Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    762

    Bill offers temporary legal status to undocumented immigrant

    IMMIGRATION
    Bill offers temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants
    By Dave Montgomery
    McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON - Bipartisan legislation to be unveiled Thursday in the House of Representatives would offer temporary legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants but would require them to leave the country before they could be eligible for permanent residency and U.S. citizenship.


    The bill by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is the first major immigration legislation to be introduced in the current session of Congress, as lawmakers address the status of more than 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally.


    A comprehensive Senate immigration bill died in the previous, Republican-controlled Congress amid intense opposition from Republican members, who rebuffed President Bush's call for a sweeping overhaul of immigration laws. With Democrats in control of Congress, Bush again has made immigration a centerpiece of his domestic agenda and thinks he has a strong chance to succeed now.


    The Gutierrez-Flake proposal includes many of the ingredients of the failed Senate bill. It would create a guest-worker program that would enable foreign workers to stay in the country for up to six years to hold jobs that U.S. workers have bypassed.


    Bush has insisted that a guest-worker program be part of any immigration bill to give U.S. businesses a steady source of foreign workers to fill what they say is a chronic labor shortage in low-skilled and unskilled jobs. Under the Gutierrez-Flake bill, qualified foreign guest workers would get three-year visas that they could renew for another three years, then they'd be required to return home.


    Flake said in an interview Wednesday that illegal immigrants who were in the country now also could be eligible to work legally here for up to six years if they paid back taxes and fines, learned English and passed criminal background checks.


    If they wanted to stay in the country to be eligible for a green card - denoting permanent legal residence - and eventual citizenship, they'd be required to leave the U.S., most likely for Mexico or Canada, and register back in the United States through a port of entry.


    The so-called "touch-back" provision was also in the Senate bill, in an attempt to soften objections among conservatives who oppose blanket legalization of undocumented immigrants. The Senate measure applied different standards for categories of immigrants based on their lengths of stay in the country, but that feature isn't in the Gutierrez-Flake bill.


    The bill also would require the Department of Homeland Security to certify that certain steps have been taken to secure U.S. borders before the guest worker and legalization programs go into effect. Those conditions would include a sharp increase in border enforcement personnel and substantial progress on a multibillion-dollar high-tech surveillance shield that's under construction on the U.S.-Mexican border.




    Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a research center that's pressing for an overhaul of the immigration system, said the provisions were aimed at pulling the legislation to the center of the political spectrum by attracting Republicans who might otherwise oppose a comprehensive immigration plan.


    "This is a recognition that you can't pass the bill without at least 20 Republicans in the Senate and 40 Republicans in the House," she said.


    White House officials have been consulted about the bill, Flake said, but haven't embraced specific legislation. Conservatives in the Senate have been meeting with top-ranking Bush administration officials in discussions that could spawn a White House-sanctioned bill. The meetings have included Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and two senators who sponsored an alternative to the failed Senate bill: Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.


    Bush made immigration a major component of his State of the Union address in January, calling for a "rational middle ground between a program of mass deportation and a program of automatic amnesty."
    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16948243.htm

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    If they wanted to stay in the country to be eligible for a green card - denoting permanent legal residence - and eventual citizenship, they'd be required to leave the U.S., most likely for Mexico or Canada, and register back in the United States through a port of entry.
    So, do they leave, stay in Mexico, and go to the back of the line under current immigration quotas? No, because they can go to Canada. Once again they are still illegals.

    Do their dependents get to stay in the US while they apply for citizenship for all?

    Of course that isn't spelled out...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    This is the subcommittee of the Committee of the Judiciary where the bill will be introduced:

    The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law

    If you click on this link it takes you to the webpage where you can click on the member's name and get all of the contact information:

    http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestr ... ommittee=4


    Hon. Lofgren
    Chairman
    (D) California, 16th

    Hon. Gutierrez
    (D) Illinois, 4th

    Hon. Berman
    (D) California, 28th

    Hon. Jackson Lee
    (D) Texas, 18th

    Hon. Waters
    (D) California, 35th

    Hon. Meehan
    (D) Massachusetts, 5th

    Hon. Delahunt
    (D) Massachusetts, 10th

    Hon. Sánchez
    (D) California, 39th

    Hon. Davis
    (D) Alabama , 7th

    Hon. Ellison
    (D) Minnesota, 5th


    Hon. King
    Ranking Member
    (R) Iowa, 5th

    Hon. Gallegly
    (R) California, 24th

    Hon. Goodlatte
    (R) Virginia, 6th

    Hon. Lungren
    (R) California, 3rd

    Hon. Forbes
    (R) Virginia, 4th

    Hon. Gohmert
    (R) Texas, 1st

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    Here's Kate's latest contribution for our use in faxes and emails:


  5. #5
    Senior Member CountFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Occupied Territories, Alta Mexico
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by olivermyboy
    If they wanted to stay in the country to be eligible for a green card - denoting permanent legal residence - and eventual citizenship, they'd be required to leave the U.S., most likely for Mexico or Canada, and register back in the United States through a port of entry.
    So, do they leave, stay in Mexico, and go to the back of the line under current immigration quotas? No, because they can go to Canada. Once again they are still illegals.

    Do their dependents get to stay in the US while they apply for citizenship for all?

    Of course that isn't spelled out...
    The main thing is that they can still produce anchor babies while they're here.

    Of course, once they do that we'll never be able to send them back, because that would mean breaking up families and that would be so mean.

    So, this is a 100% amnesty bill pretending to be something else.
    It's like hell vomited and the Bush administration appeared.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    Good point, CountFloyd,

    We need to press them on birthright citizenship! I keep hearing from the likes of Tony Snow and Senator Larry Craig: "This has been in our system a long time." Both had the same answer! If this isn't scripted, I don't know what has!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    Taxpayers will no doubt be paying for the buses, if not planes, to take them to the border of Canada and Mexico to touch base and return as legal. This is soooooo stupid, it's unreal!

  8. #8
    Administrator ALIPAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Gheen, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    66,408
    This article has been added to the homepage and sent out as a RED ALERT to over 8,000 people on our Email alerts lists.

    W


    Globalist Amnesty Plan to be Unveiled Thursday!
    http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... =1&thold=0

    ----

    Supporters of ALIPAC:

    Prepare for the fight!

    The Globalists will unveil their amnesty plan on Thursday. We will need every capable American man woman and child ready to fight in defense of our nation.

    Details.

    Globalist Amnesty Plan to be Unveiled Thursday!
    http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2034

    You will soon receive instructions on actions you can take that will include calls, letters, e-mails, and visits to Congressional offices. You will receive assistance with messaging and bullet points. We have been working hard behind the scenes on a strategy.

    We need you to be ready to make a lot of noise in reaction to this bill.

    Please standby for further notice.....
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over immigration reform.
    Do you all remember Lofgren? Isn't she the one that was up for a cabinet position under Bill Clinton and knocked off because she had an illegal nanny????

    Payback to those who did it to her, no doubt.

  10. #10
    Senior Member CountFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Occupied Territories, Alta Mexico
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by olivermyboy
    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over immigration reform.
    Do you all remember Lofgren? Isn't she the one that was up for a cabinet position under Bill Clinton and knocked off because she had an illegal nanny????

    Payback to those who did it to her, no doubt.
    No, that was Clinton's first AG choice, Zoe Baird (sp?). And then there was Clinton's second AG choice, Kimba Wood, who had done the same thing. Fortunately for Clinton, AG choice #3, Janet Reno, had no need of nannys.

    And then in BushII, there was illegal alien supporter Linda Chavez who also employed illegal labor.
    It's like hell vomited and the Bush administration appeared.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •