Thread: Senate on CSpan2: Immigration Debate Ramps Up

The discussions of the bill are beginning. The debate on the floor is somewhat scattered, and not exclusively focused on immigration, but they are definitely starting.

Sessions spoke earlier for a few minutes. Inhofe (R-OK), is speaking right now about an English as a nat'l language bill he introduced last year.

I'll post more significant updates as they occur (as much as I can today).

English is a unifying language. Countries with two or more languages cause division: Example Canada has had problems with French and English language dividing their nation.

Quoting Zogby poll on Americans feeling on English only, (80%+)

Cited phrase from T Roosevelt - about the importance of learning and using English as a national language [!]

Referred to LaRaza as "An extremist, left-wing organization"

Speaking about the presumed "need" for language translators and related...

[What he is trying to do is to incorporate his earlier English only bill into the current Immigration Bill - with disclaimer that he still wouldn't support the current bill as-is]

Yields floor to Sessions..


Sessions speaking:

Talking about immigrants having English ability,

Even more important now, that having English proficiency is even MORE important.

It is a 'glue' that can hold the culture together. American people understand that. Hispanic voters understand the importance of learning English to advance here.

"Accommodating" immigrants in their native languages pulls away incentives for them to learn English.

Language differences have been a key cause of national discord in other nations around the world. (cites case of English-French nearby [Canada?])

Even more important to retain unifying language of English today.

.... pause


Bipartisan negotiations done on bill, set forth principles - (part of PowerPoint presentation - provided to self) - thought it was 'pretty good'.

A framework better than last year's bill - unfortunately, 4 main parts:

1 trigger,
2 temp-worker
3 end chain migration
[oops - didn't get that one]

He is worried that these provisions that don't fulfill goal of bill. 'Let's not pass a bill, that will fix immigration problem that has loopholes and leaks that will not work'.

Talk about principles:

Last year, jammed through committee...Sessions offered idea:
realized amendments were accepted in committee - even those for enforcement... Why? They weren't spending any money [!]

Appropriations not done in Senate - nobody was coming up with $ to pay for it - end result: So What? Nothing was done.

Suggests: a provision for border security to be certified BEFORE trigger kicks in.

Last year's bill: 'fatally flawed'.

Now, are told - 'we need a trigger'. Weaknesses - applies only to new guest-worker program. All other programs will begin immediately.

Z visas issued before other triggers kick-in.

1986: amnesty was given, on promise of enforcement. Enforcement never happened. Congress and Pres, had never taken enforcement seriously.

Trigger only requires enforcement of benchmarks already in the works.
Does not require 1 [new] critical thing - as in US Visit exit system.

New system should monitor exit trips - no system to record such fact.
This was required to be implemented in 2005 - and was put off, put off. Why? It would create a system that might actually work.

If someone comes in as visitor, how will we know if they actually leave?

The language in Secure Fence Act - reqs DHS to have 'operational control of border'. Current bill does not require 'operational control or border'.

Also reqs 18,000 additional BP agents - most are already slated to be, or already hired. So, language leaves fuzziness as to true staffing levels.

700 miles of fencing. Will fence ever be built? I suggest fence is already being undermined. Only 370 fencing are part of trigger. 300 miles not part of plan/bill. Authorized not same as funding - will 300 miles ever be built?

27,500 detention beds. What about trigger? Reqs 27,500.!
Bill reqs 20,000 additional beds to be built. We need them.

...other matters in trigger - which are not available [in draft]


Other things promised: filled with phrases like this:

'subject to availability of appropriations' , 'authorized to be appropriated'.

used 38 times. Used insincerely.

Funding is key element.


Temp Worker [TW] program.

Fits needs of businesses. Should actually work - not just defined on paper.
Better than last year - how?

Last year - allowed TW for 3yrs, could bring spouse+kids.
That could be extended 3yrs indefinitely.
(allows citizenship for babies)
Later, apply for GC, citizenship.

Just because it says we have a trigger, fine print says otherwise...

What happens if TW never leaves? Sponsors say we created a TEMP guestworker program.

This bill different - TW could not bring in family too.
This provides an incentive to go home.

In fine print, not a 3yr, but 2yr program, 20% could bring family, and remaining group can have family visits for up to 30 days.

(Cites case of pregnant spouse...)

(Transcriber takes break)...

Picking up at 9:05am Pacific...

Talking about level / rates of immigration.

53 million additional est. by Heritage Found [over 10 years? -PhE]

People who wrote bill did not understand true increase levels of bill.
Most of which would come through 'legal' means.

Explains - His staff is working to provide updated estimates.


TW 2yr duration; employer depends on person to work-go home-come back. Not practical.

Side effect: no desire to become US citizen. Later, will be in a position to have to apply for GC/citizenship in order to keep working even in TW capacity. Makes business more complicated, hard for TWs.

(filler...)

Why should we go to a merit-based system?

Skill based. Based on ability to flourish in our economy
Canada does this. Decided by parliament.

60% of those that enter, are allowed in on merit-basis.
Policy should serve national interest. He met with Canadian director of program - very popular, and well-liked.

Never got a hearing on idea last year - never happened. Little negative was said at that time.

Witnesses said - immigration policy should serve nat'l interest.

Australia does same thing : 60% allowed in on merit basis.

US bucks the trend - only 20% allowed in based on skill.
60% get perm res. based on family - spouse + kids is ok, but extended family?

Choice to leave family and come here, what right does that give to an immigrant to bring extended family? - addressed to Church audiences as mentioned in his speech...

Current system of chain mig. - immigrant brings spouse, kids, brothers/ sisters, aging parents, etc, etc. - too many[!]

Does new bill - 'get us there?' - Adopts point system. Right direction to go.
After reading current bill, he is disappointed. What happens 2008? Skill-based immigration will remain capped. 140,000 until 2012. Of 140k - some carved out for TWs, etc.

Is a step in bill to reduce CM, by appears immediately in 2 yrs, become part of back-log applicant - timing of applications/queue of applicants...
free up some numbers. [? - PhE]

Bill does attempt to do that - takes a lot of time. 8 years applied to backlog. Typical newcomer brings 2.1 people with them.

Actual movement to merit-based system won't take effect until 8 years out.

I'm worried about what will happen in 8 years...disappointed it won't take effect until 8 yrs. I can't buy this as a legit compromise - I don't like it.
Why wait?

Another thing - in Canada - 60% merit-based, cap on US method under bill LIMITED to 40%. Per Kennedy, more typical would be 30%.

Also, skewed toward TWs - 6 pts for adult sons/daughters, + other points for other family members. These family get preference over others with higher skills.

High demand occupations - perm track to citizenship - we should focus here. Now, perm track favors low-skilled occupations. Undermines merit-based approach. We're not getting there on the point-based system.

Why is the point system important in long-run?

Referred to LaRaza as "An extremist, left-wing organization"

It's about time. Who had the guts said that?

Rob Rector of Heritage Found., noted problem of net drain on US economy by low-skilled immigrants. Yesterday fixed at approx. $19k/yr. (per low-skilled immigrant) [Author's note - Rector did not distinguish between legal and illegal 'low-skilled immigrants'; PhE]

Over lifetime, focus on next 10 yrs, or lifetime - households would extract 2.3 trillion USD from economy. Why?

People w/education, language, higher education - these people do very well here - even if have just 2yrs college. Reach a net benefit at about this level.

Business employers don't pickup that 'tab' - US taxpayer does.

Session yields to Martinez (R-FL)..


Martinez... speaks:

Last year, you pointed out chain migration problem -

as people were requiring PR status, people would bring many family members... (exponential problem).

We believe that this bill ends chain migration problem. Now, we have corrected and reversed problem. We believe it is the right thing to do, to allow those already here to bring their families in later.

Thanks Sessions for work on last year's bill.

Even though we don't have printed form of bill - we need actual bill for text.


Sessions... Thank you for that, but, you were one of the folks that helped...
your leadership was pivotal in craft the compromise. My concern is the backlog we delay full implementation of merit system for about 8 yrs.
Kennedy didn't want to do this at all. I thank you for your leadership...

Sen from FL is an immigrant from Cuba, and a member of Congress, etc - I'm proud,...etc.

So, as I understand CM matter, it does end CM - but does allow 40,000 parents (elderly) each year. ...Under the pretense of family reunification.

Cites example - young man from Honduras, language+college+good grades, etc.

Zero-sum gain - not an easy call. Who do we let in? Allowing one person, denies someone else - that might be better skilled.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Referred to LaRaza as "An extremist, left-wing organization"

It's about time. Who had the guts said that?

YES! I was just about to ask PHRED the same thing........WHO?

Do you remember Phred?

Sessions is wrapping up - Final notes...

Another priniciple from PP presentation:

Legal status to illegals under new Visa Z - 'no special path to c-ship' was supposed to be assumption; but actual plan is they get special consideration.

Clearly creates system whereby illegals are treated significantly better than those already trying to come here legally.

Runs counter to defined principles. It is a form of 'amnesty' - whatever amnesty means. Allows someone that is an IA to remain here.

He concluded: if someone is illegal, and we haven't enforced law, then are we going to allow them to stay? We should not provide every single benefit [to illegals PhE] that we provide to those that have chosen to come legally.

CITES 1986 QUOTE FROM FATBOY: 'Never again will we provide another amnesty'....

IAs should not be given citizenship - rewarding those that committed illegal act. It is consistent with 1986 law and language, should not provide rewards for lawbreaking. My personal opinion.

Re: moving toward c-ship. 5 diff methods under bill.

1. Border jumpers 2004-2007, eligible for amnesty. Even those here just 5 mos. (great example, avoided BP, NG, jumped border - bad policy - rewards recent law-breaking even under current debate).

2.

I won't go any further, I see my time is expired.

Asks colleauges to consider bill - no don't need to pass bills with flaws in them.

Talk about bill later, yields the floor.

Casey : senate in recess for lunch. (until 2:15pm ET)

<< End Segment>>

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Referred to LaRaza as "An extremist, left-wing organization"

It's about time. Who had the guts said that?

Sen. Sessions!

A couple of follow-up notes here...


1. I just try to transcribe on-the-fly, so some sections are reworded slightly.

The quote from Sessions re: LaRaza is 'as he spoke it' - exactly.

2. I reserve the right to do follow-up edits to clean up, or enhance parts of the transcription above. I know it's not perfect, but I am not a full-fledged transcriptionist - I just try to catch the main points for us to have a real-time record and provide the info that can join along online or via the tube.



Deliberations to resume at 2:15pm ET (11:15am, PT) - roughly 1.5 hour from now. I should be able to continue monitoring, and transcribing - no guarantees though...