Thread: Senate Resumes Debate on S1348

Sessions...

Going to speak about immigration.

"The public is rightly concerned about immigration'

We can create a lawful system of immigration.

It's not impossible. That's what they've asked us to do.

Let me summarize so far:

It's not been a very engaged debate.

Last year's failed bill was introduced - and recently, they plopped down a complete substitute.

We had 6 roll call votes. We didn't do anything friday.

There were no votes.

(etc)

It can't be done this week - we need a great deal more time.

(Tracks history of introduction of bill into senate - shortcutting of methods, etc)

Con't:

Sessions...

100's of amendments filed.

We can't no deal with the bill in one week.

There are flaws in the leg. etc.

We haven't thought through what we want to do with imm. in America.

We need more consideration of merit in immig.


To Colleagues: It does not measure up to priniciples outlined in talking points about bill. It has many serious fund. flaws and defects that should not be passed.


I still do not believe that cong. + Prez have listened to the American people, it will be some years that the US people will find that this bill will produce the same results as in 1986 - and we'll be right back in the place as we are now.

I don't believe that our current gov't is committed to enforcement.

Let me talk about loopholes...

Re: the trigger. Amnesty was 'one-time'. It was a problem then, and will be again. 3 millions rec'd amnesty in 1986.

Some say : ' you can't enforce immigration law'. Of course we can.
But, if we give amnesty, we must ensure that enf. must occur.

Last year's failed bill was introduced - and recently, they plopped down a complete substitute.

WEll............WHERE THE HELL IS IT?

It's NOT on Thomas, senator traitors

A DRAFT isn't cutting the ice!!

Sessions (con't)...

Speaking about history of enforcement - why would fail?

What about current trigger? -

'This year, we will do one.'

Problems - amnesty benefits occur first.

IAs can rec. probationary benefits within 24 hrs (after applying) - same as a legal res.

Even if, trigger reqs are never met, prob. benefits still take effect and never expire. - be able to stay indefinitely.
Z visa apps - etc.

This system sets up...

(interruption by chair - time expired)

Thanks sen Bingaman for guest-worker reduction bill (from 400k-200k)

Bingaman has floor...

Thanks Sessions for support of his amendment...

(Clerk interruption - msg from POTUS...


Bingaman resumes speaking...

Thanks to Sessions...

To talk about 2 other amens I have filed -

One is aimed at that which is impractical - let me put this in context:

Current bill/system has 3 Temp Worker progs.

1. Agr worker
2. Seasonal Worker
3. New one - subject of my amend 2 weeks ago

How does 3rd work?

Considers new GW prog.
[Outlines program details... 2yrs in, 1 yr out, 2 yrs in, etc.]

He is introducing an amend (co-sponsor w/Obama) that says GWs in US, won't have to leave in order to renew worker visa to work in US.

Why?

Bad for employers.
Bad for workers.
Diff. to enforce, costly to enforce.
Increases likelihood that people not comply.

[Outlines details about employer difficulties - reasons for this amend from bus. perspective]

Quotes Napolitano article from NYT...

Con't

Bingaman...

"Inconvenient for business" [my words]

Overstay of visas would likely increase...

Assumes we have admin. capacity to track such a large flow of GWs in/out of the US. (eg. 1.2 million GWs)

I have doubts about ability to do that.
Assumed that we do.

(etc)

What is justification for keeping it in bill?

Only 1 I can see: in order to fit pol. mantra about 'temp. means temp'.
GWs progs., (not H2B, H2A, etc) - the new Y1 prog. is designed to fill jobs that really ARE permanent jobs. The 2-1-2 req tries to make these 'Temp' workers - even though they are perm. jobs.

I think the concept in last year's bill is more sensible [no provision as in temp provision as in above]

Also, let me address how adoption of this amend will kill Imm. bill.
I commend senators that reached 'grand bargain', etc,.
One of the amends I offered that reduced GWs to 200k, despite it's adoption, I've heard whether it was a 'deal killer'.

Somehow, I believe we're focused on wrong set of issues. We should be focused on broad bi-partisan support. this current amend would help achieve that.

I caution about existing Y1 GWs provisions. We'll create an unworkble system for employers, bad for workers, invites visa overstays..etc.


Talks about 2nd amendment:

Another one - aimed at Y2 TW program. Is a temp worker program, it revised H2C program. This amend, addresses workers up to 10 mos., non-ag seasonal employment - can do this every year., underlying subst. amendments initial visas from 100k - to 200k every yr.

[shows chart]

15% increase is triggered each year for 1st 4 years.

Before subst amend was filed, a provision was hand-written in bill that would not count against cap [?]

[Shows that potential pool of returning workers increases sharply in projected immediate future years]

Not cumulative total, but total for EACH year. Profound increases every year. (high-end projection)

Why? Not all workers would choose to come back every year.


Now, about 135K workers in US under this program.
I have no problem with increasing to 200k.

I do have problem when it could increaese to over 1 million.
It shouldn't happen under this bill.

My amend. does not elim. returning worker provision, it just
places a limit on those that can come in in previous 3 yrs.

Bing con't.

Those summarize the amends I have filed today. (Summarizes)


Sessions has floor...

I thank that senator... He's read the leg. and understands what it actually means. etc.


Let me say what the whole deal is about.

I understand that this bill was supposed to be better than last years.


There would be TW program that would actually be temporary.,

[Transcriber called away on other business... - sorry interruption of coverage - ETA is approx. 30minutes]

PHRED
when you have a moment, what did they say about the 2nd Amend????

There's possibly some bad stuff in this concerning the 2nd!

Sis:

The focus wasn't about the US Const. 2nd Amendment, it was about Bingaman's 2nd amendment that he just introduced:

Here's the replay from above:

Talks about 2nd amendment:

Another one - aimed at Y2 TW program. Is a temp worker program, it revised H2C program. This amend, addresses workers up to 10 mos., non-ag seasonal employment - can do this every year., underlying subst. amendments initial visas from 100k - to 200k every yr.

[shows chart]

15% increase is triggered each year for 1st 4 years.

Before subst amend was filed, a provision was hand-written in bill that would not count against cap [?]

[Shows that potential pool of returning workers increases sharply in projected immediate future years]

Not cumulative total, but total for EACH year. Profound increases every year. (high-end projection)

Why? Not all workers would choose to come back every year.


Now, about 135K workers in US under this program.
I have no problem with increasing to 200k.

I do have problem when it could increaese to over 1 million.
It shouldn't happen under this bill.