FB prepares to enforce rental ban Letter to apartments explains restrictions on illegal immigrants
08:20 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News ssandoval@dallasnews.com
Farmers Branch is moving forward with plans to implement a law May 22 – approved Saturday by nearly two-thirds of voters – that would ban apartments from renting to most illegal immigrants.
A letter is to go out today to all apartment complexes in the city reminding them about the law and clarifying some of the requirements, City Attorney Matthew Boyle said. He is confident the courts will not halt the implementation of the ordinance, though attorneys in two pending lawsuits against the city have vowed to seek injunctions this week seeking to do just that.
But how they plan to enforce the ordinance, Mr. Boyle wouldn't say.
"If the chief of police intends to crack down on speeding on Valley View Lane, he's not going to go tell the entire world he's going to put motorcycle cops out there on Valley View Lane," Mr. Boyle said. "That's not the best way to getting compliance and getting enforcement. The city does not telegraph out any of its enforcement intentions or prerogatives."
He said the city will, however, be proactive in educating those who are affected by the ordinance to make it "as orderly as possible to comply."
The law requires that apartments obtain proof that tenants are U.S. citizens or in the country legally.
In addition to the letter, the city staff tentatively plans to brief apartment managers in a May 24 meeting.
The Apartment Association of Greater Dallas argues the law is too vague and places an unfair burden on apartment management.
Mr. Boyle said Monday that the law does not mean illegal immigrants now living in apartments in Farmers Branch have to move out.
If they are on a lease or rental agreement before May 22, they can stay without having to provide documentation.
And if that existing lease includes a clause that specifically calls for periodic lease renewals, they will not have to provide documentation at that time, either, Mr. Boyle said.
"If it's a one-year lease and says I can renew on a year-to-year basis, that is not a new lease, that's an extension of an existing lease," he said.
If the lease or rental agreement does not contractually provide for lease renewal, then tenants would be signing a new lease at the end of the term if they stayed, and at that time the apartments must obtain the required documents, Mr. Boyle said.
Any tenants signing a lease after May 22 would have to provide the documents both at signing and every time they renew.
One exception to the ban on immigrants is for mixed-status families. They may enter into a lease or rental arrangement if the family is already a tenant, the head of household or spouse has eligible immigration status and the family includes only the head of household and spouse and their parents or minor children.
Apartments could be fined up to $500 a day for violating the law.
But Mr. Boyle said one key component of the ordinance is that apartments are responsible only for making sure they have some type of document that looks valid. Pictures of those acceptable documents have been distributed to the apartment managers, he said.
"If somebody is a good forger or has some other way improperly gained access to the required credentials, that's not a burden assumed by apartment complex owners and managers," he said.
Gerry Henigsman, executive vice president of the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas, said the law will place a burden on the apartment management and tenants, including U.S. citizens.
Currently, he said, most apartments ask for a valid driver's license before renting.
The new law requires that U.S. citizens or residents provide a signed declaration of citizenship or nationality, confirmed by presenting a U.S. passport or "other appropriate documentation" identified by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as acceptable evidence of citizenship status.
In a letter sent to apartment managers in January, the city said the documentation of citizenship status could be a passport, valid current Texas driver's license or a birth certificate.
But Mr. Henigsman argues that what the city says is acceptable is not specified in the law, and therefore could be a problem.
"You've got to adhere to exactly how the ordinance reads," Mr. Henigsman said. "It can't be a loosey-goosey thing saying you don't have to do this or that. Every [apartment complex] puts themselves in financial and legal danger by not adhering to the ordinance."
Meanwhile, one of the opponents of the ordinance sent a letter to the mayor and City Council on Monday, asking for a moratorium on any additional anti-illegal immigration ordinances like Ordinance 2903, "until we have some indication of how it will play out."
"It seems reasonable to ask you to use 2903 as a barometer or test case to predict the costs and efficacy of these measures," Christopher McGuire said.
Tim Scott, an ardent supporter of the ordinance who was elected to the City Council on Saturday, responded by asking Mr. McGuire to encourage Let the Voters Decide to call for all litigation against the city to be dropped, saying the voters sent a "loud message where they stand on this issue."
"That message would be consistent with the original stated intention of the petition drive," Mr. Scott said.
Mr. McGuire responded that he is not a spokesman for Let the Voters Decide, the political action committee that successfully petitioned the city to put the ordinance to a public vote. Although other cities, including Hazleton, Pa., have adopted similar apartment laws, Farmers Branch is the first city to have a public vote on it.
"If you think we or any citizens group can influence the plaintiffs you will face in the coming years, you are grossly overestimating our influence," Mr. McGuire said.
HIGHLIGHTS OF ORDINANCE 2903
"¢Apartment owners or managers must verify citizenship or immigration status for each occupant of an apartment unit before entering into a lease agreement, except noncitizens who are minor children of the family or who are 62 years of age or older.
"¢Apartment management does not have to obtain proof of citizenship or immigration status from tenants renewing their lease or rental agreement. However, if the existing contract does not include a clause specifically allowing periodic renewal, then when a tenant enters into a contract to remain, it is considered a new lease and subject to the ordinance.
"¢Mixed-status families may enter into a new lease or rental agreement if the person is already a tenant, the head of household or the spouse has eligible immigration status, the family includes only the head of household and spouse and their parents or minor children.
"¢Tenants must sign a release form allowing management to submit copies of the documents to the city and to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement division for verification of immigration status.
Apartment management must obtain the following items from all tenants entering into a new lease:
For U.S. citizens: A signed declaration of citizenship or U.S. nationality, confirmed by a U.S. passport or "other appropriate documentation in a form designated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as acceptable evidence of citizenship status."
For noncitizens claiming to be in the country legally:
"¢A signed declaration of eligible immigration status.
"¢One form from a list of documents designated by ICE as acceptable evidence of immigration status.
After immigrant rental ban's approval, some plan exodus
08:42 AM CDT on Monday, May 14, 2007 By DIANNE SOLÃS / The Dallas Morning News dsolis@dallasnews.com
FARMERS BRANCH – "Stress-free living," advertises a flier for the Clipper Pointe Apartments in Addison.
"If you are a Farmers Branch resident, we have the perfect special just for you," reads the flier.
The office was closed Sunday at Clipper Pointe, and at Fox Creek Apartments, located just across Josey Lane from Farmers Branch. But just in case prospective tenants need a geography lesson, a large red-and-white banner reads: "Fox Creek, Carrollton, TX."
The vote Saturday on an ordinance to crack down on illegal immigrants had an almost immediate impact on some residents; several interviewed Sunday said they planned to move.
Ordinance 2903 passed with more than two-thirds of the vote, making Farmers Branch the first city in Texas to pass such a law. Supporters have said they did so because of the burden illegal immigrants place on schools, city services and health care.
Starting May 22, landlords will be fined $500 a day for leasing to most illegal immigrants, though attorneys for some apartment complexes have said they would seek a restraining order early this week.
Attorneys plan to challenge the Farmers Branch ordinance – patterned somewhat after one in Hazleton, Pa. – partly on the grounds that it's the federal government's purview to enforce immigration law and partly on the premise that it violates the Federal Housing Act, disproportionately affecting Latinos. Like many in the warren of cheap apartments in Farmers Branch, Maria is thinking of moving out of the city – and maybe even the country.
"It is just so difficult to think that they don't want us," said Maria, 30, a stay-at-home mom who declined to give her last name for fear of reprisal.
Her husband came here seven years ago and works as a mechanic. She joined him four years ago and they made a home in Farmers Branch – in a small one-bedroom apartment with a window air-conditioning unit and a small patio. A year later, she had her three kids, now 13, 10 and 8, sent from a small ranch in Durango, Mexico. Her fourth child – a U.S. citizen – was born just five months ago.
But now the family is scared.
"We will have to start all over again from the bottom," she said. "I went through so much to get here, and look what happens."
"Vamonos a Mexico [Let's go back to Mexico]," her 8-year-old son pleaded.
But her 10-year-old daughter promised to study harder so she could become a police officer who would never deport illegal immigrants.
Maria said some of her neighbors moved not long after the City Council first proposed the ordinance eight months ago. But she said she must think of her children and their schooling.
The aftermath
Even before the Saturday balloting, nearby apartment complexes were ready to scoop up new tenants fleeing Farmers Branch. And at one Farmers Branch complex, a manager who asked for anonymity said that occupancy was already down 7 percent.
City officials, including a newly elected council member, made it clear at a victory party Saturday night that they planned to get even tougher. The city faces lawsuits by plaintiffs that include Farmers Branch apartment complexes.
But supporters of the ordinance said they will wait until it comes up for review in six months before they push for further measures, which could include going after those who rent homes to illegal immigrants and businesses who employ them.
Saturday night, City Council member Tim O'Hare had this message to the attorneys bringing the lawsuits: "If they come after us, we are going to come right back after them."
Further, Mr. O'Hare said, the city would seek repayment of attorneys' fees. The victory party at a Holiday Inn Select erupted into cheers.
Mayor Pro Tem Ben Robinson said he believed the city would prevail, and the voters decided for a crackdown.
"They are fed up with the fact that illegal immigration is being overlooked in all parts of our life," said Mr. Robinson, as the victory party picked up around him. "We think it is within our rights to take action for our city."
Pre-election tensions were high in Farmers Branch. Mayor Bob Phelps' home was vandalized shortly after he came out against the ordinance The U.S. Justice Department sent election observers.
In Addison on Sunday, Mayor Joe Chow, who immigrated to the U.S. from Taiwan, said that illegal immigration is a complex issue, and that greater enforcement is needed. His town council recently passed a resolution asking the federal government to take action.
But he said an ordinance styled after the one in Farmers Branch would "divide the community."
"As an immigrant myself, a legal immigrant, I feel immigrants have made a lot of contributions to the community," he said.
"We are all of the same blood coming here to struggle to help this country," said the Honduran sign-maker, who is here with his wife.
In Carrollton, apartment dweller Ernesto Santos said he was grateful to live in the U.S. – and grateful to live in Carrollton. The rent is about $10 higher than at apartments across the street in Farmers Branch. But it's worth it, he said.
"This is so bad," he said of the ordinance. "There are so many Mexicans here now."
And repeating a refrain heard throughout the day, he said, "We just come here to work."
Then the construction worker added, "Are the white guys out there working in the sun?"
At a neighboring Farmers Branch complex, Juana Calzonzin, a 36-year-old who said she was a legal permanent resident, had a direct message: "Leave us in peace. We aren't doing anything but working."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
FB isn't the only city to take action Municipalities across U.S. aren't waiting on Congress to address illegal immigration
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 By DAVID McLEMORE and DIANNE SOLÃS / The Dallas Morning News
From Farmers Branch to Hazleton, Pa., more than 100 municipalities across the country are taking it upon themselves to tackle illegal immigration.
In Pennsylvania, 32 municipalities have considered or enacted resolutions – such as making English the official language, cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and punishing landlords who rent to them. In California, 13 cities have passed or considered local laws to crack down on illegal immigrants and push for comprehensive immigration legislation. The list goes on.
And state legislatures in all 50 states, dissatisfied with congressional inaction, are considering more than twice the number of immigration-related laws as in previous years – with most imposing tougher restrictions on illegal immigrants.
The message to Congress, some say: If you can't do it, we will.
On Tuesday, the Senate was struggling to meet Majority Leader Harry Reid's ultimatum to end months of delay and begin policy discussions today for immigration legislation – or face a vote on a bill passed last year that no one now likes. But late Tuesday, Mr. Reid, D-Nev., postponed a vote until Monday.
The actions at the local level are the result of frustrations with congressional inability to forge a bipartisan overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, say groups on both sides of the debate.
"What we find in the local initiatives is that people use the only mechanisms they have to get the situation resolved," said Cecilia Muñoz, senior vice president of research, advocacy and legislation at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino rights organization. "We believe that was the cause of the Farmers Branch vote. It was a vote out of frustration. Unfortunately, it will cause a lot of harm."
The overwhelming passage of the Farmers Branch ordinance Saturday marked the first public vote on a local ordinance to get tough on illegal immigration, though opponents have filed for an injunction to stop the measure from going into effect Tuesday.
The Dallas suburb's ordinance would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and require apartment managers to collect documents on the legal status of tenants. Dozens of cities across the country have seen similar tough measures approved by municipal government in the last year.
In cracking down, however, many activists are running smack into the complexity of the nation's immigration laws, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University law professor. Mr. Yale-Loehr testified in March as an expert witness in a trial involving the town of Hazleton.
"People think it is easy to determine, and it is not," the law professor said. A person can have legal status one day and lose it the next, he noted. And mixed-status families present other difficulties in enforcing an ordinance without raising discrimination claims for those in a family who are U.S. citizens, he noted.
Legal challenge
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against an April 2006 initiative in San Bernardino, Calif., that would deny city permits and contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants, ban such immigrants from renting or leasing city property, and require official city business to be conducted in English.
And the ACLU of Oklahoma is considering a legal challenge to a bill that Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry signed into law last week. The new law would prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs and public assistance and require law enforcement agents to police illegal immigrants arrested for particular crimes.
Several measures in the Texas Legislature have died in committee.
And last year, a federal judge issued a restraining order barring enforcement of several measures enacted by the town of Hazleton, Pa., that would require businesses to investigate the legal status of employees and tenants.
"If you're a landlord, how are you supposed to know who has legal papers and who doesn't?" Ms. Muñoz said. "You're more likely then to make a determination about tenants based on ethnicity. And that tends to make all Latinos suspect."
Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors reduced immigration, said the increase in action at the local level is simply a reflection of the public being fed up with illegal immigration.
"Votes such as at Farmers Branch are very clear messages that the community wants illegal immigrants to go away," Mr. Camarota said. "Local communities are left holding the bag for the consequences of illegal immigration. The longer the federal government doesn't act, the more the cities pay in education, health care and social costs."
Meanwhile, Congress is in gridlock on the issue because it can't craft legislation that appeals to both immigration special-interest groups and the public at large, Mr. Camarota said.
"Politically, the usual answer is just kick the can down the street and blame it on the other guy," Mr. Camarota said. "If that's the Senate's response this week, we'll see more activity at the local level like that at Farmers Branch. Period."
State legislators in all 50 states are dealing with more than twice the number of immigration-related bills than they were this time last year, according to a new report by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Some 1,169 pieces of legislation and resolutions designed to address immigration or immigrant-related issues have been introduced this year – compared with 570 in 2006. And at least 57 measures have been enacted in 18 states, including Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas and Kentucky, the report said.
"There's no question that immigration reform is one of the nation's most pressing issues, and it should come as no surprise that state legislators are responding accordingly," said Texas state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, president of the conference of state legislatures. "However, what is extremely disappointing is Congress' inability to craft a comprehensive immigration reform solution.
"Washington's inability to reach consensus has forced states to roll up their sleeves and get the job done," she added.
In addition, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund said that through February, about 130 local governments from Avon Park, Fla., to Sandwich, Mass., have attempted or passed ordinances or resolutions dealing with immigration-related matters. About a fifth of those efforts were in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.
While many small towns are cracking down on illegal immigrants, some large cities have taken a more neutral stance in support of comprehensive legislation.
The public desires for immigration reform are a strange balance of toughness on illegal entry and recognition of the positive contributions of those immigrants who have lived and worked in the country for years.
In a poll released April 26, about 64 percent said they support immigration reform legislation that provides increased border security and tougher enforcement, while including a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The poll was conducted by The Tarrance Group for the National Immigration Forum from April 15-19 and April 22 of 800 registered likely voters in 2008. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
"Voters are clearly laying this issue at the feet of Congress," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the national Immigration Forum, which commissioned the poll. "Doing nothing is not an option."
Ms. Muñoz agrees.
"There will be hell to pay if the Senate doesn't act and if some form of reform doesn't happen," Ms. Muñoz said.
Senate debate
The discussions in the Senate have largely stalled along partisan lines on a number of contentious issues, particularly on how the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States would be treated.
Republican senators favor rules tougher than last year's Senate bill for those here illegally to achieve legal status – longer waits, bigger fines and a return to the country of origin.
Negotiators for the White House proposed an equally controversial measure that stresses job skills and education over family ties in the qualifications for future legal immigration.
Discussions have stumbled over opening the borders to more tech workers and whether agricultural workers will be able to enter only through a guest worker program that would end their stay after three years.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said hurried action by the Democratic leadership would not help provide useful, workable immigration reform.
"It would be terribly disappointing and unfortunate if the Democrat majority leader were to set aside this work and simply move to last year's bill that was rejected by a majority of Congress and the American people," he said.
"Securing our borders and repairing our broken immigration system is too important to get bogged down in partisan politics or political gamesmanship," Mr. Cornyn said. "I hope the Democrat leader will do the right thing and allow these negotiations to continue instead of attempting to ram through a flawed bill without the appropriate amount of bipartisan input and consideration."
Groups join fight
Increasingly, however, grassroots organizations have formed to fight guest worker programs and legalization plans.
The Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee recently launched Operation City Walls to spread the anti-illegal immigrant movement to cities across the country to help create local support to derail amnesty and legalization plans, PAC president William Gheen said.
The group works with more than 100 cities and towns that have passed or are considering ordinances similar to that passed by Farmers Branch.
What's remarkable about Farmers Branch, Mr. Gheen said, is that two-thirds of the voters supported the measure, though they were significantly outspent by the opposition in the campaign.
"Ninety percent of the time the side that spends the most wins," Mr. Gheen said. "Farmers Branch not only reversed that, they devastated that statistic, which means anybody on an existing city or town council, or anyone considering running for city or town council, needs to take up this issue."
Staff writer Stephanie Sandoval contributed to this report.
MALDEF JOINS LAWSUIT TO RECOVER WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES WHO WERE FORCED TO WORK "OFF THE CLOCK" WITHOUT PAY
Claim for Unpaid Wages Could Affect Over a Thousand Workers Throughout California May 16, 2007
LOS ANGELES, CA"”In keeping with its mission to protect the rights of Latinos, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) announced today that it is joining a class action brought by over a thousand Latino construction workers who install gutters, fireplaces, insulation and other construction products at numerous locations throughout California. The case, Gutierrez et al. v. Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc., et al., was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
"We were expected to arrive early and load Masco's trucks at the company yards. We weren't paid for that or for all of our time traveling to the job sites and setting up the equipment for work," said lead plaintiff Arturo Navarrete. "We also didn't get paid for all of our time traveling back to Masco's yard and doing the unloading work. We just want to be paid for all the hours spent working for Masco," he added.
"Masco and its local construction companies, such as Schmid Insulation and Paragon Schmid, often didn't even pay workers fully for their time on the job site and, instead, required workers to change their time cards, making what they called ˜negative bonus' deductions from their paychecks. A national company like Masco shouldn't be able get away with this," said Joel R. Villaseñor, attorney with the law firm Sullivan Taketa LLP.
"California law protects the basic right of all employees, including Latino workers, to an honest wage for an honest day's work," said Annabelle Gonzalves, MALDEF's Los Angeles Regional Counsel. "By asserting their legal rights to fair treatment, these workers are making the statement that they will no longer tolerate the blatant exploitation of their labor. MALDEF is proud to stand with these courageous workers." MALDEF has set up a toll-free number, (888) 546-7439, for potential class members to call if they have questions about the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks to recover millions of dollars in wages owed to over a thousand workers, going back to 2002 under California wage and hour laws. The defendant is Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc., the California operating unit of one of the nation's largest residential insulation, gutter, and fireplace installation companies, Masco Contractor Services. Plaintiffs intend to file an Amended Complaint naming a number of other affiliates of the nationwide Masco Corporation of Taylor, Michigan, that are engaged in the construction business in California.
According to Bill Lann Lee of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., "The significance of this case is that Latino workers have stood up to vindicate their right to be paid fairly for their work. Latino workers have filed very few wage and hour cases despite the fact that they are such a large proportion of California's workforce. This case is long overdue." Mr. Lee was formerly the nation's chief civil rights prosecutor as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the United States Department of Justice.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation's leading Latino legal organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.
For more information contact: Laura Rodriguez: 310-956-2425 Bill Lann Lee: 510-839-6824
U.S. canal project raises tension on mexico border
POSTED: 11:14 a.m. EDT, April 25, 2007
Story Highlights"¢ Court ruling allows U.S. authorities to stop up the cracks in All-American Canal "¢ San Diego County Water Authority: Relining project will save water lost in leaky bed "¢ Mexicans fear project will hurt wetland environment, leave farmers high and dry "¢ Tensions over water have long simmered on the U.S.-Mexico border
HECHICERA, Mexico (Reuters) -- For decades, Mexican farmers and U.S. consumers have shared water from one of the world's largest irrigation canals running along part of the parched California-Mexico border.
But a court decision that allows U.S. authorities to stop up the cracks and save water for thirsty farms and sprawling subdivisions in Southern California is raising tensions in the borderlands.
This month's ruling by a court in San Francisco approved a plan to reline part of the All-American Canal with concrete, stopping accidental runoff from the waterway that has benefited Mexican farmers since it opened in 1942.
The court ordered the refurbishment of around a quarter of the 82-mile (132-kilometer) conduit to proceed "without delay" in an overhaul that is set to take up to two years to complete at a cost of some $250 million.
The San Diego County Water Authority says the project is needed to recover some 22 billion gallons (83.5 million cubic meters) of water lost through the leaky canal bed each year that local consumers in the water-strapped area have already been billed for.
Mexican authorities, environmentalists and farmers are furious at the planned relining, which they say could harm a fragile wetland environment and leave many villages in the Mexicali Valley south of the border high and dry.
"When they reline the canal, this area will dry out completely," said farmer Alfredo Mendez, pointing to the green wheat fields cut through with irrigation channels near Hechicera village just south of the waterway. "A lot of people are going to get hurt," he added.
Tensions over water have long simmered on the sun-baked U.S.-Mexico border, where farmers and city dwellers on either side of the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) line compete for a scarce commodity.
To the east, consumers spar for the murky waters of the Rio Grande as it flows to the Gulf of Mexico. In the west they vie for the Colorado River, which is reduced to barely a trickle by the time it reaches its delta in the Sea of Cortez in Mexico.
The project to reline the canal -- which carries water from the Colorado -- was opposed by a Mexican community group and two U.S. environmental organizations presenting a complex array of objections, including claims of violations of U.S. laws such as the Endangered Species Act.
City Hall in the Baja California state capital, Mexicali, has agreed to bankroll a three-million-peso ($270,000) war chest to continue to fight the relining.
Endangered species may be affected Mexican President Felipe Calderon has warned that damage from the project would be "terrible for Mexico." During a recent visit to the affected area, he said the revamp would be counterproductive for the United States because it could drive more Mexicans north to seek jobs at a time when the world's largest economy is eager to stem illegal immigration.
Mexican authorities say stopping the seepage will lower the water table south of the border, forcing dozens of villages and towns to bore deeper wells through salty soils to meet their domestic and agricultural needs.
The relining process also will dry out the fragile ecosystem of the Mesa de Andrade wetlands near the U.S.-Mexico border, which is home to endangered species such as the desert pupfish minnow and a secretive bird, the Yuma clapper rail.
"The natural environment knows no borders, and this project will hurt it," said Karl Flessa, a professor at the University of Arizona who is familiar with the area's ecology.
"The amount of habitat available to these endangered species will be diminished," he added.
California is the last of seven states to take their cut from the finite resources of the Colorado River, and water is so precious that authorities seek to conserve every last drop.
For the San Diego County Water Authority, the plan to reline the canal is simply a conservation measure that will save water equivalent to the needs of a city of 500,000 people.
Officials said most will be funneled west to provide for new subdivisions and to meet the needs of farmers tending high-value crops such as avocados and cut flowers in the county.
The remainder will go to settle outstanding water debts with American Indian tribes.
Water authority legal counsel Dan Hentschke said he has sympathy for the people in Mexico who have been using water that's been leaking out over the years, but he is quite clear as to the rights of the relining project.
"We are just fixing a leaking hose that is carrying water that California has already paid for," Hentschke said.
"[International water rights] are an issue that should be resolved by diplomats and not courts and lawyers," he added.
Wal-Mart to give skype calling a boost ...including long distance abroad
09:31 AM CDT on Monday, May 14, 2007 Associated Press
NEW YORK – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is adding an array of Skype phone gear to the electronics section in 1,800 stores, bringing the renegade provider of cheap calling over the Internet to a huge mainstream audience.
The dedicated Skype section will feature handsets, headsets and webcams designed to work with Skype, a provider of free and very cheap long-distance calls, including to phone numbers abroad. Wal-Mart will also sell the first prepaid cards for Skype calls to be sold in this country, the companies were announcing Monday.
The new section at more than half of Wal-Mart's roughly 3,300 U.S. stores will feature Skype-compatible gear made by Motorola Inc., Plantronics Inc., Logitech International SA, Royal Philips Electronics NV and others.
Those manufacturers already sell those products in stores on their own through their own relationships with Best Buy Co. and Circuit City Stores Inc., but Wal-Mart will be the first to offer a wide selection in one place.
Wal-Mart also sells products that work with Vonage, which also transmits calls over an Internet connection but tends to more closely replicate the experience of using a traditional telephone. By contrast, while there are a growing number of cordless phones compatible with Skype, the service is commonly used by plugging a headset into a computer and clicking on names in a buddy list like those found in an instant messaging program.
With tens of millions of regular users, Skype has developed a huge following, especially among international callers. But the service is not as well known to the general public, even among people with high-speed Internet connections.
"We think there will be a lot of Wal-Mart shoppers who will not be familiar with Skype," said Don Albert, general manager for Skype North America, a unit of eBay Inc.
"We have worked with Wal-Mart to describe Skype simply in the display," Albert said, noting that the products may vary from store to store, depending on the market. "In more tech-savvy areas, you may see higher-end Skype certified hardware."
Wal-Mart typically rolls out new products in 1,000 to 2,000 stores, and the 1,800 featuring Skype products will be evenly spread across the nation, said Melissa O'Brien, a spokeswoman for the retailer.
Immigration Overhaul Is Closer to Senate Floor Proposal Would Offer Rout to Legal Status,Shift Preferences to Skilled Workers
By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 17, 2007; Page A04
Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement yesterday on a broad overhaul of the nation's immigration laws that would offer virtually all of the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status while shifting migration preferences away from the extended families of citizens toward more skilled and educated workers.
Under the tentative deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.
The tentative deal was negotiated by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), left, and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). (Peter Morrison - AP)
A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.
To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.
"This is not the architecture of an immigration bill that I would have initially liked to see," conceded Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the Democrats' chief negotiator, "but we're not dealing with that. This is a legislative process."
The agreement would effectively bring an immigration overhaul to the Senate floor next week, but its passage is far from assured. The framework has the support of the White House and the chief negotiators, Kennedy and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). But immigration rights groups and some key Senate Democrats remain leery, especially of changing a preference system that has favored family members for more than 40 years.
"When they say, 'We're all in agreement, we have a deal,' certainly I don't feel that way," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
Since 1965, migrants have needed a sponsor in the United States, meaning that virtually all immigrants have had family members or employers already here. The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties. Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped.
To Republicans, the new system would make the nation more economically competitive while opening access to a wider array of migrants. "I think you'll find the point system to be pretty well balanced," said Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
But to immigration groups, the proposal is a radical break from existing U.S. law, and without changes, they could withhold their support from the final bill.
"We want to see an immigration reform debate on the Senate floor. We want to see this move forward. But we are wildly uncomfortable with a lot of what we're hearing," said Cecilia Muñoz, chief lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza.
The other hurdle will come from the temporary-worker program. The immigration bill that passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support would have allowed laborers entering the country as temporary workers to stay and work toward citizenship. But Republicans said this year that they could support such a program only if the workers would be truly temporary.
Immigration groups say such a program would only spur a new wave of illegal migration, as temporary workers go underground once their work permits expire. Perhaps more importantly, two powerful service unions -- the Service Employees International Union and Unite Here -- have threatened to pull their support from any immigration bill that would not give temporary workers a way to remain in the country, fearing that a truly temporary program would drive down wages for low-skill work.
Last Updated 12:08 am PDT Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A6
WASHINGTON -- The Senate moved toward an uncertain showdown on an immigration overhaul Tuesday night as Bush administration officials huddled with key senators in an attempt to broker a last-minute compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Senate would begin work today with placeholder legislation left over from last year if compromise efforts fell apart. But restive Republicans strongly hinted that they'd attempt to block debate if Reid pressed ahead with that course.
The outcome was impossible to predict as Congress again tries to address President Bush's call for a comprehensive immigration bill. A bill passed the Senate in 2006 but died in a stalemate with the House of Representatives.
Here's what's at issue:
Q: What's next?
A: The Senate's first step today will be a test vote to proceed with debate, requiring a so-called super majority of 60 votes. It could decide the fate of one of the president's top domestic initiatives.
Although diehards would attempt to resurrect it, a delay would throw it deeper into 2008 presidential politics, making it even harder to reach consensus. Consequently, many lawmakers say today's procedural vote may be make-or-break for the issue.
Q: What's the placeholder legislation?
A: The 2006 bill that passed the Senate, which Republicans then controlled, by 62-36. Reid put it on the table as the starting point for debate if efforts to forge a compromise bill collapse. Many Republicans who oppose last year's bill resent that strategy and see it as a back-door attempt to revive the measure.
Q: What's the state of play on compromise talks?
A: Senators negotiated for several hours late Tuesday, but didn't reach agreement in the latest round of bipartisan talks, which began more than two months ago. They plan more negotiations today before the start of the debate, according to Senate aides. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, representing the administration, was among those who were meeting off the Senate floor.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remained hopeful that a compromise would be reached. "I remain optimistic that we'll put together a bill that clears the Senate on a bipartisan basis," he said.
Q: What are the prospects for success?
A: By some accounts, the negotiators had at least 25 remaining issues, and some earlier agreements showed signs of unraveling.
"Everything's linked to everything else," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "I don't think you'll see a resolution until all these things are resolved."
Q: What are the most contentious issues?
A: There appears to be general agreement on legalizing more than 12 million illegal immigrants if they pay fines, learn English and return to their home countries for a brief time. But the size of the fines -- at one point proposed at more than $10,000 -- has become a sticking point.
Another dispute centers on the White House push to admit immigrants on the basis of merit and their potential contributions to the U.S. economy while sharply reducing the number of relatives they could bring. Democrats, at one point, appeared to be moving toward a version of the White House plan, but they took a second look after immigrant organizations and other Democratic constituencies opposed reducing so-called family immigration.
Q: Would Reid be receptive to delaying the vote?
A: Conceivably, if negotiators appear to be closing in on a compromise. Another option is to allow the Senate to get started and then quickly substitute a compromise bill. Many Republicans, however, oppose that approach and say they need perhaps weeks to review a bill that could be more than 600 pages long.
Q: Who are the leading participants?
A: Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on the Democratic side and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl for the Republicans. Other key participants have included Sens. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.; Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Cornyn; and Kay Bailey Hutchison, who's also a Republican from Bush's home state of Texas.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate inched closer Wednesday to approving landmark legislation that would overhaul the nation's immigration laws and allow 12-million illegal residents a path to citizenship.
But the fragile deal largely hinged on a significant but little-known change that would grant legal residency to immigrants based on their skills rather than their family ties.
It would mark a change to a decades-old policy that some fear will lead to inhumanely separating families or forcing them to sneak into the United States illegally.
Tamar Jacoby of the conservative Manhattan Institute, who favors comprehensive immigration reform that includes citizenship, said altering the family preference policy would be a dramatic shift.
"That's the way it's been for more than 40 years," she said. "That would be a big change."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had imposed a deadline of this week for a deal but pushed it back until Monday when he learned negotiators were getting close.
"This is a good bill," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican and one of the negotiators. "There are no issues that rise to the level of deal breakers or anything like that."
The Senate proposal would expand the guest worker program, provide employers with new ways to verify the legal status of their workers and increase security on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Illegal immigrants in the United States would be granted a new Z visa, allowing them to remain here legally for eight years. After that, they could petition for citizenship by temporarily going back to their home country, paying fines and meeting other criteria. Many of the details are still being worked out.
The last big sticking points: How long should guest workers be allowed to stay in the country, and should they be allowed a path to citizenship?
Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support immigration reform that includes citizenship, and President Bush has continued to make it a top domestic goal.
Immigration on skills
Last year, the Senate passed a bill supporting a path to citizenship, guest worker programs and border security. The House rejected the proposal, demanding only enforcement.
The move away from family preference was never seriously considered last year, but was brought up this year by a key negotiator, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Supporters of the change say the nation should base immigration on skills, which would help the economy and reduce the number of immigrants on public assistance.
"Family preference is chain migration," said Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "It's runaway population growth. ... This restores control to the U.S."
Opponents of the change say it would violate the right of Americans to live with their families.
Kevin Appleby, director of migration and refugee policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the bishops will likely not support the bill, partly based on the change to family preference.
"I think there will be undocumented immigrants because of these cuts," he said.
Under the current system established in 1965, spouses, minor children and parents of those here legally are eligible for green cards. Family members, including adult children and siblings, are given preference over others who do not have family in the United States.
What others do
About two-thirds of the more than 1-million people admitted to the country last year were family-sponsored immigrants. About 12 percent came in based on employment, and the rest were refugees, asylum seekers and others. Many of those others had relatives here as well.
Other countries, including Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, use a point-system similar to what the Senate is considering. Priority is given to education, work experience, language skills and income.
Lawmakers have talked for two decades about reducing or eliminating preference given to families. In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform urged Congress to move to a system that favors higher-skilled immigrants.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, supports eliminating family preferences, but not if it means the Senate will agree to allow 12-million illegal immigrants to become citizens.
"There is no question the status quo is bad, but this is worse," she said.
Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Anita Kumar can be reached at akumar@sptimes.com or 202 463-0576.
Fast Facts:
What's next?
The Senate expects to begin debating immigration reform next week with a preliminary vote expected for Monday. The House plans to consider a proposal in July before Congress' monthlong August recess.
The proposals
Senate: The proposal, still being negotiated, includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after eight years if they meet certain criteria and return to their home country. It would also change the criteria for legal immigration by focusing more on the needs of the U.S. market and less on family considerations. It would expand the guest worker program, create a stronger verification system for employers and increase border security.
House: The Strive Act (Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act), introduced by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after six years if they meet certain criteria, they briefly leave the country and then return through a port of entry. It also includes an expanded guest worker program, a stronger verification system for employers and increased border security.
Whatever happened to immigration reform? Cal Thomas & Bob Beckel USAToday
A year ago, it was competing with Iraq for front-page headlines. Now, a comprehensive fix is probably a world away. And that's precisely what's wrong with Washington.
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.
Today: Revisiting immigration reform
(Illustration by Keith Simmons, USA TODAY)
Bob:This time last year immigration reform was a hot topic in Washington. The massive protests in major U.S. cities catapulted the issue into an election-year lightning rod. The public still cares deeply about immigration reform, yet the candidates for president in both parties are running from it like scalded dogs. Most of them would just as soon duck the issue until after the election, but immigration reform cannot wait.
Cal:You're right. With 12 million illegal immigrants here now, and more coming every day, time isn't on our country's side.
Bob:Patience in the Latino community is running out, too. The clashes a couple weeks ago during immigration protests in Los Angeles could be a sign that the status quo won't work much longer.
Calon't rely on the politicians to do anything out of conviction, Bob. Those demonstrators included many illegal aliens and their supporters. They demanded we lay aside our laws and grant them full legal status. Don't you find it bizarre that the illegals picked May 1, Law Day, to protest? Some of them are filing lawsuits in our courts to give them a legal status they do not deserve. It's surreal!
Bob:Many court challenges are about splitting immigrant families whose children were born in the USA and are, therefore, citizens. They were born to mothers who came here illegally, but that doesn't change the right for these children and their advocates to go to court. Law Day was the ideal time to make this case. The lawsuits and demonstrations would go away if our elected officials actually did something about our immigration problems.
Cal:Congress' failure to move forward on reform is precisely what is wrong in Washington today, and it's this sort of intransigence that led us to begin this column two years ago. The ingredients are all here: A major immigration problem, an energized and interested public and a president who is advocating reform. What's missing?
Bob:Compromise. I know that closed-door discussions between Senate Democrats and the White House have been moving forward. Bravo to those willing to carry the flag: Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. Despite the beating he takes from conservatives, Kennedy knows when to reach across the aisle. He did it with President Bush on education reform, and he's doing it on immigration. These are big-ticket issues. I also applaud the president for pushing legislation by the end of summer. If the two sides could put aside partisanship on this one critical issue, who knows where it might lead? Compromise on Iraq? On tax policy?
Cal:You had me until tax policy! But really, you're on to something. All we need is an opening, and this could be it. If the politicians would only listen to the public and not the rabble rousers who they think can bring them votes, we'd get there.
Bob:That's exactly what has been happening, too. Congress is cowed by the vocal minority, and therefore, the silent majority isn't represented.
Cal:According to a poll commissioned by the conservative Citizens United, 93% of voters say illegal immigration is a problem facing the USA; 63% call it a "major" problem. And 73% would change the U.S. "birthright citizenship" so that a child born in this country becomes a citizen at birth only if at least one parent is. I was encouraged that about half of Latinos support such a change.
Bob:This isn't the issue before us, Cal. We need to look at the big-picture solutions that will correct our immigration failures for decades to come. This needs to be the legislation that, 30 years from now, we'll be able to look back on and say, "Finally, we got it right."
Cal:I'm all for something getting done, but I want it to be the right something that looks out for the interests of the native-born, the legal immigrants and those who are obeying our laws and waiting in line for citizenship. Lawbreakers should not be allowed to jump to the head of the line.
Bob:No one is proposing a law to push illegals to the front of the line. Such rhetoric from both left and right is what stops reform in its tracks. Last year, we were on the right track. The Senate passed a bill that gave illegals a path to citizenship, and it included fines, back taxes, criminal background checks and an English requirement. It had a guest-worker provision and tougher border security measures. Though it died in the House, it was a good start. What was wrong with that?
Cal:Nothing, though enforcement will be critical. For instance, the 2005 Real ID Act "” which could be a key tool in battling illegal immigration "” requires every state to issue driver's licenses or ID cards approved by the federal government. The states have to link their ID databases so that someone seeking a license in one state can be background-checked by another. Sounds good, right? Well, seven states have enacted statutes or resolutions opposing Real ID, and Oklahoma might become the eighth. Cost and privacy concerns are at the heart of their opposition. I hope this isn't an indication of the kind of resistance we'll get when, and if, we ever get comprehensive reform.
Bob:I'm no fan of Real ID, but I'm also no fan of states taking over where the federal government is failing. You hear of states and even localities trying to handle immigration issues that are best dealt with by the federal government. That's all we need! If we keep delaying federal legislation, more state laws will follow. So that we don't go that route, let's talk about what a new law should include.
Cal:Be my guest worker.
Bob:First, any illegal immigrant must learn English if they are allowed to stay here. I don't view it as a punitive move, either. Immigrants, particularly children, have a tough time as it is.
Cal:Absolutely. English is essential to functioning in this country, and learning it well will serve the immigrants as well as the rest of us.
Bob:I also think we need to shift the conversation to talk about "amnesty" without it being used as a club in the debate. Republicans who love to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan would do well to follow the Gipper's lead. Reagan signed the last immigration reform bill into law in 1986. Guess what? It provided amnesty "” Reagan's word "” to 3 million illegal immigrants. That law called for strict border control and sanctions on employers of illegals, but it wasn't adequately enforced. This leads us to today. To his credit, Bush is one Republican who has been a leader on this issue.
Cal:I don't share your praise of the president as a "leader" on immigration reform. We're six years into his term and have no real reform. If anything, his failure to control our southern border has encouraged illegal immigration.
Bob:You know we're approaching common ground when I'm defending President Bush.
Cal:True! But we can't repeat the mistakes of our past, Bob. We'll have 12 million more illegal immigrants soon if we don't do a better job than we did in 1986. Among the illegals here already, an estimated 636,000 are "alien absconders," people who have been ordered deported but refused to go and are in hiding. It makes no sense to try to find and forcibly deport them if we are simultaneously letting more in.
Bob:Trying to send illegal immigrants home will never work, but we have agreement on paying fines and learning English. I favor a guest-worker program, serious efforts to seal the border and going after employers who knowingly hire illegals. Sound good?
Cal:That would be an excellent start. Now if we can just get the politicians to stop thinking about how they can win the votes of the illegals and start thinking about ways to make people obey the laws, we'll be making real progress on this contentious issue "” once and for all.
Whi is immigration an important subject to the decorative concrete contractor? Why should we in the construction industry worry about it? How would any changes affect us?
For starters, Immigration defines the very way of life in America, on one side you may argue that our country was founded on immigration, that because of it has grown to be a major world power, that the continuous in-flow of people helps sustain our way of life and that we simply need a continuous influx of immigrants to maintain our growth. On the other hand you hear that illegal immigration is taking jobs away from our workers and it is downgrading our buying power. As individuals have to compete for jobs with undocumented workers they find themselves competing for less because this overflow of people generates lower wages and employers cut benefits.
Both arguments are valid and we know we are in dire need of Immigration reform, the solution is not easy and I will not even attempt to dissect it or try to find a solution, simply; we do need to be aware of what's going on and how changes will affect the contractor and the construction industry in general.
I have spoken to many of our customers and friends that have contracting businesses regarding this issue, I have gotten mixed answers that are a little confusing and downright contradicting at times, on one side this friend of mine told me that the US does not do enough to enforce immigration laws and much more stringent enforcement is needed to control the flow of illegal immigrants through our borders, then he tells me that if it wasn't for all the illegal immigrants that work for him he wouldn't be in business. I asked him to expand on that and he said: "Most of the guys that work for me came from Mexico and are illegally here, they work hard, they do good work for me and they help me stay in business, I would happily hire legal workers to do what these guys do, but the fact is I can't get any American workers to come to work for me, and it is not a money thing anymore, I pay as much as $ 20.00/hr. to some of these guys, illegal immigrants and all, they do command a pretty penny for their work, a lot of them are very good and frankly I couldn't do without. He then adds, I don't think I would vote for a law that will allow millions of illegal immigrants to become legal because that goes against my way of thinking, but I do wish there was some way to secure our borders and ensure that we can hire appropriate personnel to run our crews. I don't like to circumvent laws but I do need to stay in business and I have a family to feed".
I heard different versions of this and it echoes the feelings of most contractors I spoke with. Labor is their biggest problem, can't find qualified workers and would love to see some positive changes. I agree with them that there is a great problem and a great need for reforms, but how do we fix it? If we round up all the illegal aliens and ship them out, hundreds, if not thousands or business will close due to lack of workers, there would be many construction companies not able to operate, let alone farms and factories, us as manufacturers wouldn't sell a lot of products and also, how would it be enforced? Homeland Security lacks the funding necessary to conduct such a major undertake, it does not have the personnel nor the training and resources to accomplish it, and frankly, it doesn't make any sense to do such a thing and would never happen, but, not doing anything is not the solution and we can't just say OK, let's take another 10 million immigrants, make them legal and that will solve the problem.
The answer lies in bi-partisan legislation that makes sense, sounds easy but it will take a monumental group effort to work through this extremely complex piece of legislation. I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that congress is looking at reform and we all should learn and pay attention to what is happening so when it comes time to vote, we can make an educated choice for our own benefit. The McCain-Kennedy bill is on the table and proposes some major changes that will affect us all, good or bad? learn about it! The Senate is set to consider a few bills seeking to address immigration reform as soon as next week.
I would love to see more contractors debating on this subject, and try to find some common ground towards a solution or something we can all live with, especially those that have a large number of workers that may be affected by these changes. We already had some discussion on this subject on the Decorative Concrete Forums, feel free to post your opinion or comments there.
Press Briefing on Immigration Reform Room 450 Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Press Briefings
PARTICIPANTS:
Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Joel Kaplan
4:15 P.M. EDT
MR. SNOW: We are a little bit pressed for time. We've got about a half an hour. Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez have to appear at Pebble Beach to start doing some media appearances. So without further ado, we'll get a quick brief first from Secretary Chertoff, then a few words from Secretary Gutierrez. Joel Kaplan also here to answer questions about the negotiation, and when the proper time comes, I will wrap it up. We're also in the process of producing fact sheets, which we hope we will have available by the end of the briefing -- if not, we will get them to you in very short order.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Thanks, Tony. Let me really briefly run through the outline of the bill. The bill has not yet been introduced: I can't take you section by section through it. And then I have one announcement which I do think is important to make, which will be news, maybe, and is important to get out.
As you know, the bill starts with triggers on border enforcement: complete 370 miles of fence; get the 18,000 Border Patrol recruited and in training; continue to maintain catch and detain, as opposed to catch and release; and get an electronic verification system up that is operational and can start to provide to the employers an ability to verify who is an American citizen: tough interior enforcement with penalties; a requirement that you have secure identification for temporary workers and people who are going to be allowed to work here who were previously undocumented; and a system that allows you to verify that all of your people who come in to work are, in fact, American citizens by checking against databases on vital statistics.
Then we have to talk about how we deal with the economic needs that have been feeding illegal migration. That is a temporary worker program which allows people to come in and work either seasonally or on a temporary basis, up to two years, go back for a year, then they can come back and apply to work two years again, go back for a year, and apply to work two years again. But temporary means temporary. It's not meant to be kind of an under-the-table path to a green card.
We do have a green card system, but that is a separate system. And part of what all of this is about, it has got to be above board and transparent. We're not doing things under the table.
In terms of the green card system, we're talking about reconfiguring that system going forward. We begin with a proposition that two-thirds of our current green cards are based on family connections, including extended family connections, your adult children, their spouses, your adult siblings, their spouses. And, frankly, that promise of family reunification under the existing law has been pretty much a false promise, because even those who are eligible for those green cards far outweigh the number of green cards that are available, so you wind up waiting decades before that green card comes in.
We're trying to get this system on an honest footing, but also, and as important, if not more important, recalibrate it going forward, so that it is based on national needs -- what we need in terms of educating people, employment skills, other kinds of experience that are good for America on the merits, and reduce the extent to which family connections in and of themselves get you a green card. That would move us more in the direction of where the rest of the West is and the rest of the world is, in terms of how they allocate their immigration system.
So how do we square that goal with the need to be fair to those who have waited on line in the existing system, the need, ultimately, to find a fair way, but a realistic way to deal with the undocumented workers who are here? We do it first by clearing the family backlog, the people with the extended preferences currently on line who have applied as of March 2005. That cutoff was picked because that was the date the original Kennedy-McCain bill was dropped. Those people, assuming they otherwise qualify and don't have criminal records, can get their green cards within eight years. And we're going to increase the number of green cards to let that happen.
That is basic fairness. If you waited on line, we're not going to change the rules of the game on you; we're going to let you get in under the rules of the game as they then existed. And it's actually going to be a benefit for those who have been waiting to reunify with their families because what was 20 or 30 years in some instances will be eight years or less.
But once we've cleared that backlog, the system is going to change going forward. Nuclear families, meaning your spouse and your minor children, will still be able to come in, uncapped, if you are a U.S. citizen -- or capped, but with a reasonable cap if you are a legal permanent resident. But extended family connections will no longer be, in and of themselves, a basis for a preference.
Rather, most of the green cards that will exist after we clear the backlog -- and there will be about 400,000 -- most -- those will be based on a merit system, with most weight going to education, employment, experience in the U.S. -- if you've been a temporary worker, that's going to count for a lot. If you're in a field where there is a need, like the health care field, that's going to give you points. And family will come in -- can be kind of a tie-breaker, but it's not going to be a basis to overwhelm the other merit-based system.
So that once we've cleared the backlog of people who have been playing under the old system, the new system will be one that looks to the merits and what you bring to the table in terms of the national interest of the United States, with family as a component, but not as the overwhelming component.
Also, once we clear the backlog we will be in a position to start to talk about how we address this issue of undocumented workers who are in the country, and their opportunity to get a green card. Again, the plan is tough, but it's fair and it's realistic. When the law is enacted, we will begin the process of enrolling people who are here illegally on a probationary basis. Now, if you're here illegally and you've committed a crime, you're out. If you're here illegally and you've committed -- and you're a gang member, you're out. If you're here illegally and you're a terrorist, you're out.
But assuming your only violation is a status violation, you entered illegally, you can get a probationary visa to continue to work while we complete the process of your background check, while we hit the triggers. Once the triggers are hit, you will hit -- you will convert to a Z visa, which is a four-year visa that allows you to work in this country. You've got to pay your taxes, you've got to keep your nose clean, but you can come back -- go back and forth to your home country as much as you want.
It's renewable after four years, and if you've played by the rules, you can renew from year five to year eight. And if you do the math, you'll see once you've got that second renewal done, you will then be at a point where there will be green cards that will become available to deal with the undocumented workers. And the way this plan works is, once everybody has cleared the family backlog in year eight, we will make sure there are enough green cards available so that anybody who has paid the fines that are required, satisfactorily completed two terms as a Z visa worker, gone back home and filed an application, we'll be able to accommodate those people who qualify, getting green cards within the following five years.
So if you do everything that's required of you, if you pay your debt to society, if you pay your fine, if you pay your taxes, and if you go back to your home country, or if that's somehow impracticable, you go outside the country, and you file your application from overseas, you will then be able to get a green card sometime between the year nine and year 13, depending again on the characteristics and points you bring to the table.
This satisfies the requirement that you go to the back of the line, because the line will have been cleared; that you pay your debt to society, so it's not an amnesty, but it is a realistic opportunity for people who are here and have done nothing more than commit a status violation. And then those people will be able to get their green cards between year nine and year 13.
And here's the really important announcement I want to make -- it needs to get out there. There is a cutoff date for Z visas for people who are undocumented. The only people who will be eligible to get a Z visa as a person who is here illegally is someone who arrived in this country prior to January 1 of 2007. You're going to have to prove that you were in the country prior to January 1, 2007. I reckon right now there are some people who, tomorrow, will pick up the paper in other parts of the world, and will think, well, maybe I can cross the border now and then try to pretend that I was here prior to January 1, 2007.
So I'm going to explain why that would be the absolute dumbest thing to do if you ever want to have a prayer of getting any kind of a benefit under the temporary worker program. We catch a very significant number of people who cross the border illegally. We now fingerprint them. If you cross the border, we catch you, we fingerprint you, you will never get into this program, because that fingerprint, dated tomorrow or dated a week from now or dated a month from now is going to be conclusive proof that you were not in this country as of the cutoff date; that you broke the law after the cutoff date. And that will take you out of the program for life.
So for those who are weighing in their minds whether they want to take a crack at coming in and trying to fool the system, here's the warning -- the warning is, the existence of the fingerprint system, which we use for everybody that's apprehended, guarantees that a person who is caught crossing the border now or since January 1 of this year is going to take themselves out of ever getting any benefit under this for the rest of their lives. That is a very powerful sanction, and it ought to counsel anybody who is thinking of rushing for the border that that would be the absolute worst thing to do if you ever want to participate in this kind of program.
So that's the overview of the program.
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: I'll just make a very brief comment about the overall plan and just the generalities of the plan. The President, from the very beginning, said we want a plan that is not amnesty, and we want a plan that is not animosity. So it's not about automatic amnesty and it's not about a mass deportation. That middle ground is very difficult to find. We believe we have found that middle ground. This is not amnesty; there is no automatic path to citizenship. Secretary Chertoff mentioned there are fines. If you want a path to a green card, you have to wait in line, you have to qualify, you have to apply. So there's nothing automatic about it.
The other part here that is very important, that I hope you just please recognize how big it is, it's this idea of moving from a system that traditionally has been based on having family connections to a system that is primarily driven by job skills and national need -- what does the country need, and therefore, that's what we would like to bring in through our immigration system. If you have family members, that can only help. But that is a very big shift. And what we're doing here is designing a system that's going to help our economy, it's going to help us grow. We've said before many times that every developed economy in the world has to embrace immigration if they want to grow.
We're going to do this right, we're going to do this in a bipartisan way, and this is going to give our country a tremendous advantage over the rest of the world.
And the last thing I'll say is, this has been a tremendous bipartisan effort. We had senators from both sides working on this, going through the details, paying a tremendous amount of attention. This is the only path to comprehensive reform. So if people want to support comprehensive reform, this is the bill. There is no other game in town, this is it.
So we'll take some questions.
MR. SNOW: Okay, since we have 15 minutes, I'm going to ask all three of you gentlemen to come up here, and then you can sort of step up as necessary to answer the questions. If you can keep the questions brief, we'll try to keep the answers brief.
Terry, you start.
Q How many illegal immigrants would get legal status under this bill?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: That's going to depend on how many pay the fines, how many otherwise qualify. I mean, the estimate is that we currently have about 12 million in the country, maybe between 11 million and 12 million. Obviously, those who committed crimes are out, gang bangers are out. Of the remainder it depends, A, how many want it, how many pay the fines, how many complete the two years -- the two separate terms of temporary work. So it's going to be some number between one and several million.
Q You don't have anything -- you can't -- as you look at this, you haven't been able to identify a number more specific?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, it depends on --
Q I understand that --
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Your -- I can tell you what the -- the general estimate is about 11 million to 12 million. What I can't -- and we estimate, could be anywhere from 15 to 20 percent will be disqualified based on problems with respect to criminality, or things of that sort. What I can't tell you is what people want. Historically, if you look back to '86, about 37 percent of the people opted for citizenship. So that may be telling, but it may not be telling. And that's speculative.
MR. STANZEL: Terry -- I'm sorry, just to clarify -- Terry, you were asking about legal status, not citizenship.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I'm sorry, you were asking about citizenship or green cards or legal status? Well, I would say that if you take 11 million to 12 million, and you take an estimate that somewhere between 15 and 20 percent can be disqualified for criminality or other grounds, then the balance are people who would be eligible to take that first step, which is the Z visa.
MR. KAPLAN: If I could, there will also be some of that 12 million who had been previously removed by court order, or -- and had left the country and reentered illegally. That's a felony and those people would not be eligible for the program.
Q What's the real number?
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: Well, one of the great things about this -- having comprehensive immigration reform is that we will be able to find out. There are estimates -- if you have 11 million, 12 million people who are here illegally, this will enable them to come out of the shadows so that we know who is here and who is working here, so we'll know what the number is. But the estimate at this point is somewhere between 11 million and 12 million.
MR. SNOW: One further point. It not only allows them to come out of the shadows, it creates a positive incentive for doing so because employers face stiff sanctions for not having fully documented workers. Furthermore, if somebody is here without documentation, they're out, they don't get to come back. So keep in mind, there are very strong incentives for people to come forward.
Q Would there be a requirement for people here to carry some type of ID card?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Part of this process is that once we enroll people and people get the Z visa, we will have distributed tamper-proof cards with a fingerprint and a photograph for each of the people who qualify to get a Z visa, and that will be their identification.
Q Two questions. One is, how involved -- does the administration consider this its bill? How involved were you guys, and who was involved in the day-to-day negotiations? I was kind of under the impression that you guys were in the room, but let the senators hash it out. So how much of this is your bill? And secondly, do you -- can you help us understand, or at least explain to our readers and viewers how the point system would work, what are the various metrics?
MR. KAPLAN: Well, first question, I'll say that there's been extremely intensive involvement by the administration, starting with the President laying out the framework and the goals of comprehensive immigration reform, and then sending up his two Cabinet Secretaries, Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez, to engage, first, in some listening sessions with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle as we started this process this year to figure out where the areas of potential agreement would be, and then very significant sessions on Capitol Hill over the last, I would say, probably two or three months, involving 10 to 12 senators at a time, and the two Cabinet Secretaries.
There's no question that this is a Senate product and reflects a bipartisan agreement among those senators, but with the, as I said, extensive involvement of the administration, and the framework that the President laid out at the outset.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I mean, without getting into excruciating detail on the points, the points are arranged to reward or to acknowledge various kinds of positive merits: education, engagement in a specialty occupation, engagement in an occupation which has high demand, where there's a labor shortage, positive experience working with a U.S. firm, employer vouching for the person's qualifications and retaining them, levels of education, vocational training, apprenticeships, learning English. And those are arrayed in a way so as to give an opportunity for different paths, all of which are merit based.
Q How much is this bill -- if it passes, how much would it cost to implement when you add fencing, Border Patrol, and then clearing the backlogs? The agency has had trouble clearing backlogs in the past.
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: We're still costing out, and we're still getting into those details. And I'd rather not throw out a number now, but we'll be working with OMB to cost out the bill. I can tell you this, that --
Q What about ballpark?
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: Well, but let me just say this, that whatever that final number will be, it will be a lot less costly than to remain in a system that is socially unsustainable and where we can't even identify the cost. So we'll have a cost number at some point.
Q Okay, but just to follow up on the backlogs point, the immigration system, for years and years, has had trouble clearing green cards, clearing citizenship applications, huge backlogs. What makes them -- what makes you think you can do it now when you're saying you're going to clear the whole backlog that built up for years and years and years?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, of course, one of the issues is when you get your green card, getting to citizenship. That backlog actually got cleared except for background checks. We do anticipate there will be processing fees for people who are applying, which are meant to defray a significant part of the cost.
But there will have to, obviously, be an investment in upgrading your IT and all the other structures that allow you to process people more quickly.
I think what Secretary Gutierrez said is completely right -- we're paying a huge cost now; it's just a hidden cost. It's a cost in terms of enforcement dollars, frustration, all the collateral damage that's done to society from having a system that's unregulated. And I think it's pretty clear that whatever we pay to get it fixed is going to be a lot less than we're paying now.
Q How long can somebody get essentially a free ride -- if they're here illegally now, but they don't want to jump the hoops to get the green card, and you get the Z visa by doing nothing right away -- right? -- and that's for four years. I guess they'd have to go home and then come back, and then you get another one for four more years --
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: You mentioned free ride and do nothing, which I think needs to be clarified --
Q Well, you don't have to do anything to get it, right? Just say, well, I was here before --
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: You have to enroll, you have to demonstrate that you were here prior to the cutoff date, obviously not be a felon or otherwise have violated the law, and then you get it. And then, in order to continue to stay here, you've got to work. It's not a retirement thing. You've got to pay a fine. Eventually --
Q You've got to pay a fine to get your Z visa?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Yes, you've got to pay a fine to get your Z visa, $1,000. And there will be a processing fee, as well, which is cost-based. It's not meant to be a punishment. At the renewal stage, you have to demonstrate you've performed the work requirement, you've kept your nose clean. Then you can renew.
Sometime between the time you start and -- you've got to go back and apply for a green card, if you want one, and that means going back home or at least leaving the country.
Q At the end of the four years, or the end of the eight years?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: By the eighth year you will have to -- if you want a green card.
Q If you're a law-abiding illegal worker in this country, you pay $1,000 and work here for eight more years --
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Correct. And you actually could work further than that. You don't have to get a green card.
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: Did you say law-abiding legal?
Q Illegal.
Q Because we're not --
Q Law-abiding illegal -- law-abiding --
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: They will be legal.
Q It starts to sound like amnesty, is what I'm getting at. It's an eight-year, nine-year amnesty program. And then at the end of that, you've got to go, assuming you can find them at the workplace. Is that how it works?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: No, here's what it is. It is -- in order to come out of what is currently a system that is broken, where there are millions of undocumented workers, in order to get regulated, you have to come forward, you have to pass a background check, you have to demonstrate you were here prior to January 2007, you've got to pay a fine. At that point, you can continue to renew in four-year increments, as long as you're working, you're paying your taxes and you're abiding by the law.
So is it -- now, if you don't want a green card, you're right, you don't have to pay an additional fine, you'll have paid one fine. We'll have done your background check and we'll have then periodically checked to make sure you that you are working, you're satisfying the work requirement.
If you don't do that, you have the same person doing the work, not paying the taxes, maybe stealing someone's identity, and you are perpetuating a system where that person can be victimized. And we're going to have more raids and more of what we have now. So is it harshly punitive? No. We're not treating this as a capital offense. But here's what it does.
First and foremost, it means that my agents who go out and enforce the law can spend their time looking for drug dealers and gang bangers, instead of maids who are working in hotels. I only have so many agents. I suggest you ask the American people, would you rather have the agent track down a gang banger and a drug dealer, or a maid? I think pretty much all of them will say, let's go get the gang banger and the drug dealer.
So we're going to bring everybody into a regulated system. We'll get the taxes. They'll pay the fine. They'll have to learn English at the end of year eight. And then they'll have an opportunity, but not a guarantee of getting a green card.
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: Somebody, someone mentioned today -- this word "amnesty" is thrown out as if though it's the answer to all the questions and all the quandaries. We made sure that this was not amnesty. This is not an unconditional pardon. And very importantly, there is no automatic path to citizenship. And if you go back and look at a lot of the bills that were around last year, there was a sense that there was an automatic green card somewhere in the future. There is no automatic path.
But if you call something like this "amnesty," then where does that take you? We can't stand still and keep on throwing one-liners at each other, the system is just going to continue getting worse. So I think we have found that middle ground that the President has been asking for.
Q Can you talk a little bit about the path forward in terms of the legislation? Are you now -- is this like now the administration's plan? Are you now going to try to negotiate with the House? And then, number two, are you going to -- what do you see as the biggest political threat to this, from Democrats who think this is too -- you know, not easy enough? Or from Republicans who think it's not hard enough?
MR. KAPLAN: Well, first of all, the President made some remarks a half hour, an hour or so ago, heralding this moment, which is a big landmark in getting a bill which will, itself, be an historic achievement. The administration, as I said before, has been intensively involved up until now, and I expect will continue to be intensively involved as it moves to the Senate floor next week.
We're keeping our eye, first, on getting the bill passed in the Senate, and the President urged members from both parties to support this bipartisan product. Obviously, once we get to that point of Senate passage, that will be another landmark and we'll turn our attentions to the House, where Speaker Pelosi has previously indicated that she's interested in moving a bipartisan product through that body.
So there are a few more steps along the way, but reaching this moment is an important milestone and reflects just very intensive, thoughtful work by a bipartisan group of senators. There is going to be people on both sides of the aisle who think they didn't get everything they want in this bill. That's the nature of a bipartisan agreement -- you're going to have to make -- no one is going to get everything that they wanted in the bill. But what both sides were able to achieve here was, as the Secretary talked about, the middle ground that accomplishes the principles the President laid out. There will be people who try to pull it apart, from both sides, but we think that people who look at this -- Democrats and Republicans who look at this and want a permanent fix to this problem will think that this is a good product and will support it.
SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: The political opponents -- I think the question was who are the political opponents. I would say the political opponents are those who would demand perfection and those who would demand that they get 100 percent of what they want out of a comprehensive bill. The political allies are those who understand compromise and bipartisanship, and that's what's going to get this done.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: And let me put my two cents in. The question is do you want to solve the problem, or do you want to complain about it? This is the solution to the problem. There will be people who want to complain and will miss the problem if they can't complain about it. This is about solving it.
Q Given the broad support that there already is in the Senate, looking to the House, do you know how many Republican votes you can get at this point? I mean, are you at that stage where you can say we can get this amount of Republicans?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I don't think we're at the point of counting votes. First of all, we did talk to members of the House as we went through our listening process, to try to get a sense of what their concerns were. And I think that when we put the bill together, working with the Senate, as we started to talk about the proposal we certainly had in mind that you have to have something that passes both Houses.
My observation over the last couple of years is that legislation is a dynamic process, and people's willingness to join something changes as they observe it get fleshed out and they see who else is part of it. So I think that certainly when you look at the range of people who support this, it ought to at least suggest to people they should have an open mind, look at the bill and see whether it doesn't achieve a good deal of what people want, even if it's not everything.
Q Isn't the Senate road the easy and first step in the whole process? The House is where they had -- there were so many problems last year. The Senate seemed very much -- much more amenable toward the President's -- the framework the President had laid down. So don't you really have the bigger battle ahead?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: You know, I don't think one is easier than another. There are certain characteristics of the way each house works. I mean, the Senate requires, in a sense, greater agreement, because you have to really get -- deal with the issue of filibuster, and there are all kinds of procedural things that are not present in the House. The House really allows things to move more rapidly.
In terms of where people are on the merits, I think, you know, a year has passed, people will evaluate what's presented. This is not the same thing that was produced last year, and we'll see where we are.
Q Having the Democrats in charge in the House now might make it easier?
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I don't know -- you can speculate. I think we have to deal with that on the merits. I'll tell you -- let me just say -- I'll tell you one reason there's a bill in the Senate is because I don't think anybody came in with preconceptions about what was achievable. There are all kinds of people who can tell you, it can't be done, it will never be done, it's too hard. I've heard that not only since I've been here, but before. Everybody sat down and said, if we want to solve the problem, how do we make it work? And if that spirit continues, there's no limit on what you can do.
MR. SNOW: Okay, I'm we're going to have to call it on that. We'll have plenty more on this the next few days. Thanks guys.
Do we have the fact sheets yet? Okay, we'll get fact sheets to you as soon as they're available.
Fact Sheet: Border Security and Immigration Reform
On May 17, 2007, Administration Officials And A Bipartisan Group Of Senators Reached Agreement On Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation. The proposal includes:
Putting Border Security And Enforcement First: Border security and worksite-enforcement benchmarks must be met before other elements of the proposal are implemented.
Providing Tools For Employers To Verify The Eligibility Of The Workers They Hire: Employers will be required to verify the work eligibility of all employees using an employment eligibility verification system, while all workers will be required to present stronger and more verifiable identification documents. Tough new anti-fraud measures will be implemented and stiff penalties imposed on employers who break the law.
Creating A Temporary Worker Program: To relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy, the proposal creates a temporary worker program to fill jobs Americans are not doing. To ensure this program is truly "temporary," workers will be limited to three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term. Temporary workers will be allowed to bring immediate family members only if they have the financial ability to support them and they are covered by health insurance.
No Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants: Illegal immigrants who come out of the shadows will be given probationary status. Once the border security and enforcement benchmarks are met, they must pass a background check, remain employed, maintain a clean criminal record, pay a $1,000 fine, and receive a counterfeit-proof biometric card to apply for a work visa or "Z visa." Some years later, these Z visa holders will be eligible to apply for a green card, but only after paying an additional $4,000 fine; completing accelerated English requirements; getting in line while the current backlog clears; returning to their home country to file their green card application; and demonstrating merit under the merit-based system.
Strengthening The Assimilation Of New Immigrants: The proposal declares that English is the language of the United States and calls on the United States Government to preserve and enhance it, as well as enacting accelerated English requirements for many immigrants. In addition, the DHS Office of Citizenship will be expanded to include coordinating assimilation efforts in its mission, and the Education Secretary will make an English instruction program freely available over the Internet.
Establishing A Merit System For Future Immigration: The proposal establishes a new merit-based system to select future immigrants based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States. Under the merit-based system, future immigrants applying for permanent residency in the U.S. will be assigned points for skills, education, and other attributes that further our national interest including: ability to speak English; level of schooling, including added points for training in science, math, and technology; job offer in a specialty or high-demand field; employer endorsement; and family ties to the U.S.
Ending Chain Migration: The immigration system would be reformed to better balance the importance of family connections with the economic needs of our country by replacing the current system, where nearly two-thirds of green cards are awarded to relatives of U.S. citizens, with a system in which future family immigration will focus on the nuclear family and parents.
Clearing The Family Backlog In Eight Years: Millions of family members of U.S. citizens now wait years in line for a green card, with some waits estimated at as long as 30 years. Family members who have applied legally and have lawfully waited their turn in line will receive their green card within eight years. Putting Border Security And Enforcement First
Border Security And Worksite Enforcement Benchmarks Must Be Met Before A Temporary Worker Program Is Implemented. These benchmarks include:
Miles of fence constructed. Number of Border Patrol Agents hired. "Catch and Return" continues at the border. Employment Eligibility Verification System ready to process all new hires. The Proposal Establishes New Penalties For Border Crimes And Gives The Border Patrol Additional Tools To Stop Illegal Border Crossings. Through the deployment of additional Border Patrol agents with supporting equipment, the construction of additional fencing and vehicle barriers in targeted areas, and the development of a proper mix of sensors, radar, and cameras, the proposal establishes a true commitment to securing our borders.
Providing Tools For Employers To Verify The Eligibility Of The Workers They Hire
Employers Will Be Required To Verify The Work Eligibility Of All Employees, While All Workers Will Be Required To Present Stronger And More Verifiable Identification Documents. Tough new anti-fraud measures will be implemented and stiff penalties imposed on employers who break the law.
The Employment Eligibility Verification System will allow for real-time verification of employee photos and documents. The Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration will be able to share "no-match" information to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot use the Social Security information of Americans to pose as legal workers. Employer audits will serve as an additional check on employer compliance with the system. Creating A Temporary Worker Program
To Relieve Pressure On The Border And Provide A Lawful Channel To Meet The Needs Of Our Economy, The Proposal Creates A Temporary Worker Program. The program allows workers to enter the country to fill jobs that Americans are not doing. The temporary worker program:
Protects American workers by requiring U.S. employers to advertise the job in the United States at a competitive wage before hiring a temporary worker.
Provides additional labor protections for temporary worker program participants.
Allows temporary workers to enter the United States to work for three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term.
Sets a cap of 400,000 on the temporary worker program, which can be adjusted up or down in the future depending on demand.
Requires temporary workers who want to bring their immediate family to show that they have the financial means to support them and that they are covered by health insurance.
Recognizes the unique needs of agriculture by establishing a separate seasonal agriculture component under the temporary worker program. No Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigrants Who Come Out Of The Shadows Will Be Given Probationary Status. To maintain their probationary status, they must pass a background check, remain employed, and maintain a clean criminal record.
Illegal Immigrants Who Fulfill Their Probationary Requirements Can Apply For A Z Card, Which Will Enable Them To Live, Work, And Travel Freely. Z card holders will be required to pay a $1,000 fine, meet accelerated English and civics requirements, remain employed, and renew their visa every four years.
Z Card Holders Will Have An Opportunity To Apply For A Green Card, But Only After:
Paying an additional $4,000 fine, Applying at the back of the line and waiting until the current backlog is cleared, Returning to their home country to file their green card application, and Demonstrating merit under the merit-based system. Strengthening The Assimilation Of New Immigrants
The Proposal Declares That English Is The Language Of The United States And Calls On The United States Government To Preserve And Enhance It, As Well As Enacting Accelerated English Requirements For Some Immigrants. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society and embrace our common identity as Americans – our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, and an ability to speak and write the English language. Therefore, the Secretary of Education is directed to make an English instruction program freely available over the Internet. The DHS Office of Citizenship is expanded to include coordinating assimilation efforts in its mission, and additional funding is authorized for the Office.
Establishing A Merit System For Future Immigration
The Proposal Establishes A New Merit-Based System To Select Future Immigrants Based On The Skills And Attributes They Will Bring To The United States. A merit system is used by many other countries.
Under The Merit System, Future Immigrants Applying For Permanent Residency In The United States Will Be Assigned Points For Skills, Education, Employment Background And Other Attributes That Further Our National Interest.
These skills include: Ability to speak English. Level of schooling, including added points for training in science, math, and technology. Job offer in a high-demand field. Work experience in the United States. Employer endorsement. Family ties to the United States. Ending Chain Migration
In Place Of The Current System Where Nearly Two-Thirds Of Green Cards Are Awarded To Relatives Of U.S. Citizens, Our Immigration System Will Be Reformed To Better Balance The Importance Of Family Connections With The Economic Needs Of Our Country.
Visas for parents of U.S. citizens are capped, while green cards for the siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and green card holders are eliminated. A new Parents Visitor visa is created to ensure that parents are allowed to visit their children in the United States regularly and for extended periods of time. The Diversity Lottery Program, which grants 50,000 green cards per year through random chance, is ended. These rebalanced green cards are used to clear the Family Backlog in eight years and then applied to the new Merit System for future immigration once the backlog is cleared. Clearing The Family Backlog Within Eight Years
Family Members Who Have Applied Legally, And Lawfully Waited Their Turn In Line, Will Receive Their Green Card Within The Next Eight Years. Today, millions of family members of U.S. citizens wait years in line for a green card, with some waits estimated at as long as 30 years.
Hundreds gather for immigration march in MacArthur Park
By Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writer 4:33 PM PDT, May 17, 2007
On May 1, a similar rally ended with police firing rubber bullets at demonstrators.
Tonight, however, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez planned to join the 6:45 p.m. candlelight march along Wilshire Boulevard to MacArthur Park. A vigil is planned for tonight.
Officials began closing several streets this afternoon. Among the scheduled closures are Wilshire Boulevard between Catalina and Alvarado streets, and Park View and Berendo streets between 6th and 7th streets.
Today's demonstration comes on the same day that U.S. senators announced an agreement on the latest version of immigration reform, designed to create a path for legalization of undocumented immigrants while toughening border enforcement.
It was those issues that led to the May 1 demonstration that drew about 35,000 people to a march downtown during the day and an evening march around MacArthur Park.
After bottles were thrown at police in the park, officers fired rubber bullets into the crowds of demonstrators and used batons to clear the area.
Four investigations of the incident are under way. Two high-ranking LAPD officers were reassigned.
Villaraigosa was out of the country on a trade mission on May 1, but cut his trip short to return and deal with the political fallout from the police response.
SEIU APPRECIATES HARD WORK OF SENATORS TO REACH COMPROMISE ---BUT URES THEM TO KEEP WORKING TO FIX FLAWS Service Employees Internation Union's fear of depressed wages
May 17, 2007
CONTACT Ali Jost 202-730-7159 ali.jost@seiu.org
WASHINGTON, DC – After months of negotiations between Senate Republicans and Democrats, today Senators Edward Kennedy, Arlen Specter, Patrick Leahy, Lindsey Graham, Dianne Feinstein, John McCain and others announced a bipartisan plan on immigration legislation that will be debated in the Senate on Monday. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina issued the following statement in response to the proposal:
"SEIU is encouraged that Senate Democrats and Republicans have reached an agreement and brought a comprehensive, bipartisan bill into the light of day. This is progress, but it is just a starting point. There is much work needed to get successful legislation across the finish line.
As it stands, the bill has the potential to improve our nation's security by helping 12 million undocumented immigrants come out from the shadows and get on a path to citizenship. It also makes positive commitments to ending the notorious visa backlog that has kept families apart for as long as 15 years.
However, the package will require significant improvements before it becomes the real comprehensive, long-term immigration fix that the American public is waiting for. In order to end illegal immigration as we know it, restore order, unite families, and protect worker's rights, we urge Senators to pay particular attention to the following defects.
* "Temporary is temporary" is a recipe for more illegal immigration and is out of line with U.S. values. All workers know that temporary workers depress wages and create a second class workforce that is disconnected from the U.S. mainstream and not equal. SEIU will not endorse a repeat of failed guest worker programs that chip away at long-established labor protections, drive down wages for all American workers, and add more chaos to our broken immigration system. Senators must fix this provision so that future immigrant workers will be able to get on a path to citizenship, and have the right to improve their wages and working conditions.
* Touchback provisions that require immigrants to return to their home countries as a requirement to achieve legal status may dissuade many from coming out from the shadows and will create more chaos at the border and in our U.S. Consulates abroad.
* Replacing the family-based sponsorship program with a point system to determine who can come to this country has the potential to become a disastrous social experiment. Establishing a class of workers who lack family and community roots will seriously undermine efforts to integrate new immigrants into the American way of life. Any point system that would deny entry to the workers our economy most depends upon is unworkable, and will fail to address the root causes of our current, broken system.
SEIU is committed to working with Congress to fix these and other critical issues so that we can fix our broken immigration system once and for all. As this debate moves forward in the Senate and House, we urge lawmakers not to compromise on our nation's values of opportunity, family, and fairness.
### With 1.8 million members, SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. Focused on uniting workers in three sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide, SEIU is the largest health care union, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; the largest property services union, including building cleaning and security; and the second largest public employee union.
17 may, 21:32 EDT Acuerdo sobre reforma migratoria en EEUU
WASHINGTON (AP) -- La Casa Blanca y senadores influyentes de los dos partidos anunciaron el jueves un acuerdo sobre inmigración que darÃa estatus legal a millones de indocumentados que ya se encuentran en Estados Unidos, a la vez que reforzarÃa la frontera.
El presidente George W. Bush dijo que el proyecto "ayudarÃa a reforzar nuestras fronteras, e igual de importante, tratará con respeto a las personas".
"Este es un proyecto por el cual las personas que viven en nuestro paÃs serán tratadas sin amnistÃa, pero sin enemistad", dijo Bush.
El acuerdo fue el fruto de semanas de negociaciones a puertas cerradas entre los demócratas más liberales, los republicanos más conservadores y funcionarios del gabinete de Bush. El proyecto, sumamente complejo y cargado de consecuencias polÃticas, aún enfrenta una larga batalla en ambas cámaras, y su aprobación dista de estar asegurada.
Se crearÃa un programa de trabajadores temporales para traer personal a Estados Unidos y otro especial para los trabajadores agrÃcolas. Los conocimientos y el nivel educativo tendrÃan mayor importancia que los vÃnculos familiares para decidir si el inmigrante puede acceder a la residencia permanente. Se tomarÃan medidas de verificación de empleo de alta tecnologÃa para determinar si el trabajador se encuentra legalmente en el paÃs.
El senador demócrata Edward M. Kennedy, uno de los principales participantes en las negociaciones, dijo que "el acuerdo que hemos alcanzado es la mejor oportunidad posible que tendremos en años para garantizar la integridad de nuestras fronteras y sacar a millones de personas de la sombra".
Sin embargo, en anticipación a las crÃticas de sus detractores, especialmente los que consideran que los senadores pecaron de generosos a la hora pasar por alto la entrada y permanencia ilegal de millones de indocumentados, el senador republicano Arlen Specter se apresuró a aclarar que "no se trata de una amnistÃa. El proyecto restaurará el imperio de la ley".
El tema de la inmigración dividió igualmente a demócratas y republicanos en la Cámara de Representantes, que no actuará a no ser que el Senado apruebe primero el proyecto de ley.
El plan propuesto permitirá a los inmigrantes ilegales declarar su situación ante las autoridades y obtener un "visado del tipo Z" y -tras el pago de las costas judiciales y una multa de 5.000 dólares- quedarán a la postre en condición de solicitar la residencia permanente, lo que podrÃa demorar entre 8 y 13 años. Los cabezas de familia tendrán que regresar primero a sus paÃses de origen.
Los indocumentados podrán declarar de inmediato su condición ilegal para obtener un permiso provisional de residencia que les permitirá vivir y trabajar legalmente en Estados Unidos, aunque no podrán iniciar el proceso de residencia permanente o la solicitud de ciudadanÃa hasta que la seguridad fronteriza sea mejorada y quede completado el sistema de alta tecnologÃa para la identificación de la situación legal de todos los trabajadores extranjeros.
Un nuevo programa de trabajadores temporales tendrá que aguardar hasta que sean activados los "mecanismos" de inmigración.
Esos trabajadores tendrán que regresar a sus paÃses de origen tras una permanencia en Estados Unidos de dos años, con pocas posibilidades de obtener un estatus de permanencia legal o naturalizarse ciudadanos estadounidenses. Podrán renovar dos veces sus permisos temporales de trabajo pero tendrán que abandonar el paÃs durante un año entre cada renovación.
Los demócratas querÃan un programa de trabajadores temporales a quienes les serÃa permitido permanecer y trabajar indefinidamente en Estados Unidos.
El arreglo se logró tras semanas de intensas negociaciones a puerta cerrada, en que los sectores más liberales de los demócratas y los más conservadores de los republicanos tuvieron que allanar discrepancias con el gobierno a fin de lograr un complejo pacto de enormes consecuencias polÃticas.
El plan crearÃa un programa temporal de trabajo para permitir nuevos arribos de profesionales a Estados Unidos. Un programa separado cubrirÃa a los trabajadores agrÃcolas. La puesta en servicio de los últimos adelantos tecnológicos con fines policiales será requisito obligatorio para verificar que los trabajadores extranjeros residen legalmente en Estados Unidos.
El momento clave ocurrió cuando los negociadores llegaron a un acuerdo en el llamado "sistema de puntos", que dará por primera vez prioridad a los inmigrantes con elevados niveles de estudios y formación profesional frente a los lazos familiares a la hora de decidir la concesión de los permisos de residencia. Los republicanos han insistido desde hace tiempo en cambiar las previsiones familiares para terminar con la "cadena migratoria" que daña la economÃa, mientras que algunos demócratas y los activistas liberales sostienen que el cambio es injusto por dividir a las familias.
Con el nuevo plan, los lazos familiares no serán ya suficientes para obtener un permiso de residencia, salvo el caso de los esposos extranjeros y los hijos menores de ciudadanos estadounidenses.
Además, serán impuestas nuevas limitaciones a los ciudadanos estadounidenses que intenten traer permanentemente a Estados Unidos a sus padres nacidos en el extranjero.
El proyecto de ley "facilita el abandono de la ilegalidad hacia un estatus legal para aquellos que se encuentran actualmente aquÃ", proclamó la senadora demócrata Dianne Feinstein.
El asunto rápidamente se convirtió en un tema de debate entre los candidatos presidenciales de ambos partidos, mostrando las divisiones entre los republicanos.
El senador republicano John McCain, que el año pasado encabezó una iniciativa para impulsar una reforma migratoria, llamó al acuerdo "el primer paso" y exhortó a avanzar en su implementación antes de que las elecciones del 2008 impidan hacerlo.
"Todos sabemos que este asunto puede verse atrapado en la polÃtica extracurricular a menos que avancemos lo más pronto posible", afirmó McCain.
Mitt Romney, otro precandidato republicano a la presidencia, emitió un comunicado donde llama al plan "el enfoque equivocado", pues considera que le otorga "una forma de amnistÃa" a los inmigrantes ilegales. "Eso es injusto para los millones de personas que han solicitado inmigrar legalmente a Estados Unidos", afirmó el ex gobernador de Massachusetts.
El ex senador republicano Fred Thompson, que sopesa lanzarse a la presidencia, dijo que la medida deberÃa ser descartada y en lugar de ella implementarse una que refuerce la seguridad en la frontera.
"Con este proyecto de ley, el pueblo estadounidense va a pensar que se le está vendiendo la misma propuesta que antes en torno a la seguridad fronteriza", afirmó Thompson en un comunicado.
Por su parte, el senador demócrata Barack Obama dijo que es necesario pulir la solución negociada que se alcanzó.
"Sin modificaciones, el proyecto de ley propuesto podrÃa devaluar la importancia de la reunificación de las familias, reemplazar al grupo actual de inmigrantes indocumentados con una nueva población indocumentada formada por trabajadores invitados que se quedarán más tiempo del autorizado en sus visas y potencialmente provocarÃan un descenso en los salarios de los trabajadores estadounidenses", señaló Obama en un comunicado.
By TRACI CARL The Associated Press Friday, May 18, 2007; 3:04 AM
MONTERREY, Mexico -- The U.S. Congress' immigration plan frustrated millions of poor and uneducated migrant hopefuls in Mexico who have been holding tight to President Bush's promise that they could one day apply for temporary visas to get a glimpse of the American dream.
The proposal unveiled Thursday is void of Bush's original plan to grant three-year visas to migrants living in their native country. Instead, it focuses on securing the border, and giving illegal residents a path toward legal residency, while gradually giving preference for new visas to those with advanced degrees and highly specialized skills.
Mexicans line up outside de U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, as they wait for a working visa interview, Thursday, May 17, 2007. Key senators in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, together with the White House, announced an agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border. (AP Photo/Guillermo Arias) (Guillermo Arias - AP)
That was bad news for tens of thousands of poor Mexicans who depend on a U.S. guestworker program that allows them to work temporarily in agriculture and other seasonal jobs, such as landscaping and construction. U.S. employers complain they need more workers for low-skilled jobs, and would-be migrants say they compete with thousands for the few spots available.
Many hoped Congress would expand and streamline the guestworker program, allowing more to cross legally, work a few months of each year and then return home with their savings to build homes and small businesses.
At the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, which hands out more temporary visas than any other consulate or embassy in the world, Edmundo Bermudez, a 36-year-old from the northern city of Durango, said Congress' plan rewards those who have already entered the United States illegally, while shutting out those who stayed home hoping to gain legal passage.
He was especially offended by the plan to give preference to migrants with degrees and skills.
"The United States already has enough people with college degrees. Who is going to cut their tobacco?" asked Bermudez, who has been working intermittently in the U.S. for the past eight years. In Mexico, he makes about $10 a day, while in the U.S. he earns almost that _ $8 _ in an hour.
Gilberto Escalante, a 41-year-old fisherman from Topolobampo in Sinaloa state, said the current temporary visa program is better than the congressional plan because it gives Mexicans the option to freely enter and leave the U.S. while maintaining their lives in Mexico _ instead of forcing them to choose between the two countries.
"We don't want the house or the latest car in the U.S. We want to go and work so that our families can have a good life in Mexico," said Escalante, who came to the industrial hub of Monterrey to apply for a visa to work on fish and shrimp boats off the coast of Mississippi.
Yet the congressional plan came as welcome news to the millions of Mexicans who depend on the $23 billion sent home each year by Mexicans living in the U.S., many illegally.
The proposal would allow illegal immigrants to obtain a "Z visa" and, after paying fees and a $5,000 fine, ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.
It is also good news for the Mexican government, which has spent years lobbying the U.S. for a comprehensive immigration reform that allows more people to work legally in the U.S. Many had feared the U.S. would only approve more border security measures, such as adding to National Guard troops at the border and other high-tech security measures. Victor Aviles, a spokesman for Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, cautiously welcomed the initiative.
"The Mexican government hopes that the different actors involved in the debate and eventual approval of this initiative take advantage of the opportunity it presents," he said in a statement.
Mexicans line up outside de U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, as they wait for a working visa interview, Thursday, May 17, 2007. Key senators in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, together with the White House, announced an agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border. (AP Photo/Guillermo Arias) (Guillermo Arias - AP)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said debate would begin on Monday, but he cautioned, "I don't know if the immigration legislation is going to bear fruit and we're going to be able to pass it."
Miguel Garcia, 35, of Maravatio in the western Mexican state of Michoacan, said he was glad that the U.S. was giving illegal migrants a chance at fixing their status.
"They shouldn't punish people who are just trying to get ahead," he said.
In the small, northern desert town of Huachichil, migrant recruiter Rene Urbano encouraged Mexicans who work in potato fields and apple orchards to continue signing up for possible visas, arguing that he would work to find them jobs with U.S. employers.
"They are rewarding those who are doing things wrong and abandoning my boys who need work," he said, adding that there are millions of migrants waiting for U.S. jobs.
One of his clients, Gustavo Ruiz, a 31-year-old father of two small children, is normally working in U.S. fields by now. But today he is still waiting for an offer at the one-bedroom concrete home he built on the edge of the Mexican desert, with money he earned picking tobacco, cucumber and sweet potatoes.
He said he would not mind moving his family to the U.S. and trying to become legal residents, but his wife refuses.
"My roots are here," Elidia Moncada said. "My family is here. They say it's nice there, but I don't want to leave."
May 17, 2007 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Profiles of some illegal immigrants interviewed about a Senate proposal that would offer them a path to citizenship.
NAME: Daniel Carrillo Maldonado. AGE: 56. LIVES IN: Phoenix. HOW LONG IN THE U.S.: 11 years (off and on). PLACE OF ORIGIN: Morelos, Mexico. OCCUPATION: Mason and construction worker. INCOME: $300 per week. FAMILY: Wife and four children, all in Morelos, Mexico.
HIS STORY: Carrillo was drawn to the United States 11 years ago by higher wages. He said he can only earn $15 a day in Mexico. In the U.S., construction and mason work pays as much as $300 per week.
Carrillo's routine is to stay in the United States for three years, then return to Mexico by plane for three months before making the journey across the border to repeat the cycle.
Going back to Mexico is easy, he said. But the return trek across the border has become more dangerous every time. The last time he visited home was 2 1/2 years ago.
His goal is to save $5,000, or enough money to purchase land in Mexico and ensure his children can continue their studies.
"I would buy four acres. I want to make a house on each acre and sell them to somebody to make more money," Carrillo said outside a Home Depot in Phoenix where he was trolling for construction work.
COMMENTS: He said the proposed $5,000 fine was too much to ask illegal immigrants to pay upfront. "Where would I find $5,000? In two years, I don't get $5,000."
Carrillo said he would consider a plan for citizenship that allows people to pay the fine in installments and requires a shorter wait. "If it takes eight to 13 years, it's too long to wait because I am an old man."
NAME: Marco Antonio Rodriguez. AGE: 48. LIVES IN: Houston. HOW LONG IN THE U.S.: 2 years. PLACE OF ORIGIN: Monterrey, Mexico. OCCUPATION: Odd jobs in construction, cleaning, factories. INCOME: $50 to $80 a day. FAMILY: Wife and three children in Mexico.
HIS STORY: Rodriguez, who is from Monterrey, Mexico, came to the United States illegally two years ago. He worked in New Orleans, New York, Boston and Philadelphia before joining his sister in Houston. It can be difficult to find work because he does not have a car, so he works odd jobs in cleaning services, construction crews and factories.
On a good day, Rodriguez says, he can make $80. Most days, the total is closer to $50. Half of that money is sent home to his family.
"It's difficult, but we keep pushing ahead," he said. "I came here with the idea that this country was better, trying to improve things for my family."
He hopes to stay in the United States about five years to save enough money to open a small business back home. "I'd just like to have a little bit of money saved up," Rodriguez said.
COMMENTS: Rodriguez said he would be happy with a permit that allows him to work legally and go home to Mexico twice a year to see his wife and three children. But he shakes his head at the idea of paying a $5,000 fine to legalize his status.
"Where are we going to get that kind of money?" he asked. "Fixing our status would benefit us, but that is too much money. And what happens if we pay that money, and we are not approved. They won't return our money."
Rodriguez also believes that few immigrants would risk returning to their home countries to apply for permanent legal residence.
"Too many people would not go because of the fear that they would not be approved once they get there," Rodriguez said. "Myself, I might risk it, because I am here alone. But people with families are not going to leave their children behind and wait eight years."
NAME: Karina Corona. AGE: 32. LIVES IN: San Diego. HOW LONG IN THE U.S.: 12 years. PLACE OF ORIGIN: Mexico. OCCUPATION: Cashier, seamstress. INCOME: $1,900 a month. FAMILY: Two children, both U.S. citizens.
HER STORY: Corona came to the U.S. in 1995, crossing on a fake passport in Calexico, Calif. She works seven days a week at two jobs - one at a downtown delicatessen and another as a seamstress at a stage theater.
Corona said she hoped the Senate bill would not require her to return to Mexico because she is a single mother of two children born in the U.S.
She said the proposal would be "a very good outcome if it comes to pass."
COMMENTS: She said the proposed $5,000 fine is a small price to pay. "Compared with the better jobs you can get, it's nothing," she said. "It's well worth it."
Associated Press writers Terry Tang in Phoenix, Monica Rhor in Houston and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
Copyright (C) 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
By Associated Press, Times Staff Writer 5:53 PM PDT, May 17, 2007
Major provisions of the bipartisan immigration compromise:
CURRENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
_They could come forward immediately and receive probationary legal status.
_Bill creates a four-year, renewable "Z" visa for those present within the U.S. unlawfully before Jan. 1, 2007.
_Undocumented immigrants may adjust status to lawful permanent residence once they pay $5,000 in fees and fines and their head of household returns to their home country.
_People under age 30 who were brought to the U.S. as minors could receive their green cards after three years, rather than eight.
_Undocumented farmworkers who can demonstrate they have worked 150 hours or three years in agriculture can apply for green cards.
_No green cards for "Z" visa holders can be processed until "triggers" for border security and workplace enforcement have been met, estimated to take 18 months. Processing of green cards for holders of "Z" visas would begin after clearing an existing backlog, which is expected to take eight years.
___ BORDER SECURITY
_Hire 18,000 new border patrol agents.
_Erect 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
_Erect 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern border.
_Deploy four unmanned aerial vehicles and supporting systems.
_End the program in which illegal immigrants are released upon apprehension.
_Provide for detaining up to 27,500 aliens per day on an annual basis.
_Use secure and effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized work.
WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT _Require employers to electronically verify new employees to prove identity and work eligibility.
_Increase penalties for unlawful hiring, employment and record keeping violations.
GUEST WORKERS (requires border security measures to be in place first)
_Create a new temporary guest worker program with two-year "Y visas," initially capped at 400,000 per year with annual adjustments based on market fluctuations
_Workers could renew the Y visa up to three times, but would be required to return home for a year in between each time. Those bringing dependents could obtain only one, nonrenewable two-year visa.
_Families could accompany guest workers only if they could show proof of medical insurance and demonstrate that their wages were 150 percent above the poverty level.
FUTURE IMMIGRANTS
_Spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for green cards based purely on their family connections, but other relatives such as adult children and siblings would not.
_380,000 visas a year would be awarded based on a point system, with about 50 percent based on employment criteria, 25 percent based on education, 15 percent on English proficiency and 10 percent on family connections.
_Apply new limits to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
_Visas for parents of U.S. citizens would be capped annually at 40,000 and those for spouses and children at 87,000.
Add to del.icio.us
on't rely on the politicians to do anything out of conviction, Bob. Those demonstrators included many illegal aliens and their supporters. They demanded we lay aside our laws and grant them full legal status. Don't you find it bizarre that the illegals picked May 1, Law Day, to protest? Some of them are filing lawsuits in our courts to give them a legal status they do not deserve. It's surreal! 
