Thread: Senate's Immigration Bill Swollen with Fine Print

http://ocregister.com/ocregister/new...le_1159665.php
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Senate's immigration bill swollen with fine print
Amendments were flying fast as senators made their way to vote.

DENA BUNIS
Washington Bureau Chief
The Orange County Register
dbunis@ocregister.com




BREAKNECK SPEED: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., speaks after the vote Thursday. He worked to keep momentum moving toward a vote.

DENNIS COOK, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MORE PHOTOS

Sen. Dianne Feinstein


Sen. Feinstein would create a separate agriculture guest-worker program.

Different from start to finish

The immigration bill the Senate will bring to the conference table is not only vastly different than the one the House passed in December, it's not the same measure that was brought to the floor at the start of the debate.

The Senate bill strengthens border security, creates a new guest-worker program for future foreign nationals wanting to come to the United States, and sets up a path to citizenship for millions living in the country illegally. By contrast, the bill the House passed in December only deals with enforcement issues – on the border, the interior and in workplaces.

The original authors in the Senate – Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. – had already swallowed changes in committee when the bill went to the floor. They accepted more adjustments and beat back others by the time 62 senators voted to approve it on Thursday. Here's a look at how the bill evolved.


Legalization


This began as a plan to let anyone who has been in the U.S. as of Jan. 7, 2004, to earn citizenship through continued work, payment of back taxes and fines, and passage of background, English and civics tests. It was estimated that about 10 million of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. now would qualify. But the plan drew enough opposition – mainly from GOP senators – that it looked like the whole bill would go down. A compromise plan devised by Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., resurrected the bill. The plan ended up as a three-tiered program only allowing those here longer than five years to get on the citizenship path. Those here between two and four years must go home and apply to become a guest worker. Those here less than two years must return to their home countries.


Fines and fees

Began as $2,000 fine per illegal immigrant. Final total: $3,250, including $500 to defray border security costs and $750 to help states with costs related to illegal immigration.


Fencing

Began with less than 100 miles in Arizona. Final total: 370 miles.


Guest workers

Began with no limit. Went to 400,000 a year with an escalation clause that could react to market needs. Final guest-worker total: 200,000 a year. Escalation clause eliminated.


Diversity lottery

The program would have allowed people from mainly European and African countries with no skill requirements to enter a lottery for 50,000 visas a year. Final scope of program: Two-thirds of lottery recipients must have advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering.


English

The bill was silent on the issue. It ended up with two statements: English is the national language and it is the common and unifying language of the United States.


National Guard

The bill was silent on the issue. It ended with a statement of support for President Bush's plan to send the Guard to the border.


More!
Immigration reform: An archive of the Register's coverage


When it comes to the immigration bill the U.S. Senate passed on Thursday, reading the fine print means 115 pages.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, made a joke about watching sausage being created just before the final vote on the big immigration bill. He wasn't kidding.

The bill raced through his committee with breakneck speed. Senators and their staffs were skimming amendments, trolling for problems within hours - or minutes – of the provisions being added.

Then when it got to the floor, amendments were flying fast and furious. It was refreshing to see senators actually debating and making decisions about what should be in and what shouldn't. It was also a little scary because they were doing it so quickly.

By Thursday, everyone involved in the process just wanted them to vote already so we could all go home.

We got "this" close. Then all of a sudden a buzz went through the press gallery. Something was holding up passage of what is called the "manager's amendment" – the only thing standing in the way of final passage.

A manager's amendment is usually a few pages. It's used to tie up loose ends and make "technical corrections."

I knew there was going to be some trouble when Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., rose and objected to moving so quickly to vote on this last amendment. I commented to my colleagues that a nightmare scenario could be brewing.

Ensign - who was one of the senators who really hates this bill - said he wasn't ready to vote on a 115-page manager's amendment that he and his staff had just gotten their hands on.

While we were waiting to see what happened with Ensign, I went to sit in the press gallery and watch the action in the chamber. Looking down I could see Specter, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a chief architect of the bill, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., huddling. Of course we couldn't hear what they were saying. But there was lots of gesturing, furrowed brows. And the immigration staff members for these senators were either looking on worried or flipping through papers trying to figure out what was wrong and how to fix it.

Given the cast of characters meeting, I knew it was something to do with the agriculture provision, which was Feinstein's baby in this bill. (It created a separate guest-worker program for that industry.) My theory was backed up by Chambliss, a bill opponent who only spoke up when it came to agricultural workers.

Soon the group dispersed. Specter said that the "underbrush" had been cleared away and they could vote. I still didn't know exactly what Feinstein was complaining about. (On Friday she put out a statement that still didn't really explain her concerns. But it said she had a "handshake and an agreement" that whatever was left out would get put back in.)

By now some senators – or their staffs - had actually begun to read the manager's amendment and didn't like some of what they saw.

Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who also voted against the bill, told the senators what most probably didn't know - the amendment said that before any more fencing could be built between the U.S. and Mexico, our officials had to consult with their counterparts in Mexico. They gave Kyl a couple of minutes to talk about his objection.

Since then, I've waded through the document. Much of it was technical stuff. But I did find something in there about a study on whether to give financial incentives to military members to join the Customs and Border Protection Service when they leave the military. I don't remember that being discussed.

If I heard it once, I heard it 100 times – "we'll fix it in conference." That was Specter's answer when he knew that time was running out for amendments and a senator was raising something that could mean extended debate.

As the roll was called on final passage, Kennedy went to the back of the chamber to stand with his Republican partner - Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Afterward, supporters had a victory press conference.

Amid the self-congratulations, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., may have had the best line.

"Viva chutzpah," the senator said.

"Does that pass the Inhofe test?" McCain deadpanned. (Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., authored the English is the national language amendment). The room broke up.

That bit of levity might be short-lived.

The drama now shifts to the House - to that conference Specter was talking about.

Both Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on Judiciary, and House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said there's a 50-50 chance that an immigration bill will be sent to President Bush's desk. Many think even that is optimistic.

We'll be watching.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunis is the Register's Washington Bureau chief CONTACT US: (202) 628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com

Began as $2,000 fine per illegal immigrant. Final total: $3,250, including $500 to defray border security costs and $750 to help states with costs related to illegal immigration

Who pays for those fines?

A)The impoverished peasant.
B)The impoverished country of Mexico.
C)The American taxpayer.

C) The American Taxpayer

Courtesy of "Earned Income Credit" for those who came here and didn't EARN a damned thing.

We are wasting or time and money on a fence, Bush has already told us that "a fence will not work" (despite the fact they have been proven to stop 90 - 95% of traffic)

- Our problem is not at the border, it is at the WHITEHOUSE!

Added to home Page

http://www.alipac.us/article1267.html

concerned,

I want to know who added the language, which exonerates criminal activity related to illegal aliens and those that hire them. This is the La Raza clause because they promote lawlessness. Who ever wants to remove punishment La Raza has in their hip pocket. We need to find that out.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

concerned,

I want to know who added the language, which exonerates criminal activity related to illegal aliens and those that hire them. This is the La Raza clause because they promote lawlessness. Who ever wants to remove punishment La Raza has in their hip pocket. We need to find that out.

Dixie

Here are the Amendments added. You can read theorugh them to see who voted for what and post them here if you want. Look at the May 16-25 votes. Some real pieces of work. Lots of Ammendments. The sponsor of each is listed with them.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... _109_2.htm

Here is one of the ammendments S4632


SA 4009. Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2611, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 452, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 459, line 10, and insert the following:

``(A) IN GENERAL.--An employer applying to hire H-2A workers under section 218(a), or utilizing alien workers under blue card program established under section 613 of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, shall offer to pay, and shall pay, all workers in the occupation for which the employer has applied for alien workers, not less than (and is not required to pay more than) the greater of--

``(i) the prevailing wage in the occupation in the area of intended employment; or

``(ii) the applicable State minimum wage.

``(B) PREVAILING WAGE DEFINED.--In this paragraph, the term `prevailing wage' means the wage rate that includes the 51st percentile of employees with similar experience and qualifications in the agricultural occupation in the area of intended employment, expressed in terms of the prevailing rate of pay for the occupation in the area of intended employment.''.


So they have to pay them the higher wages which means that they will not be using them because they will use illegals who they can pay less.

La Raza has in their hip pocket. We need to find that out.

As the saying goes: Follow the money

One of their several fianancial backers: The Ford foundation

I can not recall (I know, sounds like a politician) the guys name who is in charge, but he is associated with Bush.

Our current immigration system is not broken! It is just not enforced! Our political system, however, is!!