lifehouse51

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us...1immig.html?hp

Though it's big stretch, and only a conceptual proposal, not an actual bill, and may not eventually pass, I do like the elements of:

"The proposal opens the door wider than ever before to high-skilled immigrants. It would offer permanent-resident status, with a document known as a green card, to every foreigner with an advanced degree in science or technology from an American university. It would make it much easier for foreign students in the sciences to stay in the United States after they graduate, and eliminate numerical restrictions that have kept highly educated immigrants from India and China waiting for many years before becoming residents."

"The outline would make it possible for the spouses and other close relatives of legal green-card holders to come immediately to the United States, reuniting many thousands of families and eliminating a wait that now stretches to eight years. It would create a commission to monitor labor markets and determine when the supply of foreign workers should be raised or lowered."

"Also for the first time, the Democrats’ proposal would recognize same-sex relationships in allowing immigration."

"In exchange for more enforcement, the proposal offers a relatively simple path to legal status for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. They would register, admit their legal violation and pay penalties and back taxes up front. Then they would remain on provisional status for eight years."

dunroving

Wow, I like the sound of that - they forgot to add "it will save highly-skilled immigrants a boatload of money in the immigration process".

I have a sneaky feeling that the sticking point will be the same-sex partner bit, though.

lifehouse51

Although I support Same-Sex marriage/relationship...they can take the part out about recognizing same-sex marriage, if that's what it takes to pass the rest of the bill...self agenda/interest's more important

ian-mstm

This amounts to amnesty for undocumented aliens (something I oppose regardless of the good bits in the proposal) - and says to the US population that if you're sneaky enough to get into the US illegally and entrench yourself, then the US will end up welcoming you with open arms. To even suggest it, is a kick in the arse for those who pursue the legal avenues to immigration.


I also support same-sex marriage... but to remove it from the proposal is to suggest that, once again, equality under the law is a myth.

Ian

dunroving

Not sure if you have been following the debates, but Nick Clegg has been proposing a similar move here in the UK, and was slammed for it by "Dave" and "Broon" in Thursday's debate. Their response is the same as yours - an inferential leap that the amnesty policy is prospective rather than retrospective.

As with a lot of policy, the Devil is in the details. Clegg's point is that illegals are here (in the UK) whether we like it or not, but we don't know where, and being illegal makes them subject to exploitation by criminal gangs and, of course, they don't pay taxes. The details (of Lib dem policy) are that (a) they must have been here for 10 years and be able to prove it, (b) they must be able to speak English, (c) they must not have committed a crime, (d) they must make up for their illegal, non-tax-payinig status via community service. I have to admit that though illegal immigration p*sses me off (as someone who has spent many $$'s and hours of form-filling and trips to Juarez for visa renewal, i.e., done it the right way), I think that an amnesty policy with the right conditions may not be a completely bad thing.

And just to clarify my earlier remark, I'm personally OK with people having same-sex marriages but can't see that getting past conservative USA.

scrubbedexpat099

In exchange for enforcement, I think they said that last time?

They may have a slight credibility issue.

I have no trouble with same sex partnerships, marriage complicates matters.

fatbrit

The problem here is that if you take the stand of rejecting any form of amnesty as non-negotiable, you have effectively killed any solution to the problem unless you can explain how we are going to move however many people there are. Remember when concocting your solution that it's not really possible for America to follow the genius of men like Stalin in this day and age.

Michael

Not quite. Initially when the bill came to the floor in 1986, there were tough sanctions against employers that didn't make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of their workers. The Chamber of Commerce and farm lobby opposed sanctions against employers until there was a clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them.

Once that was allowed, it was guaranteed that immigration reform would fail.

goldenstate31

yep im sure the EB5 investors (amongst others) are wondering when this new reform will take place. Might save them some money to wait for amnesty to kick in! that way it can save them $500,000 and myself the time, money and uncertainty of visas

scrubbedexpat099

I do not understand why?

Comprehensive Immigration Reform does not have to include Amnesty.

Bear in mind there will always be jobs that Americans will not do. However comprehensive CIR may be there will be many many holes. Just look at the protests to Arizona's attempt at enforcement.

fatbrit

To cure the problem, we need to clear the mess that already is. You can't build something on a rotten base.

If you don't offer some form of mass amnesty (I use the word in its widest context), then we are looking at mass removals. Amnesty may be bad, but removals are even worse. I believe I suggested previously they were Stalinesque and I don't think there's a majority in America who could stomach it.

sir_eccles

This is the point that I think a lot of people are missing. If you will excuse me a broad generalization for a moment. The Mexicans crossing the border are not high skilled workers with masters degrees. They are an incredibly hardworking cog of the American economy whether we like it or not. It is disingenuous to suggest that all the out of work car workers from Detroit want to pick fruit in California and Arizona. To suggest that somehow you can remove 11 million people and/or prevent that pool of 11 million laborers from being refreshed and not have any negative effect on the economy is ludicrous.

scrubbedexpat099

So if there is Tax Reform anybody currently owing taxes gets a waiver?

Whatever legislation is passed there will still be Non Citizens.

It is all about numbers.

If you tie it to stopping further flows that will never happen as measure that would work as you have stated are impossible. And there is a demand for people to do jobs that Americans will not do.

So leave it as it is, with some control numbers will decline over time as people leave/die/adjust through other means.

scrubbedexpat099

Very few pick fruit, a few percent.

I think the 11m is supposed to be the total number, some of which will fall into the working category. Many in the working category will be unemployed.

I do not think anybody expects and regulations that would take 11m out at one stroke. Even those in favour of such action I doubt would think it would, or could, happen suddenly.

fatbrit

We're probably talking around 5% of the population here. If any bill ignores this little fact, then it is not comprehensive immigration reform. The seed for the current generation are those who failed to adjust during the 1987 Reagan amnesty and were not removed. Yet you seem to want to repeat this mistake again.