Rights Advocates See Tough, Long Fight Over Immigration
New America Media, News Report, Rene Ciria-Cruz, with reporting by Wendy Rockett, Posted: Nov 23, 2005
Traducción al español
SAN FRANCISCO – Debate over immigration, while currently heating up, may take a decade to resolve. Most officials today view immigration policy mainly through a national security lens.
These are just some insights from two top immigrant rights advocates who recently gave ethnic media journalists a special briefing on the immigration debate in the nation's capital.
"Talk radio hosts and politicians say most Americans are anti-immigration. That's not true. Americans are divided on whether immigration is good for the country," said Frank Sharry, executive director of National Immigration Forum, a key immigration policy group based in Washington, D.C.
Sharry said his group's poll showed 12 percent of Americans want to stop immigration and 10 percent want to expand it.
"But 80 percent are undecided, with a big portion not well-informed about the issue, and while many Americans are frustrated by the immigration problem, 75 percent want to do something smart about it," Sharry added.
One big problem, said Margaret Zaknoen, is that "most policy makers are looking at immigration as a national security and enforcement matter."
Zaknoen is advocacy coordinator of the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition, an umbrella for 50 local organizations of mostly low-income, immigrant communities.
"An enforcement-only policy won't work," said Sharry. "The biggest increase in enforcement resulted in the biggest increase in illegal immigration in the last 20 years. Without a path to legalization for the 11 million undocumented, no policy will work," he added.
The two spoke before Asian and Latino reporters in an ethnic media briefing hosted by New California Media.
Both Zaknoen and Sharry concurred that there was an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Sharry believes, however, that it has settled back to a pre-Sept. 11 level.
"Candidates who play the anti-immigrant card in next year's Congressional elections may be in for a rude surprise," Sharry predicted.
He said the Republicans' anti-immigrant platform in the recent Virginia gubernatorial election backfired on their losing candidate. "There's some room for optimism," he added.
Sharry notes that both the Republican and Democratic parties are divided by the issue. "I'm looking at a 3 to 10 year debate over immigration before the immigration issue gets resolved," he said.
Sharry's group supports the bipartisan Senate bill sponsored by senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). The bill calls for legalization of undocumented immigrants, a stepped up family reunification program to ease the backlog, a guest worker program that lets workers change jobs and apply for permanent residency after four years, better border control and employer verification.
"Without legalization, the undocumented won't come out of the shadows," Sharry said. "A bill that says they should go back home before being legalized won't make them come out."
Zaknoen said her coalition's constituents want permanent residency for the undocumented, faster family reunification, protection of worker rights and no expanded enforcement.
"We realize that immigration reform may fall short of these aspirations given that we're on the defensive, just trying to stop bad things from being implemented," Zaknoen said.
Her group has "reservations" about the McCain-Kennedy bill because "we don't think any guest worker program will be beneficial to the worker."
"Strengthened enforcement will only bring more repression, as it is 460 migrants have already died trying to cross the border last year," Zaknoen added.
Zaknoen's group is in favor of Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's bill in the House of Representatives. It calls for amnesty and legalization for all undocumented immigrants, no guest worker programs and increased protection and services for immigrants.
"We don't see her bill as competing with McCain-Kennedy," Zaknoen clarified, "but we see it as a way to strengthen the other bills."
Bills passed by the Senate and the House must be reconciled by a conference committee representing both floors to produce an act of Congress.
Sharry thinks "the best defense is offense."
"It is important," Sharry said, "to have a bipartisan, workable, fair and practical policy because to propose that we deport 11 million immigrants or ask them to go home is impractical and unworkable," he said.
*********
BILLS & KEY FEATURES
LEGALIZATION
Senate
McCain-Kennedy
• Undocumented residents living and working in the US by the time of introduction of the bill can apply for H5B status, pay $1,000 fine and after 6 years of working and meeting conditions of this status, may apply for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status and pay another $1,000 fine.
• Spouses and minor children may also apply for H5B status.
• Students under 21 may substitute school for work for the 6-year requirement.
• Employers who provide workers with documentation of past work history are given “amnesty” from fines for any previous violations of employer sanctions.
Cornyn-Kyl
• No legalization.
House
Sheila Jackson-Lee
• Those who have been here continuously for at least 5 years, have good moral character and no criminal offenses are eligible for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR).
• Any student who has lived in the US and will have attended school for at least 5 years may apply for legalization.
• Updates the registry to 1986.
FAMILY REUNIFICATION
Senate
McCain-Kennedy
• Visas issued to immediate relatives will no longer be deducted from the worldwide cap.
• Redistributes visas in family and employment-based categories and doubles number of employment-based visas.
• Relaxes financial requirements for sponsors.
Cornyn-Kyl
• No provision.
House
Sheila Jackson-Lee
• Doubles annual cap of family visas to 960,000 from 480,000.
• Fiancés, spouses or children of LPR’s may enter country pending resolution of petitions.
• Relaxes restrictions on widows, children born out of wedlock, orphaned children, and abandoned nieces, nephews or grandchildren.
• Eliminates affidavit of support as condition of admissibility.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT
Senate
McCain-Kennedy
• Mandates Department of Homeland Security to develop “National Strategy for Border Security.”
• Increases aerial and ground surveillance.
Cornyn-Kyl
• Expands expedited removal throughout land border.
• 10,000 new border patrol agents. 1,250 new Customs and Border Protection Officers (working at ports of entry).
• $5 billion for technology and infrastructure at border.
• Increases bond amount for immigrants from noncontiguous countries.
• Harsher consequences for visa overstays.
House
Sheila Jackson-Lee
• Will increase number of border and airport inspectors.
• Will increase enforcement against use of fraudulent documents.
WORK VISAS
Senate
McCain-Kennedy
• Creates a new H5A “essential worker” visa capped at 400,000 for the first year, indexable based upon demand, for jobs other than agricultural or high-skilled. The visas are for 3 years, renewable once. Workers must pass criminal and security background checks, pay a $500 application fee, and undergo a medical examination. Federal, state, and local labor and employment laws apply.
Cornyn-Kyl
• Establishes for “temporary guestworkers” a new W visa, machine-readable, tamper-proof, with a biometric identifier, good for two-year stays, with a maximum of three renewals. Applicants must provide fingerprints, undergo background checks and health screening.
House
House
Sheila Jackson-Lee
• Increased number of work visas.
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Jack Curtis on Oct 20, 2007 at 16:01:43 said:
All three proposals lead to the absurd result that sometime between 2040 and 2045 more than half the population will be in a "protected class".
The baby boomers SS benefits will bring deficits of
$750+ billion per year by 2040 - how much is that going to leave for the array of entitlements that the "protected classes" never cease to ask for? What will happen when they can elect people who will provide all of the benefits?
Why is it inappropriate to call this national suicide?
Jack Curtis on Oct 20, 2007 at 16:00:16 said:
All three proposals lead to the absurd result that sometime between 2040 and 2045 more than half the population will be in a "protected class".
The baby boomers SS benefits will bring deficits of
$750+ billion per year by 2040 - how much is that going to leave for the array of entitlements that the "protected classes" never cease to ask for? What will happen when they can elect people who will provide all of the benefits?
Why is it inappropriate to call this national suicide?
Joyce Park on Nov 24, 2005 at 00:34:22 said:
Americans are not anti-immigration, we are anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. There is a big difference, one group is invited into the USA, the other group are law breakers with no repect for our country, our culture or what it means to be an American.
Who and where were these polls conducted that showed 80% of Americans were undecided about the immigration problem. Every poll I have seen reads 80% of Americans want the border secured(build the fence), no guest worker program, no amnesty, no anchor babies, no free education, health care, a significent fine for employers who hire illegals and so on.
If it does take 3 to 10 years to DEBATE this, I can promise you there will be an uprising, we are sick of all the talk, talk, talk; we want action now, not in 3 to 10 years.
We American citizens will not tolerate any bill that even hints at amnesty or a guest worker program. How much clearer do we have to state to our Congress that we want deportation, a wall barrier, no anchor babies, etc??
Nothing is needed to be "fair" to law breakers. This shouldn't even be a consideration. Break the law of the land by sneaking into America and be deported immediately.
Michael Almeida on Nov 23, 2005 at 17:27:30 said:
This is something that could only come out of the Bay Area. Why don't they just say they want open borders? What's the difference? If you legalize everyone that walks right in, what's the point in waiting in line and immigrating legally? There are few politicians that are as far-left as Sheila J-Lee, and she just proves how insane she is by bringing forth such proposals. I honestly believe that the crazies who believe in this stuff truly take for granted the aspect of having a soveriegn nation that has citizenry which (for the most part) helps keep it intact.
Jack Curtis on Nov 23, 2005 at 12:12:12 said:
All three proposals lead to the absurd result that sometime between 2040 and 2045 more than half the population will be in a "protected class".
-->The baby boomers SS benefits will bring deficits of
$750+ billion per year by 2040 - how much is that going to leave for the array of entitlements that the "protected classes" never cease to ask for? What will happen when they can elect people who will provide all of the benefits?
Why is it inappropriate to call this national suicide?