Immigration Reform Proposed in the Senate

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/28/bipartisan-group-8-senators-reach-deal-on-immigration-changes/?test=latestnews

I look forward to the details

[Doc]

The principles being released Monday are outlined on just over four pages, leaving plenty of details left to fill in.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/28/bipartisan-group-8-senators-reach-deal-on-immigration-changes/?test=latestnews#ixzz2JILwOZWC

lot better than the 2,000 page "we got to pass it in order to know whats in it" thing.

This sounds like what Rubio proposed the other day. I'm a huge Rubio fans and believe he is the key to the forward movement of the republican party. Is a smart guy who is fairly middle is logical in his approach to things.

[CitizenBBN]

The talking points are exactly what I've wanted to see.

Close the border and expand the legal immigration process, with an emphasis on heavily expanding the opportunities for professionals to be able to come to and remain in the US. The "brain drain" was a key part of the building of this nation, and we've slowed it to a trickle. We want the world's best and brightest coming here and staying.

It's the compromise we desperately need. Pro-immigration didn't want the border closed b/c the legal immigration system was so restricted, anti-immigration didn't want toloosen that system with the border open.

Wall the thing up and then allow for more legal immigration. It's an easy solution, hopefully it'll happen.

that group gives new meaning to "bipartisan". You're talking about 4 guys on each side who are core party Senators not blue dog Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans.

[KeithKSR]

Immigration reform has been needed for several years now. If they can keep Obama's hands out of it they can likely complete the deal.

[CattyWampus]

lot better than the 2,000 page "we got to pass it in order to know whats in it" thing.

This sounds like what Rubio proposed the other day. I'm a huge Rubio fans and believe he is the key to the forward movement of the republican party. Is a smart guy who is fairly middle is logical in his approach to things.

Unlike you, I am not a Rubio fan. I think he's a Bush puppet, but I'm willing to give him the opportunity to prove me wrong. I'm not willing to coronate him as the next savior of the Republican party.

That being said, I see these immigration reform proposals as pie-in-the-sky. What makes them think that Obama's gang of thieves in the justice department will enforce anything? For me, until there are guarantees of border security and enforcement of ALL the immigration laws, what the gang has laid out is worthless.

Andrew McCarthy has written a piece (http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/01/29/senator-rubios-immigration-enforcement-fantasy/?singlepage=true) that pretty much echoes my concerns about this plan.

fta:

The executive branch is in charge of law enforcement, period. Congress cannot enforce the law and cannot compel the president to do so. And we already know there will be no meaningful immigration enforcement as long as President Obama is running the executive branch. As usual in Washington’s progressive crusades, we are expected to forget all relevant history — in this instance, not only the sorry history of the 1986 amnesty (in which Washington predictably provided all the legalization goodies but reneged on the enforcement promises) but also the Obama administration’s more recent, more virulent anti-enforcement record.

Can Sen. Rubio have missed the Obama Justice Department’s lawsuit against the citizens of Arizona? The state enacted a law that simply reaffirmed the Congress’s own immigration statutes and enabled state police to enforce those federal standards. The Obama administration not only sued the state for enforcing federal law, it did so by positing a radical new understanding of the “pre-emption” doctrine. Formerly, that doctrine stood for the proposition that the states could not enact laws that contradicted properly enacted federal statutes. Under Obama’s interpretation, the states were precluded from enacting laws that contradicted U.S. executive branch enforcement policy even if they were completely consistent U.S. congressional law.

Thus, according to Obama, if the president’s policy is to refrain from enforcing Congress’s statutes, sovereign states may not enforce them either, even if such non-feasance renders the states defenseless against the tide of illegal immigration overrunning their borders and budgets. It matters not, in this radical view, that self-defense is a basic aspect of sovereignty or that, if the Obama preemption theory had been evident in the Constitution, there would be no United States because the states would never have ratified it.

That is how committed Pres. Obama is to non-enforcement. Consequently, it is the height of foolishness for Sen. Rubio to talk about fissures between the administration and Congressional Democrats on enforcement measures. Chuck Schumer has nothing to do with enforcing the immigration laws. Even if he and his colleagues were serious about enforcement — and, as Mark Krikorian and Mickey Kaus explain, the enforcement promises in the Gang of Eight proposal are patently fraudulent — their earnestness would be irrelevant. Obama has not only posited but argued in the Supreme Court that federal statutes are trivial; the only thing that matters is raw executive power: his unfettered discretion in choosing to enforce or not enforce the law.

That being the case, what is the point of the Gang of Eight exercise? The Republicans pushing the deal tout its illusory enforcement measures, but even if these were real lawmakers are not in a position to compel the president to execute them. And think about it: it is precisely because the law is not being enforced in the first place that the senators perceive the need to promise law enforcement as a premise for the windfall illegal aliens would get from the Gang of Eight proposal. If the laws already on the books are not being enforced, why on earth would anyone think a new law would make a bit of difference — particularly when it would be equally impotent in the matter of forcing Obama’s hand?

In the end, that really is the point. It makes no sense to write a legislative proposal that confers unwarranted benefits on the condition of stepped up law enforcement. If the Republican senators are serious, they should just call for enforcement of already enacted laws. They should tell Democrats, “Show us over the next few years that enforcement is effective and that the government’s commitment to it is permanent; then we can talk about legislation to legalize the presence of the remaining illegal immigrant population.” The way you prioritize enforcement is … to prioritize enforcement, not to talk about enforcement you can’t deliver in a wayward deal that concretely rewards lawlessness. And in the meantime, if it would help our economy to allow more immigration of workers to fill needs that aren’t being met, by all means increase the availability of visas for those categories of workers — as dramatically as necessary. This will illustrate that Republicans are not anti-immigrant — the “false argument” that animates Sen. Rubio, as he told Rush. It is a slander that sticks because of the GOP’s inadequate response to the Left’s demagoguery, not because of bad policies.

[KeithKSR]

Obama is now a lame duck POTUS, enforcement laws should be available for his successor.

[jazyd]

Maybe I am missing something but I read they want to go after companies who hire illegals but then say we need more low skilled workers.. Hint come on up across the border and do our dirty work...and we are going to make it easier for all those illegals to become legal. So how are going after companies

[KeithKSR]

Maybe I am missing something but I read they want to go after companies who hire illegals but then say we need more low skilled workers.. Hint come on up across the border and do our dirty work...and we are going to make it easier for all those illegals to become legal. So how are going after companies

The Senate version wants to strengthen borders to prevent illegals from sneaking across the border, which leaves the only alternative to be to come in the legal way. Companies can hire immigrants with work visas for cheap labor. What they really want to prevent is the migration of criminals into the United States and to be able to track who is here.

[Doc]

I've always wonder how illegal supposedly help our economy which is one of the liberals talking points. They are typically paid under the table since they are illegals thus no social security number plus they utilize public resources such as schools etc.... Add that they take jobs from working Americans. Of course those jobs are ones that no self respecting american citizen would take because its better to be unemployed making 30K a year than working and making 20K a year.

[jazyd]

The dems will screw Rubio and the bunch and never secure the border. Those are votes that won the election for schemer and company




The Senate version wants to strengthen borders to prevent illegals from sneaking across the border, which leaves the only alternative to be to come in the legal way. Companies can hire immigrants with work visas for cheap labor. What they really want to prevent is the migration of criminals into the United States and to be able to track who is here.

[KeithKSR]

I would think the number of illegals that voted in the battleground elections were enough to turn the election.

[dan_bgblue]

Reid, Pelosi and Leahy say just vote damn it and we will sort out the details later (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/republicans-say-senate-leaders-not-giving-enough-time-to-debate-immigration/?test=latestnews)

I think we all know how that turned out the last time