Thread: ALIPAC: Hispanic leader introduces immigration Amnesty bill

Hispanic leader introduces immigration bill

By ERIN KELLY • Gannett News Service • December 16, 2009


WASHINGTON — A leading congressional advocate for immigrants' rights introduced a bill Tuesday that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens and would end a controversial program that enlists local police to enforce immigration laws.

The 700-page bill by U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., is widely viewed as too liberal to pass.

Obama administration officials have said they are looking instead to a more moderate, bipartisan immigration reform bill to be introduced in the Senate early next year by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Still, Gutierrez made it clear that he and his allies expect a seat at the negotiating table as lawmakers and the White House seek middle ground on the polarizing issue.

Gutierrez's bill, endorsed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Black Caucus and Asian Pacific American Caucus, would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country while they apply to become legal residents or citizens. They would have to pay a $500 fine and show they've made a contribution to the country through work, education, military or community service.

"As a candidate for president, Barack Obama promised comprehensive immigration reform, and we have brought him the bill to accomplish this," Gutierrez said.

The legislation also would repeal the 287(g) program, which enlists local police and sheriff's deputies to enforce federal immigration law. The bill says only the federal government has the authority to enforce those laws.

It also includes a provision that would allow states to offer in-state school tuition to students who aren't citizens and whose parents may be in the country illegally.

The bill acknowledges that strong border security is needed, but it also calls for increased oversight of border control agents to ensure civil liberties are protected.

"Representative Gutierrez's bill includes a number of important provisions," U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, said in a statement. "The legislation includes language that will advance our efforts to secure our borders, protect our ports of entry and combat criminal activity."

Opponents of the bill said they're angry the bill offers amnesty to millions of illegal workers while so many citizens are out of work.

"People feel shocked and completely betrayed that any elected official would propose legalizing illegal immigrants, stopping local police from enforcing immigration law, and stopping increased border security when we have over 15 million Americans out of work," said William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who has co-sponsored immigration reform bills with Gutierrez in the past, said he was disappointed by the legislation.

"It repeats the mistakes of the '86 reform — massive legalization without a temporary-worker program to accommodate future labor demands," Flake said.

Flake also criticized the bill for watering down the penalties illegal immigrants would face before they could become legal residents.

Previous bills have called for a $2,000 fine and would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries before returning to the United States.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said he believes the bill is going nowhere.

"Congressman Gutierrez is an ardent supporter of immigrant rights and has introduced at least 20 major immigration bills in the past 10 years, but none has been cleared by a committee for a vote on the House floor," Lewis said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in an interview last week with the Arizona Republic editorial board, said the Obama administration is pinning its hopes for reform on Schumer's bill.

"We are providing assistance now to Senator Schumer," she said.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the Gutierrez bill is the right path to reform.

"Immigration policy must deal fairly and intelligently with the millions of hardworking, responsible undocumented workers already in the country," Grijalva said. "Declaring war on the border is not an option."

http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/2 ... ation-bill

added to homepage

http://www.alipac.us/article4783.html

We will launch an unpresidented assault against this bill. We will close down the phone lines, their fax machines will run out of paper, their Email boxs will constantly be filled. They will feel the fury of the American people just like last time.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in an interview last week with the Arizona Republic editorial board, said the Obama administration is pinning its hopes for reform on Schumer's bill.

"We are providing assistance now to Senator Schumer," she said.


This needs to be brought to an end.....like yesterday.

DHS is supposed to remain neutral in the execution of the sworn duties of that office. If Nappy and her DHS are offering assistance to a pro-amnesty senator for the purposes of legalizing those her dept. is charged with arresting and deporting from this country, there is a definite conflict of interest.

She needs to keep her nose out of this and do the job she's paid to do.

If she's unable to do that then she needs to leave her post.....either resigning or be forced out.

"It repeats the mistakes of the '86 reform

Of course it does, it was destined that way!

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

"It repeats the mistakes of the '86 reform

Of course it does, it was destined that way!

You're right.

You know what I'm wondering? Since Nappy has stated that the hopes for actually getting this thing done is on Schumer's bill, how likely is it that Gutierrez' bill was purposely written to be so outrageous that in comparison Schumer's will look good.......and more appealing to those of the mistaken belief that it's either one or the other so will not protest as vehemently Schumer's bill?

I really put nothing past these.......people.

Originally Posted by azwreath

I really put nothing past these.......people.

Neither do I so we must be ever on guard.