home

The New Immigration Bill


I just got my hands on the 326 page compromise immigration bill. Here's a link (pdf.) Dated May 18, it's called The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

It's not acceptable.

The New York Times gets it right in an editorial today:

It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders.

Debate is scheduled to begin Monday afternoon on the bill. How can debate begin on a 326 page bill when the first many Senators will have a chance to look at it is Monday morning.

This needs to be tabled until everyone has had a full chance to digest it and kick out the worst provisions. Otherwise it will be like the Patriot Act, passed in haste and repented for years to come.

< Chicago Sun-Times Op Ed: Dems Letting The Country Down On Iraq | Here Come the Detention Camps: Immigration Legislation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My position is (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:06:29 AM EST
    we need to stop the criminal sanctions and detention for violating civil laws and we need to protect the workers who migrate here.  I don't care whether they are here with valid visas or not. Once here, they should receive the same rights as the rest of us have.


    link to draft bill (none / 0) (#1)
    by selise on Sun May 20, 2007 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    this morning pach at fdl gave me this link to the draft bill (warning pdf).

    an aide in senator kennedy's office told me the office language will be submitted to thomas on monday.

    hoping the actual language will be studied by the blogosphere... i hate the non-transparency of this process.

    Thanks, Selise (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2007 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    I just updated the post with the link. It's the same document I received by e-mail.

    Parent
    even better... (none / 0) (#3)
    by selise on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:05:10 PM EST
    just got this link via email... and it's even better - allows linking to individual pages (thanks nz bear!):

    Immigration Bill: Online and Awaiting Your Comments

    jeralyn - thanks so much for your analysis.

    Parent

    That's good. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:14:37 PM EST
    Thanks, selise. That is even better than the clunky PDF I've been using.

    Parent
    sorry... (none / 0) (#4)
    by selise on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    "office" should be "official"

    Parent
    Now if the (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    NYT is saying it is the nation's duty to welcome legal immigrants, the ones who have played by the rules, then I agree with them.  
    If they left the term illegal off by mistake, or on purpose then I have to disagree with them.  
    I would add that amnesty would be one of the provisions to be kicked out.

    Immigration Bill DOA? (none / 0) (#6)
    by JSN on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    Why do they call it a compromise it looks like they ground up poison pills and mixed it with gin? The NYT got it right this time.

    "not acceptable" (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    What exactly is acceptable short of wide open borders, since this branch of the left seems opposed to deportations, etc.?  
    Hey, isn't it the rich who benefit by cheap labor and the blacks who are getting marginalized anyway?  Is this really a left-wing position?

    not mine... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by selise on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    my left wing position is that we fix our messed up trade policies that create these problems.

    here's a simplified example. the usa floods mexico with subsidised grain (thank you nafta). over a million small mexican farmers can no longer compete, so they leave their land to go to border manufacturing plants (basically slave labor). then the usa's trade policy with china makes it more economical to move the border manufacturing to china leaving over a million mexicans who can no longer even feed their families by subsistance farming.

    immigration legislation is addressing the symptom - not the problem.

    but neither Rs nor Ds want to address (or even talk about) the problems with our trade policies.

    look! over there! an illegal immigrant! but whatever you do - don't look at our  trade policies.

    Parent

    Contains substainally large increase in (none / 0) (#9)
    by dkmich on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    H-1B visas, too.  More insourcing of high tech jobs to low wage imports.   From what I hear, WTO is in control of this.  

    Merit-based system (none / 0) (#11)
    by wquine on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:40:52 PM EST
    The new merit-based point system for admitting new immigrants begins on Sec 502 (pg 240)

    It appears like it is designed to replace all family petitions (take a look at the point-allocations, you get 6 points for being an immediate relative of a USC).  Also it is heavily weighted towards those with higher education.  And, of course there is a lot of language designed to allow USCIS mess up with no consequences, see Sec.502(b)(1) subsections (E) and (F).

    I was not sure about this points system when it was first mentioned and looking at the weighting and its obvious ambition to replace the current family method, I like it even less.