<p>I’m quite surprised no one here has brought this topic up for discussion. I keep asking myself if this isn’t a sign of the “end times” :p—a bill strongly supported by both sides of the aisle AND the President? If this one doesn’t pass, what hope is there of ANYTHING getting done in Washington?</p>
<p>I don’t like this bill. </p>
<p>My brother and his family have been waiting for more than 5 years now to legally immigrate to US. My parent submitted the pettion right after their citizenship were grantded. </p>
<p>Those who cross into US illegally will now get their green cards before those who stood in line legally. Why obey the law next time??</p>
<p>I’m not so sure about the “strongly supported” part of your post. I know that the conservatives are up in arms about this bill. From what I understand so are the illegal migrants. I haven’t looked at it in detail (not exactly a major hot button for me), but in “theory” it seems OK; the main problem is that when dealing with Washington the gap between theory and reality typically makes the Grand Canyon look like a small ravine.</p>
<p>“I’m not so sure about the “strongly supported” part of your post. I know that the conservatives are up in arms about this bill.”</p>
<p>As a conservative up in arms, myself, I’m not sure about strongly supported either. Interesting to see if it ever comes to the floor of the House. I suspect it won’t, but who knows?</p>
<p>I understand this bill is taking heat from both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives because it appears to reward illegal activity. Liberals because it appears to reward hard work. (Borrowed that one).</p>
<p>“Those who cross into US illegally will now get their green cards before those who stood in line legally.”</p>
<p>At least under the Senate version of the bill, this isn’t true. I haven’t seen the house version yet.</p>
<p>“Those who cross into US illegally will now get their green cards before those who stood in line legally.”
The green card isn’t particularly important under the Senate version. The Z visa allows renewals.</p>
<p>Hanna, while the terminology is different in terms of the type of visa that is granted, it is my understanding that illegals under the Senate’s provisions will become “legal” as soon as they wish to by filling out the paperwork and paying the fee. Once they are “legal” there really isn’t that much difference between having a green card or not. So, in effect they are given a “semi-green” card immediately.</p>
<p>There are also Z-2 and Z-3 Visas. Once the initial applicant gets status, that allows mothers, fathers, and kids to also apply. And so on and so on… what is called “chain immigration.”</p>
<p>I kind of agree with laserbrother. I personally know several people who would like to immigrate to the US and who would contribute much to our society. If the plan calls for processing 136,000 of these “illegal immigrants” daily, what happens to the process for others?</p>
<p>
No appearances about it. It <em>does</em> reward illegal activity.</p>
<p>The part of illegal immigation I find so offensive is that we are supposed to be a nation of laws, yet illegal immigrants get to violate our most important laws relating to national security. There are many laws I would like to violate but I don’t because I know those laws will be enforced and I will suffer the consequences. I don’t care if businesses need more cheap labor and Democrats need more voters, our laws should be enforced for everyone.</p>
<p>Who’s going to do the jobs Americans won’t do when the group of people who are now illegals begins demanding minimum wage and benefits? How are we going to do background checks on people using fraudulent documents and names? It seems like a logistical nightmare to me.</p>
<p>zm - agree.</p>
<p>It sounds to me like a very complicated, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare that is essentially unfair and unworkable in the real world. I haven’t heard all the details, but the only part that I like is the requirement to learn English as a requirement for permanent status.</p>
<p>Permanent status is irrelevant because the Z visa will be renewable, and law enforcement will have one business day to approve any applications. Not much time for serious background/identity checks.</p>
<p>“but the only part that I like is the requirement to learn English as a requirement for permanent status.”</p>
<p>There currently is a requirement to learn English to become a citizen too. Yet why is it that voting instructions must be multi-lingual? Yet another example of government “theory” not meeting reality.</p>
<p>H is an MD at a large group practice. The law now mandates that they provide interpretors (certified) no matter what the language. There are probably 90+ languages spoken in this So Cal region. They are no longer allowed to use family members or other physicians or staff who speak the language. they must hire and pay for certified interpretors. While my grandparents were immigrants, they came and learned English. Society demanded that newcomers learn English to prosper. I am one to open my arms to anyone who wants to work hard, better themselves, contribute to their community…but we have allowed immigrant communities to blossom where newcomers don’t have to learn English. Besides the communities where Spanish is the norm, here we have “little Tokyo”, “little Saigon”, “little Cambodia” , Koreatown and more. Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like there is any rational immigration policy so the problem will only grow.</p>
<p>Does this bill cover anyone from anywhere that is here illegally? Just Mexicans? Does it cover Middle Eastern, African and Asian visitors? I know that it is supposed to cover illegals that have been here since January, but how does one prove that, and is this now spurring on a mad rush of more illegals?</p>
<p>Also, why is the birthright option not under scutiny? If the children of non citizens were not automatically granted citizenship, this may modify greatly the flow. (This is not the case in many countries, that being born there does not automatically make one a citizen, it is only if the parents are citizens.)</p>
<p>Are the laws governing benefits such as Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, health care, unemplyoment benefits, and welfare enumerated in this bill? Is there relief for school systems and hospitals in the bill to offset usage? I assume that many of the low paying jobs will not provide health insurance.</p>
<p>Maybe they should have tackled health care expenditures first…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This goes to the origins of the US.
There are countries where descendents of citizens are always citizens of these countries, no matter where they are born (jus sanguini). Americans decided to grant citizenship to those born in the US (jus soli) and, with exceptions, cut off citizenship in other countries based on birth. This freed early Americans from obligations to the countries of their parents and from the laws of these countries.</p>
<p>The bill represents the joint failures of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations. The Reagan Administration because he had a chance to put this all under control in 1986, and utterly blew it, and the Clinton Administration because NAFTA has thrown millions of Central Americans off their land and into utter destitution, and has driven millions more of them toward the U.S. border. Personally, I think they should give 'em immediate citizenry or pay to give them their land back. (fat chance of either happening). My state is desperately seeking more farmworkers, and it doesn’t matter what their immigration status is. Jobs at $15/hour and up are now going begging - right now, today, in the cherry orchards, and later when the rest of the stone fruit and apples come in.</p>
<p>We’ve seen U.S.-run so-called “temporary worker” programs in Iraq, and they are utterly disgusting. </p>
<p>I think the bill will be just window-dressing, and won’t gain Ding-Dong the single political victory he was searching for.</p>