Senate immigration reform tries to be everything to everybody
The package of immigration reforms unveiled today by four GOP senators and four Democratic ones has been pitched as “comprehensive.” And it certainly is comprehensive — so all-encompassing, in fact, it seems to include everything both side wants, even the things that would seem to be mutually exclusive.
For example, the package’s first “pillar” stipulates that a revised “path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already here” is “contingent upon securing the border and combating visa overstays.” For the left, the the key bit is the “path to citizenship.” For the right, it’s “securing the border.” (I’m speaking in broad terms for both groups, obviously.) Those two goals aren’t necessarily in conflict; it depends on how you try to accomplish them.
That’s where the contradictory details come into play. The Republican senators point to the package’s “commission comprised of governors, attorneys general and community leaders living along the Southwest border” and suggest this group will not only “monitor the progress of securing our border” but decide when that progress is sufficient. The Democratic senators, meanwhile, emphasize this commission will merely “make a recommendation” to that end.
Whatever one thinks of the state of border security and its relation to acting on current illegal immigrants’ status in this country, this commission cannot at once be the “deciders” and only the advisers. They either decide or they don’t; if they don’t, someone else –so far unidentified — do the deciding. The GOP characterization and the Democratic one on this particular point cannot both be true. It matters which one is correct.
Because the right has tended to focus on a security-first approach, this point is of a crucial nature. Many conservatives worry the “border security” element will turn out to be a hollow, ineffective one. So it is of great interest to them when those who advocate looser immigration standards suggest this commission will not be all the Republican senators are making it out to be. Suggestions such as this one in a blog post by liberal blogger Greg Sargent at the Washington Post:
Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a group advocating for immigration reform … tells me that on a conference call yesterday, Democratic Senators reassured immigration advocates that this commission won’t be constructed in a way that will hold up the process for too long.
As Sharry put it, Democrats realize that they can’t “allow the commission to have a real veto” over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as “something that gives the Republicans a talking point” to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that “won’t stop people from getting citizenship.” However, Sharry added: “The details of this are going to matter hugely, and we’ll have to fight like hell on the individual provisions.”
That said, Sharry concluded: “This is a left of center framework.”
I appreciate Sharry’s (and Sargent’s) frankness about exactly how much of a fig leaf for amnesty they believe this commission to be, but they’re certainly doing no favors to the prospects this reform framework will be accepted on both sides. If they’re right that it’s just “a talking point” to give one side cover for yielding to the other, it shouldn’t be accepted.
There are some points that ought to be applauded by everyone regardless of political ideology — the automatic green card for immigrants who “received a Ph.D. or master’s degree in science, technology, engineering or math from an American university” is one. But there is enough vagueness, and enough uncertainty with President Obama’s and the House Republicans’ respective immigration proposals still to come, that the Senate package cannot be fully judged yet.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
107 comments Add your comment
R U Kidding Me?
January 28th, 2013
8:25 pm
Thomas Heyward Jr
Tin Foil Hat fits nicely I see.
Hillbilly D
January 28th, 2013
8:28 pm
We already have a visa program for agricultural workers, it’s called H-2A. Most of the people who want to employee agricultural workers don’t like it because they like hiring people for less than that.
We could learn a lot from Canada if we looked at their banking regulations. They weren’t hurt nearly as bad by the Meltdown, as some countries, because they had common sense banking rules. They didn’t have the Casino mentality of Wall Street/The Fed/Treasury.
td
January 28th, 2013
8:28 pm
Hillbilly D
January 28th, 2013
8:22 pm
My personal opinion is that Romney lost in no small part because he doesn’t connect naturally with people, he always seems a little forced.
Sort of goes back to my old theory, using examples from my lifetime, a popular President (Kennedy, Reagan, to an extent Clinton) can get away with most anything, an unpopular guy, (Carter, Nixon) can’t get away with much. There really is a double standard but that double standard exists in lots of things besides politics. (We won’t even get into how looks affects things).
And like they say if there was 24 hour cable news in the 1930’s then FDR would not have been elected President. This is also the reason I do not believe Hillary will ever be elected President. She will be 70 in 2014 and (fair or unfair) I do not think the American people will elect a old, wrinkled woman President.
Ray
January 28th, 2013
8:30 pm
Before we give amnesty to aliens, we should consider providing the same generosity of forgiveness to Americans sitting in jails and prisons for non-violent offenses.
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
8:32 pm
a popular President (Kennedy, Reagan, to an extent Clinton) can get away with most anything
You mean like you and @@ do around here??
Hillbilly D
January 28th, 2013
8:36 pm
td
I don’t think Hilary will ever be elected, either. A lot of people like her, for sure, but she also has very high negative numbers. Those are hard to overcome. Time will tell, though.
And you’re right that the 24/7 news cycle has had a big effect on things. Basically, there isn’t enough news most days, so they have to create something to air. Reminds me that back in the early days of the BBC radio, they had a 15 minute newscast and some days they would come on and say, “There is no news to report today”. Might not be a bad idea to do that again.
Personally, I think news people on TV should be sort of like Johnny Carson, in that, to this day, I have no idea what Carson’s politics were. He skewered everybody equally in his monologues. Along those lines, I think the newsreaders (which is what they really are) should keep their beliefs to themselves. I can’t think of a single one now, that I don’t know what their views are, so I view everything they all say with a jaundiced eye. I don’t like that and I don’t like all the “analysis”. Just give me the facts and I’ll figure out what it means, I don’t need somebody on TV to tell me what a speech or news item I just heard, means.
Hillbilly D
January 28th, 2013
8:37 pm
Bruno @ 8:32
When you got it, you got it.
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
8:47 pm
My goodness, isn’t this an established country with a constitution and an established legal system?
From the sound of news in Washington, we are having a picnic and just want to be sure the invitation goes to the right people. What fiddlefaddle! If they broke the law, then let them take the punishment.
My son-in-law came from South America legally. He is now a US citizen which took him almost ten years. He did it honestly because he does not believe in cheating. Why should we reward those who cheat? It is just another form of breaking the law, so call it criminal.
,
@@
January 28th, 2013
8:50 pm
Hillbilly and I got away with something?
Do tell…
td
January 28th, 2013
8:53 pm
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
8:47 pm
My wife came here legally when she was 13 from a communist country. She could not speak English and had not been to school since the 3rd grade. She graduated HS and has a college degree and is a good productive citizen. She hate illegal immigration as much as she hate communism (BTW: she thinks most Dems are communist who have not come out of the closet yet). She feels all illegals should be rounded up and escorted to the border because they broke the law to get here and she had to labor in the rice fields for 7 years before she had her chance.
@@
January 28th, 2013
8:56 pm
Several years back, unions were vehemently opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Now the leadership, at least, is on board. Not sure about the rank-and-file.
SEIU? Definitely!
@@
January 28th, 2013
8:58 pm
Those who came here legally should organize to let their voices be heard.
Hillbilly D
January 28th, 2013
9:11 pm
@@
My Daddy has been a UAW member for over 60 years. The rank and file often disagree with leadership. Actually, they probably disagree more than they agree.
In my own view, and not to speak for Daddy but his is pretty close (and so are the guys he worked with, the few still living), is that they need to stick to representing the workers and stay out of politics. Getting involved in politics is one of the biggest mistakes they ever made, in my opinion. They aligned themselves with one party, which allows that party to take them for granted and the other party to demonize them. They screwed up all the way around.
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
9:25 pm
“We’ll lay around the shanty, momma……”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6vyTM_qJAE
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
9:27 pm
td
My son-in-law came with a masters degree in science but he took all the legal steps. He doesn’t turn against anyone, even illegals, but he wonders why there are laws for some and not the same for all. That is the way it is now or seems to be.
Someone posted a piece about a “good’ immigration system in Canada and Australia .Obviously they need people but we don’t. Our unemployment is high even among those with a good education and many more are coming out of universities I think we best use our own citizens for employment before we start ‘adopting” those who come here illegally.
The USA has always been a country that could adapt itself and survive with strength. I don’t want to see that spirit lost in a maze of weakness and legal infidelity.. .
Politico
January 28th, 2013
9:38 pm
. “I don’t want to see that spirit lost in a maze of weakness and legal infidelity..”
Can it be assumed that you are for increased enforcement and fines levied against legal immigrants and US citizens who continue to hire illegals even in states that have toughened laws in the last few years?
Supply and demand……. As long as there are jobs offered to illegals, there will be illegals.
independent thinker
January 28th, 2013
9:46 pm
Bottom line- Stupid party will never approve anything that is a compromise
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
9:53 pm
Politico,
I don’t pick which laws I want to follow. I assume they are for everybody and made for a good purpose. Never did want to live in a jungle.
middle of the road
January 28th, 2013
9:57 pm
“I think we best use our own citizens for employment before we start ‘adopting” those who come here illegally. ”
The problem is that “our” people won’t do hard physical labor for minimum wage, even if they are unemployed or “starving” (can’t do that with food stamps). Why do you think employers hire the illegal aliens? They work a lot harder for a lot less. It makes “our” people look awfully lazy.
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
9:58 pm
BRUNO
Where in the world did you get that “Shanty”? That’s enough to make me jump out my chair and kick up my heels. .I didn’t though .(Didn’t want the family calling 911.)
Thanks for a little pep in the evening.
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
10:01 pm
Forever in my heart……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V54Em7nAdTI
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
10:03 pm
Where in the world did you get that “Shanty”?
That’s the same guy who had a big hit in 1971 called “Sunshine”. (Sunshine go away today….)
Politico
January 28th, 2013
10:06 pm
Dusty
So that is a yes or no?
It is no different than the failed “drug war”. All the enforcement over 40 yrs has done little to decrease demand, hence you have drugs aplenty.
If there is demand, which there still is, there will be supply (illegals).
I’m for enforcement on all fronts. Both parties have done very little, but if anyone things you can just deter the supply and it goes away, there are kidding themselves. You didn’t say that, but it is why I asked
td
January 28th, 2013
10:06 pm
independent thinker
January 28th, 2013
9:46 pm
Bottom line- Stupid party will never approve anything that is a compromise
What would a compromise look like in your book? It appears the GOP is willing to give a path to citizenship and amnesty.
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
10:09 pm
Middle of the Road,
Maybe we need a few changes:
. #1 If someone can pick up food stamps they might be able to pick fruit.
#2 If farmers pay a little more for their workers they might get a better response.
#3 If we can pay for fruit shipped from another continent we should be able to afford a little higher price on American fruit.
#4 Making a bigger profit is not an excuse for breaking the laws of the USA..
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
10:16 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiZEtZcKQUU
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
10:20 pm
Middle of the road
“It makes our people look lazy.”. I t certainly does. And it make some of our poeple look as illegal as the illegal people they hire.
To overlook such behavior also puts approval on it. Like drug use, it is not legal , healthy or good for the future. But some people do it anyway.
I believe you would be surprised at the number of people who obey the laws of the USA because they know it is the right thing to do. I still believe that because the people I know are like that.
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
10:23 pm
I’m sorry. My 10:20 was in response to POLITICO.:
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
10:25 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQVuD3jN_vc
Buzzy
January 28th, 2013
10:26 pm
We will never secure our long border with Mexico. It’s a pipe dream and a waste of tax dollars.
I support efforts at immigration reform. Give the illegals a stake in our country and something to work towards. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we can stop the flow across the border, so make it work for us.
Dusty
January 28th, 2013
10:28 pm
NoNO no !!! I was responding to MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.at 10:20.
That does it . Time for me to shut down. Enjoyed the discussion. So long….
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
10:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDBqrMM50IQ
Bruno
January 28th, 2013
10:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3BJjehjOGo
Aynie Sue
January 29th, 2013
6:13 am
“Border security” is impossible, so it’s best given lip service in passing on to the all-important topic of a citizenship path for all immigrants, legal and illegal, past and present.
The Senators are on the right track. America needs new blood, and lots of it, as we are sinking under the vacuous hegemony of corrupt, useless old white men (read Republican politicians).
Will
January 29th, 2013
7:10 am
It is a smart move by the dems and will be a win either way. A pathway to citizenship means a huge potential for more registered voters that are likely to vote for dems. It is also a very visible payback for the overwhelming support in November.
It also backs the repubs into a corner. If they do not support the legislation, it will be just another nail in the coffin as their opposition will play into the growing belief that the repubs are first and foremost, The Party of the Pale Male and there is no room for anyone else. In addition, it will drive the wedge deeper between the more radical right wing of the party (the dominant primary voter) and the more electable conservative wing of the party.
Poor ole repubs – that mean ole recently reelected President is really being mean to them! Imagine that, a politician taking advantage of winning!
Repubs, who always are civil and well mannered in voicing their disagreements with the President (”you lie”, “socialist Kenyan-born politician”) and never would dream of creating “wedge” issues to divide and conquer deserve our sympathy!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
January 29th, 2013
7:59 am
Well, if this bill is remotely like Obamacare, it will do the opposite of it’s intent, and cost Americans billions.
middle of the road
January 29th, 2013
8:00 am
@Dusty-
” #1 If someone can pick up food stamps they might be able to pick fruit. ”
Agreed.
#2 If farmers pay a little more for their workers they might get a better response.
Maybe, or maybe if they paid enough to attract Americans, no one would buy those Vidalia onions.
#3 If we can pay for fruit shipped from another continent we should be able to afford a little higher price on American fruit.
You can ship fruit a long way in exchange for 20 cents an hour versus $20 an hour.
#4 Making a bigger profit is not an excuse for breaking the laws of the USA..
I agree. The problem is that no one wants to create a method of enforcing the laws. Right now, it is not against the law to hire an illegal alien, only to “knowingly” hire one. That loophole is big enough to drive a semi through. There is not even a law requiring employers to use e-verify; it is a voluntary system. Think the carpet mills of Dalton and the chicken plants in Gainesville use it?
middle of the road
January 29th, 2013
8:04 am
I think that trying to absolutely secure our border with Mexico is a waste of time and money. Secure it as well as possible, but channel your efforts into tracking down those Visa overstayers. Also, make anyone who overstays a visa ineligible for any track to citizenship. Give them two months to report in. Then concetrate on making sure that NO employer hires anyone without proper documentation. When the jobs dry up, they will leave or not come in the first place.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
January 29th, 2013
8:06 am
“as we are sinking under the vacuous hegemony of corrupt, useless old white men (read Republican politicians).”
As both parties are represented in this particular demographic, Aynie Sue, your statement is both incorrect and partisan.
curious
January 29th, 2013
8:20 am
Aren’t there some former East German Border Police available to advise/assist us in securing our borders?
Jefferson
January 29th, 2013
9:14 am
the plan as outline will not work. as always the politicians accomplish nothing due to politics and dumb bunnies running the pie hole.
Just Saying..
January 29th, 2013
9:14 am
flip-flop (flpflp) n.
A reversal, as of a stand or position: a policy flip-flop.
GOP definition: Waell, it depends on who’s a-doing it..
southpaw
January 29th, 2013
9:16 am
Just Saying..
January 29th, 2013
9:14 am
flip-flop (flpflp) n.
A reversal, as of a stand or position: a policy flip-flop.
GOP definition: Waell, it depends on who’s a-doing it..
——————————————————————————
Democrats definition: Derisive term for “evolving”
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
January 29th, 2013
9:18 am
It would be nice of you to actually identify the GOP “flip-flop” in this particular plan, Just Saying, but that would require some knowledge of a subject you do not possess.
md
January 29th, 2013
9:40 am
“I’ve heard nothing about how this will expedite the applications of those who’ve chosen to go through the immigration process legally and have been waiting for years.”
According to Rubio, any legislation will require the “line jumpers” to enter the path to citizenship at the back of the line. Yes, they may be here already but they can not receive their citizenship until those already in line are processed…..however long that may be.
He implied that the bill will not be passed if there is anything in the legislation that gives the illegals preferential treatment for going about it the wrong way. And he also mentioned that they have to apply and MEET the visa qualifications, if they don’t then they never become legal……..
zeke
January 29th, 2013
9:50 am
Really have no major problem, except, for the path to citizenship for these felons! Yes they are felons who have invaded our country because the idiot central government did not enforce the immigration laws and the borders! If there is to be a path to citizenship, it has to be based on them leaving, applying to return on a work visa, then applying for residency, and, only than, getting in the existing line of those already doing the right thing to gain citizenship! And furthermore, we cannot continue to take in a million or more new citizens every year!!
md
January 29th, 2013
9:51 am
As for securing the border, that depends on the part in the framework that deals with “back taxes and penalties”. IF those are significant enough to make it more desirable to come in legally then the border question MAY be resolved……if they are a slap on the wrist then look for “amnesty” #3 in about 20 years……………
td
January 29th, 2013
9:57 am
md
January 29th, 2013
9:51 am
For the reasons you stated, this is the reason that this bill must change the law to anyone coming here or staying in this country without documentation since X date will be a felony and after the person has served their time then they are automatically sent back and can never come to the country again.
td
January 29th, 2013
10:10 am
Marco Rubio will be on Rush today to sell the bill. Rubio wants to be President and if he can sell this bill to Rush and follow through with what he promised then he could be the Republican nominee.
Politico
January 29th, 2013
10:19 am
md
And if employers stop hiring illegals you will see a downward trend in illegal migration.