HOUSE vs SENATE IMMIGRATION REFORM

We are aware of the US Senate 8-member proposed Bill before the Senate on comprehensive immigration reform, but we are now facing a new version in the US House of Representative.

All of us must keep focused on the overall goal:  to deal with the 11 million people living among us who do not enjoy any legal status, and who live in the shadows of our society--mostly neglected and abandoned.

The only legislative approach which will assist all of our objectives is one which includes all of the 11 million in the shadows.  I need to repeat often that 4.4 million of the 11 million did not walk across a border.  Rather, they arrived in a international USA airport with a Visa--and when the Visa expired, they just stayed.  That is almost half of the total number.

You and I need to emphasize to our representatives in Congress and in the US Senate that we need a comprehensive immigration reform package, and that we need it now.

I fear that other political issues now brewing strongly in Washington will somehow push comprehensive immigration reform to the side.  We can't allow that to happen.

It is not too early to contact your Congress Representative or US Senator to insist upon a full and comprehensive reform of our broken immigration system.

Yes, we can do this!!!

ORIGINAL PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

Sometimes, a simple cartoon tells the story more perfectly!!

GOOD ANALYSIS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL in the U.S. SENATE

Below is a very fine analysis of S. 744 in the U.S. Senate to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.

Sweeping Senate Bill Sets the Stage for Fundamental Overhaul of US Immigration System By Muzaffar Chishti and Faye Hipsman April 26, 2013 After months of negotiations, a bipartisan group of US senators informally called the "Gang of Eight" on April 17 introduced long-awaited legislation for a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration system. The introduction of the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) marked the opening salvo for what is bound to be a long deliberation in Congress of a bill that sets the tone for changes that reach into nearly every corner of US immigration policy. Though conditions for action on immigration reform seem more promising than they've been since 2001, supporters of comprehensive immigration reform confront a tight legislative calendar, a difficult political dynamic in the House of Representatives, and an early stumbling block precipitated by the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings. While most of public attention has been drawn to one aspect of the 844-page bill — a legalization program for many of the nation's estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants — it is clear that the legislation's architects seized an opportunity to incorporate a variety of landmark measures that, when taken together, recast some of the long-established principals of US immigration law in scope not seen since 1965. The heart of the legislation — its provisions to manage the future flow of immigration — would, over time, tilt the current legal immigration system away from its predominant emphasis on family reunification toward meeting US labor market needs. In the process, it would establish far greater flexibility for employers to access foreign workers when they are needed, for workers to move within the labor market, and for a system to determine the number of workers admitted into the country. A Greater Focus on Employment-Based Immigration According to The New York Times' analysis of the bill, the share of family-based immigration in annual admission of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) would shift from 75 to 50 percent. To that end, one of the most significant provisions is the creation of new merit-based points system, through which 120,000 to 250,000 immigrants per year would be admitted based on a list of government-established attributes: age, education, work experience, English language proficiency, employer demand, and presence of US relatives. On employment-based permanent legal immigration, there would be no caps on visas granted to individuals with extraordinary ability, outstanding researchers, multinational executives, and noncitizens with Ph.D. degrees or advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) from a US university. Furthermore, the spouses and children of employment-based immigrants would no longer be counted toward numerical caps. On the family-based side, visas for spouses and minor children of LPRs would no longer be capped. However, US citizens could no longer sponsor their siblings or their married children over the age of 31. Flexibility In another significant change, the bill would create a new legal channel for low-skilled temporary workers in non-agriculture occupations called the W-1 visa. The number of those admitted in this category would be adjusted in accordance with the labor market needs and conditions in the US economy. In its first year, 20,000 visas would be available. But in later years, the numbers could be set as high as 200,000. Workers would enter on three-year renewable visas, be able to change their employers, and eventually seek LPR status. Employers would have access to new workers if their sponsored workers leave their employment. A New Enforcement Regime S. 744 would also set in motion a far-reaching workplace enforcement measure that would impact employers of all sizes and in all occupations. Designed to prevent employment of unauthorized immigrants, within five years of enactment of the law, all US employers would be required to use a federal electronic employment eligibility verification system, most likely E-Verify. E-Verify enables employers to check whether new hires are permitted to work in the United States. Under the bill, large businesses with over 5,000 employees would be given two years to begin using the system; businesses with over 500 employees would be given three years; and all other employers would be required to use E-Verify within four years. Employers would face stiff penalties for violations of this mandate. To reduce the incidence of noncitizens overstaying their authorized period of stay (currently estimated to be 40 to 50 percent of the total unauthorized population), the bill directs DHS to implement an exit system at all air and sea ports of entry by December 2015. This would supplement the existing system to track noncitizens at their point of entry. Additionally, the bill would usher in new levels of surveillance at the southern land border, including the operation of drones 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Furthermore, the legislation authorizes $4.5 billion — and possibly as much as $6.5 billion — for increases in enforcement at the US-Mexico border for spending on additional fencing, personnel, and technology. Legalization Finally, the Senate bill would grant Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status to unauthorized immigrants who have been physically present in the United States since December 31, 2011, pass a criminal background check, and pay taxes assessed and a fine. After ten years in RPI status, these persons could gain a green card if they demonstrate a consistent employment record or pursuit of education, and learn English. Three years after LPR status, they would be eligible for citizenship. However, no adjustment from RPI to LPR status would be permitted until certain border security and interior immigration enforcement requirements have been met. In a special concession, DREAMERs (unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the country before age 16 and meet certain additional criteria) and agricultural workers would be given an expedited path to LPR status and citizenship. Other important changes in the bill include: Increase in H-1B visas (which allow US businesses to employ foreign workers in jobs requiring expertise in specialized fields) to 110,000 (with potential to be adjusted to 180,000 over time); however, large businesses (with over 50 employees) would be prohibited from having a workforce made up of over 50 percent H-1B workers. Elimination of the diversity visa program Elimination of the one-year requirement for filing asylum applications Establishment of an independent immigration agency to make periodic recommendations to Congress and the executive branch regarding adjustments to employment-based immigrant and temporary worker flows. Members of the Gang of Eight wholeheartedly endorse the bill and all indications thus far are that they intend to remain unified as it winds through the Senate. Meanwhile, proponents of immigration reform from both parties have generally welcomed it as an important first step, but Democrats have expressed concerns about the elimination of certain family-based and diversity categories.    Meanwhile, Republicans appear to be troubled about the low numbers allotted initially to the W visa program. Opponents of immigration reform have criticized the bill as an "amnesty" for lawbreakers, and an invitation to future illegal immigration. They have also criticized the border security measures as inadequate and that allow too much discretion to DHS officials. The Boston Bombings On April 15, as senators readied their bill for introduction, two bombs were set off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring over 200. The bill's momentum — fueled by constant speculation over its impending introduction — was briefly interrupted. Coverage of the attacks consumed national media, overshadowing the introduction of the legislation and prompting its sponsors to cancel a scheduled press conference out of respect for those affected by the attacks. After the revelation that the bombing suspects were two Russian-born brothers of Chechen heritage who came to the United States as minors in the early 2000s pursuant to a grant of political asylum to their father, questions were raised about possible lapses in the immigration system. Several lawmakers, including Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested that vulnerabilities exposed in the Boston attacks should be addressed before Congress turns to making broader immigration reforms. However, supporters and sponsors of the bill, both Democrats and Republicans, have taken the opposite stance, arguing that if anything, the Boston events increased the need for swift action on immigration reform. In a joint statement, two of the Gang of Eight members, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ), stated that "immigration reform will strengthen our nation's security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left." Their views gained a boost when 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin with significant support in conservative circles, said Boston has impressed the need to "fix and modernize our immigration system." Though the early focus after the bombing was on the immigration system and its possible failures, attention quickly shifted to the intelligence community after word that Russian authorities had contacted both the FBI and CIA in 2011 to express concerns that one of the bombing suspects, Tamarlan Tsarnaev, had possible ties to extremists. While the Boston attacks knocked the immigration reform debate off stride for a few days, there was a sharp contrast to the political reactions in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. After 9/11, lawmakers shelved all consideration of immigration reform for years and raced to enact strict procedures for visa issuance, tracking, and registration of foreign citizens. Because the 9/11 hijackers traveled to the United States with valid visas even though some were known to intelligence and law enforcement agencies, serious weaknesses in the immigration enforcement system were revealed, prompting Congress and the federal government to invest billions of dollars in staffing, new technology, and programs to make the system dramatically more effective. Legislative Timeline Beyond any implications resulting from the Boston bombing, the efforts for immigration reform in Congress also face a race against the clock. After several missed deadlines on its introduction, the Senate bill is finally gearing up for action. Hearings began in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 19, and the committee is expected to begin considering amendments to the the bill on May 9 and report it out for a vote in the full Senate in June. President Obama, who has been seeking to keep the pressure on Congress to act, has demanded that the legislation reach his desk by the end of September. With a limited number of working legislative weeks left in both the Senate and the House before Congress' month-long recess in August, the clock is ticking for legislation to clear both legislative chambers. In the House, there are reports that a bipartisan "secret gang" of members is drafting a broad reform bill but introduction of comprehensive legislation does not appear to be imminent. However, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) has indicated a preference for a piece-meal approach to legislation, and stated on April 25 that the committee will begin introducing individual proposals, beginning with a guestworker program and an employment verification system, within the week. It is unclear whether the two paths can find a common ground. Furthermore, while House supporters of immigration reform can be found on both sides of the aisle, the issue faces powerful opposition from parts of the GOP. Many conservative House members represent districts with little immigrant constituency and face the threat of a primary challenge if they appear to be soft on immigration. According to Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), a key member involved in immigration talks, the House bill will be "a lot tighter [and] stricter" than the Senate bill. Though for President Obama immigration reform is clearly a top priority, in Congress immigration legislation faces competition from other legislative priorities. Pressure is mounting on lawmakers to reconcile appropriations bills, agree on a federal budget, act on increasing the nation's debt limit, and pass an ambitious farm bill. Still, while immigration legislation must compete with these other priorities, the momentum for its consideration is stronger and spans more fronts than it has in decades.

text continues here

IMMIGRATION REFORM: TWO APPROACHES

The approaches being taken by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are quite different, and everyone needs to know those different approaches and the consequences for our immigrant brothers and sisters.

The Senate Bill is a comprehensive approach, and it has the clear goal of dealing with all of the elements needed for genuine immigration reform.  One package deals with legal status, young people brought here as minors from other countries, temporary workers, border security, employer verification, family reunification efforts, and bringing all 11 million out from the shadows of our society.

The Senate version more closely reflects the principles which have been set forth over many years by the U.S. Bishops Conference.

We believe strongly that the best way to deal with a broken immigration system is to tackle all of the elements and to find just and reasonable solutions to the entire system.

The House approach, however, is far different.  Early indications from the House are that they would prefer to deal with each element separately, and one after another.  Such an approach becomes a piece-meal effort, leaving enormous uncertainties among our immigrants.  It is possible that such an approach could take years to complete, especially if time-line markers accompany each element.

The first comprehensive approach back in 2001, a bipartisan effort led by Senators McCain and Kennedy, and supported by President George W. Bush, would have dealt with all of the elements in a unified manner.

The current Senate Bill takes a similar approach, and I fully support this overall effort in one comprehensive package.

It has been 27 years since Congress has tried to deal with the imbalance of our immigration system, and it is important to move this forward in a meaningful way so that the dignity and rights of immigrants can be granted in one meaningful package.

Each of us needs to contact our U.S. Senator urging their backing and vote for such a comprehensive approach; similarly, we need to contact our U.S. House members and urge them to take the same approach.

A great and historic opportunity is before us, and for the sake of our hard-working immigrant families, we cannot protract this process over many years.

9/11 AND NOW 4/15

Sadly, today we added yet another tragic date to our history:  4/15

April 15, 2013 is now added to 9/11 as a "day of infamy," in that memorable phrase used by President Roosevelt when Pearly Harbor was bombed in 1941.

While facts are still sketchy, the two bombings at the Boston Marathon are surely acts of terrorism.  Someone or group chose Income Tax Day and the Boston Marathon as the occasion to kill, maime, and create havoc across a large city.

As disciples of Jesus, we lift up our prayers and support for fellow Americans and visitors who have been killed, injured, and displaced.  During this Easter Season we have our eyes fixed on our Risen Lord, and into his hands we commend all our affected brothers and sisters.

This latest act of terrorism rises up from evil.  The explosions were calculated to go off exactly as large numbers of marathon runners were nearing the finish line, and many observers and friends were gathered.

May our prayers surround our brothers and sisters with comfort and strength.

FARM WORKERS & IMMIGRATION REFORM LEGISLATION

One of the balances needed to be achieved in the coming immigration reform legislation deals with agricultural workers, or, farm workers.

There are two main challenges:

1.     Agricultural growers need employees who are experienced in the specific tasks at hand.  It is of no value to bring in thousands of temporary workers who have no skills in working on farms and ranches.  Untrained workers can not only ruin the harvest, but they can do great damage to fruit trees, certain types of plants--such as strawberries--by how they move around a field, and know how to pick the ripe fruit.

     Growers and farm worker labor organizations need to find ways to legalize the trained farm workers who are already here, and who have the experience to do the best job.  This option benefits everyone, including the consumer.

2.     Farm worker salaries and benefits are already woefully inadequate, and it is feared that importing thousands of unskilled workers for our ranches and farms will depress all farm worker salaries and benefits.  We saw that disastrous result back in the 1960s with the Bracero Program.  All farm workers suffered as lower wages and few benefits became the norm.

All of agriculture will benefit with a stable, trained, and experienced workforce.  Not with thousands of temporary workers.  But to retain these trained and experienced farm workers demands that wages, working conditions, and benefits increase over their present status.

Farm workers who are properly compensated for their experience and whose families can live in security with health insurance, workers compensation, and retirement benefits are more apt to remain working in agriculture.

When legislation is introduced into the Senate soon, we all must be alert to how farm workers, the backbone of our food supply, are treated.  Not only do undocumented farm workers need to be brought out of the shadows, but their overall remuneration and well-being must be protected as well.

SECURE BORDERS???

USA Today on April 3 had an insightful article on the herculean task of trying to secure the 1,969 mile long southwest border of our country.

The U.S. Border Patrol has 9 geographical sectors spanning the border.  Five of those sectors account for almost all apprehensions:

     Tucson Sector:   120,000 apprehensions     4,176 agents

     Rio Grande Valley Sector:   97,762 apprehensions     2,546 agents

     Laredo Sector:   44,872 apprehensions     1,879 agents

     San Diego Sector:   28,461 apprehensions     2,623 agents

     El Centro Sector:   23,916 apprehensions     1,168 agents

We must keep in mind that the largest illegal entry into our country now is from criminal elements transporting narcotics, guns, and money back and forth to Mexico.  Human traffickers would be next.  People looking for work in the USA account for a small trickle compared to past years.

Since the bad guys are our real target, then we should place our focus on the criminal elements and deploy more Border Patrol agents in those five Sectors with the highest traffic.  These five Sectors employ 12,600 agents.  If we are really serious about securing our southern border, then it is reasonable to expect that the number of agents must be increased.

The big questions remain:  how many new agents would dramatically halt entry into our country?  What time-line should accompany their deployment?  How does one actually measure the security of a border?  Given the 1,969 mile border, it will be impossible to patrol every single mile 24/7. 

I recommend that Congress focus on the 5 sectors which demonstrate the highest traffic, and then determine how many new agents would be required to reduce illegal entries to a minimal number.  Some newer technology would also help, but the Border Patrol has shown that agents on the ground achieve the greatest success.

Will this cost more money?  Of course.  But if tighter border security, along with all the other provisions in a comprehensive immigration reform package, results in fewer undocumented people in our country over time, then any costs associated with that undocumented population will drop significantly.

I believe most Americans favor stronger border security:  both with the 4,400,000 undocumented immigrants who came here on valid Visas and never left when the Visas expired; and with the 6,600,000 undocumented immigrants living and working in the shadows of our society.

But unreasonable demands and expectations about securing a border of 1,969 miles must be set aside.  We need to do what needs to be done for border security, with the highest priority being given to the many criminal elements.