New twist on the White House Immigration Reform plan

[marmaduk]

White House new immigration plan

Looks like its still being crafted behind closed doors, but seemed designed to tackle the amnesty resistance of previous bills. Interesting development since Dubya has been reluctanct in the past of requiring illegals to exit the country first and enter legally in order to obtain permanent residency status.

Kill 2 birds with one stone, legalize the illegals but prevent them from obtaining LPR unless they exit the country first.

[marmaduk]

White House new immigration plan

Looks like its still being crafted behind closed doors, but seemed designed to tackle the amnesty resistance of previous bills. Interesting development since Dubya has been reluctanct in the past of requiring illegals to exit the country first and enter legally in order to obtain permanent residency status.

Kill 2 birds with one stone, legalize the illegals but prevent them from obtaining LPR unless they exit the country first.

[Theone]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-im...&coll=la-home-nation

I think more detailed.

[Houston]

I don't know why this things make big news, this is hardly a new approach or something previously unthought of, not even a compromise. This is the two-year old Cornyn-Kyl mechanism that was proposed in 2005.

Keep in mind that this particular view of things could be seriously flawed and it could cause what's been described as a back-draft, meaning illegal immigrants will gain legal status only to revert to illegal status after the expiration of the temporary visa. This is not because of the touchback requirement, but largely because there's no clear position regarding the new "admission" process. In a nutshell, some grounds of inadmissibility are waived at the time the immigrant received temporary status but could very well be reinstated at the time of the "readmission".

Also bearing consideration is the touchback requirement itself. This is not controversial but a little ridiculous, nothing but an attempt to shut up those crying over amnesty. What's pre-occupying about all this is that instead of explaining the true meaning of the word amnesty, law makers are playing into the game of ignorance by conceding to a notion that has no legal foundation. Punishment doesn't mean "the most severe punishment allowed by law", if that were so, there would be absolutely no need for sentencing hearings and every prisoner would be sentenced to the maximum allowed by the statute. Next time you receive a ticket be thankful for that amnesty, you could be imprisoned by up to six months and in some cases for up to a year for each and every traffic violation as most are defined as misdemeanors.

But back to the touchback requirement, the measure is so meaningless that an immigrant could cross the border to have lunch at some restaurant or even wait for a few minutes near the port of entry, come back, be admitted. The expense associated with that "requirement" could be applied to another "penalty", obviously money paid into the system is much more beneficial to all taxpayers than money spent in a foreign country.

But again, these kinds of flaws will be present in any bill that's created to satisfy meritless political goals instead of addressing the core issues of the problems.

Sadly, it would appear that the push is for the passage of "any bill" not one that actually addresses the problems with realistic and fair solutions. Sad indeed.

[marmaduk]

Houston, I think you already answer it yourself the purpose of this new plan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
nothing but an attempt to shut up those crying over amnesty
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What interest me is the White House is the one initiating this, and they're rallying the Republican lawmakers. Looks like something might indeed be done about immigration reform this year, although it might not be what the country needed.

[Houston]

I've been always in favor of reform, but reform that makes sense that is. Reform for the sake of saving a political record is less than noble. One would ask, is the people affected by these laws, many of them U.S. citizens, less "relevant" than what the history books are going to say about a particular administration? Is the life of a human being less important than a vote?

I'm beginning to feel that it'd be better if no bill was passed, at least the problem wouldn't be aggravated by failed, inflexible legislation plagued by the very same flaws that made current law a disaster.

Most of these "reform" bills fall short of "change", let alone "reform". They seem to concentrate in some guest worker program leaving the core issues untouched. Where's the long overdue protection for U.S. families? Where's the rationalization of the aggravated felony concept and the grounds of inadmissibility? Where's the realization that current law obeys principles imposed by very old, extremely questionable and long discarded doctrines?

It would appear that the goal is to pass something, whatever the contents, to score a political victory. I admire the President's commitment, provided that commitment is "bona fide" and genuine. However, the facts seem to point to some other reality. I'm not convinced that the panel of "experts" summonsed to produce a bill is actually interested in promoting sensible change but a stronger version of current law. Logic tells us that more of the same will produce more of the same, so why is this a "solution"?

A solution is needed, but a solution to the immigration crisis and related economic and social turmoil. Current efforts seem to be oriented at producing a bill expected to solve, or at least alleviate, the political problems of certain, very well known, groups regardless of its effects on families, the economy and the nation as a whole.

[Theone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Houston:
Is the life of a human being less important than a vote? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all know the answer, or am I just being too cynical?.

Republicans want cheap labour, Democrats want subservient voters.

No legislation will meet your ideals is about the only certainty.

GW and Commitment? You need to add self interest. Or those of his financiers. Not that Kennedy and his cohorts are any better. In fact there are hardly any Politicians out there that have any credence.

[Houston]

You may be right, but it doesn't take away the right of any person to, at least in theory, hope for decent legislation.

No bill will be perfect but I would settle for something that's not "all that bad", something with a fairly decent chance at solving the problem, something that's at least fundamentally fair.

Maybe the problem will be understood in its real magnitude and for what it really is when things get worse, and the proposed bills will not prevent that from happening. How disappointing.

[Theone]

I would put money on a band aid.

But then I do not believe there is an equitable for all parties solution.

There will always be losers.

[Houston]

One has only to look at those recruited to produce a bill to know how the bill will look like. If a GWP is actually included in such bill, it'll exist in name only like many provisions of current INA. This will allow certain groups to claim immigration reform as a victory or an achievement without any actual or real reform, a political goal at the expense of countless of families and citizens but one that will enable hours of empty talk and beneficial propaganda.

Any well structured bill will recognize that family-based and employment-based immigration are completely different worlds, and will design dedicated and separate mechanisms to deal with each of them. That is a first step, a first step that's not taken by any proposed legislation. But the real problem, one that nobody talks about is that all these laws concentrate on some "legalization" plan, leaving INA mostly untouched but for the increase in criminal penalties for certain offenses. Increasing criminal penalties is a failed approach to crime prevention, at least when it comes to modern legislation, but more of the same failure is expected by legislation that isn't really modern or innovative, but more of the same 80 year old policies.

Some conservatives talk about protecting families, but do they really mean it? A family is a family even if one member is an alien, so, what about families then? Using the cover of family values for personal goals is shameful and discussing to say the least.

If the current push for reform is an attempt to save the legacy of an administration then I have to say that measures should be taken to ensure the success of the proposed legislation. More of the same will result in more of the same problems, and ten years from now people won't talk about iraq and immigration reform, but about iraq and the bill that triggered the highest levels of illegal immigration ever seen!