Blogs > Linked! > Topic > Immigration
Though late in the year, this article is a good competitor for the Most Slanted of 2006 award. That said, there is a modicum of news within it. But just in case you couldn't tell, the reporter really, really likes the new approach.
The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship. The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.
[Link]
But in recent days, officials at the Homeland Security Department have conceded that they lack the financing and technology to meet their deadline to have exit-monitoring systems at the 50 busiest land border crossings by next December. A vast majority of foreign visitors enter and exit by land from Mexico and Canada, and the policy shift means that officials will remain unable to track the departures.
[Link]
Congress yesterday sent the bill to build 700 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border to President Bush, who will sign it in a ceremony Thursday morning in the White House Roosevelt Room.
[Link]
Economists are less divided. In the main, they say the American engines of industry and commerce have always been fueled by a steady supply of new arrivals. Immigrants, they contend, contribute to consumer spending and, instead of replacing native workers, create jobs. "Overall, immigration has been a net gain for American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our $13-trillion economy," 500 economists wrote in an open letter to Congress on June 19.
[Link]
The legislation, which is expected to go to the House floor for a vote on Thursday, would require construction of two layers of reinforced fencing along stretches of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that are considered among the most porous parts of the border. It would also require officials of the Department of Homeland Security to establish ?operational control? over all American land and sea borders by using Border Patrol agents, fencing, satellites, cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles.
[Link]
So true. And keep in mind today's NY Times story, headlined "Immigration Movement Struggles to Regain Momentum Built in Spring Marches." One could be forgiven for concluding (erroneously) that immigration reform has, you know, lost momentum.
Not So Fast: Captain Ed notes that the NYT's lead front-page story of Tuesday, reporting "G.O.P. Sets Aside Work on Immigration" turns out to have been a bit off. Work may have stopped on the "comprehensive" Senate-style bill, but only in the NYT's world is the Senate bill synonymous with immigration reform.
[Link]
And note this tidbit:
Though no issue is more important for Republicans to "get right" than immigration reform, he said, the skyrocketing costs of Social Security and other federal entitlement costs are a "tsunami that's racing right at us." "If I'm around in a leadership role come January, we're going to get serious about it," Mr. Boehner said... "Politicians always start by talking about solutions to a problem that most people don't know is a problem," Mr. Boehner said. "That's what got the president in trouble on Social Security. More time should have been spent laying out the problem."
[Link]
The announcement was the clearest sign yet that House Republicans have largely given up on passing a broad rewrite of the nation's immigration laws this year. They believe that their get-tough approach -- including building a wall along the border with Mexico and deporting millions of illegal immigrants -- is far more popular with voters than the approach backed by Bush and the Senate, which would create a guest-worker program and allow many illegal immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship.
[Link]
What appears to be missing from the criticism of the Pence plan is an acknowledgement that it does put border security first. A key provision of the Pence plan puts a two-year wait on implementing a guest worker program while the border is being secured, fence and all. After that waiting period the Department of Homeland Security would be required to certify the security of the border. Essentially, this provision is identical to Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia’s amendment that failed in the Senate. That amendment was lauded by conservatives of all stripes and its defeat signaled the end of any conservative support for the Senate bill.
[Link]
David Frum assesses the Pence immigration plan and finds problems.
The plan is bad on its merits. Even if it could be made to work smoothly and without corruption and cheating, just consider this: Which illegals are most likely to take up its offer to return home, wait for a week, and collect their papers? Surely it would be those who had arrived most recently - that is, those with the strongest continuing connection to their home country (including relatives to stay with while they awaited their papers) and the fewest demands upon them to interfere with taking a week off or maybe two or maybe longer. (For who knows how long this process would really take? And what migrant would be fool enough to trust a promise of speedy action from any department of the US immigration bureaucracy, public or private?) In other words: The illegals most likely to accept Pence's offer are precisely those who would be most likely to leave the country altogether under an attrition strategy.
[Link]
Mike Pence's immigration plan
Instead, I will soon be introducing legislation, the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act. This bill is tough on border security and tough on employers who hire illegal aliens. It will include a guest worker program--but it will not include an amnesty (nor require a huge new government bureaucracy to administer the program). I believe this legislation is a strong alternative to the amnesty plan passed by the Senate; and I hope that it will serve as an attractive alternative to my colleagues in the House of Representatives.
[Link]
One of the major reasons for America's great success as the world's first "universal nation," for its astonishing and unmatched capacity for assimilating immigrants, has been that an automatic part of acculturation was the acquisition of English. And yet during the great immigration debate now raging in Congress, the people's representatives cannot make up their minds whether the current dominance of English should be declared a national asset, worthy of enshrinement in law.
[Link]
Robert Rector responds to Alan Reynolds critique of his estimates of immigration under the Senate bill.
Facts can be uncomfortable things -- when you're trying to justify legislation that would vastly increase legal immigration.
[Link]
Human Events asks legislators what they think about the Senate bill. The results are hilarious--and stunning.
Lugar's admission--made in response to a question about the Heritage report--is characteristic of the combined negligence and arrogance of those who voted for the bill. They have no idea what its consequences would be. They don'€™t want to know. And they won'™t seriously examine the sort of reasoned analysis done by the Heritage Foundation.
[Link]
The Washington Times reports on the latest wrinkle in the battle over illegal immigration: the Senate's comprehensive "reform" bill may be unconstitutional. The argument is simple. The Constitution says that all revenue bills must originate in the House, and the Senate bill provides for the partial payment of back taxes by illegals, a provision that supporters say would raise billions of dollars. There is no counterpart in the legislation that passed the House.
[Link]
This page:  All: [?]
This weblog is licensed under a Creative
Commons License.
Disclaimer: A link is a link, not an endorsement.
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting
the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder
the passage of any bill before Congress.
|
