheers!
"Doing something" means things actually happen. The ---- hits the fan somewhere, and lots of 'little people' have paperwork to file at the end of the day. Hopefully they are a) still in one piece, and b) not being sued for millions of dollars for supposedly exceeding authority or (*gasp*) hurting someone's feelings by doing their jobs so well.
None of this is any thanks to people like Senator Kyle, who believes he has "done something" by dressing up fancy and going to work each day.
My bet is that the Solons who vote for this nonsense will be sitting on the sidelines in 2009 after their loss in 2008. To quote Reagan ... “Go ahead, make our day”. Quisling bastards.
You're acting like we should be grateful Kyl is offering us a cold tube of KY jelly, when he ought to be defending our honor altogether.
I am honestly beginning to wonder whether our president has a Mexican mistress, or if the Mexican drug lords have something on him.
He is usually merely horrible about defending his decisions and reasoning behind things, but the amnesty bill is atrocious even by his abysmal P.R. standards.
Cheers!
Maybe you're just sensitive.
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.