Did you see this write up of the 'comprehensive immigration bill' expected to be introduced in the House Thurs

Question

Let your reps know what you think!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig21mar21,1,4631473.story?track=rss

What do you think?

Mexican, I think the numbers are too big, and I'm not in favor of a going forward 'guest worker program' since the entire point is to drive US wages and lifestyle down, but I will have a lot more to say when I see the bill, I'm sure.

Answer 1

It is a very SMALL start.There are too many major issues not even addressed.What happens to those who still chose to remain here illegally using up government benefits?And what about those benefits?Who is going to qualify?What about the anchor baby loophole?There are just too many unaddressed issues for it to be complete.
I have a major issue with them qualifying for in state tuition.If their earnings as a legal resident are supposed to be equal to that of an American worker,then why can't Americans also get in state tuition?I can't afford to send my own child to college,but they will still get benefits we are not entitled to.
Overall,I'm not real fond of it.

How many more millions will sneak across the border before this takes effect just to qualify?

Answer 2

I think that when I see Kennedy, "praised their bill Tuesday and said he was optimistic a Senate bill would soon follow. He said lawmakers wanted "a tough but fair bill that strikes the right balance between protecting our security, strengthening our economy, and enacting laws that uphold our humanity." - this is something most def. that needs to be checked, double checked, gone over with a FINE tooth comb.....

I will say that I DID like, "They would have to pay a $2,000 fine and back taxes, and pass background and security checks. If after six years they have learned English and civics, kept a clean record, and the head of household has left and reentered the U.S. legally, they could become legal permanent residents, a step toward citizenship." What bothers me is that there still is no real clamp down on the massive numbers that were legally to be allowed here to begin with - that just by virtue of being here and coming back again 'legal', we STILL end up with way more people than ever should be allowed LEGALLY.

Over population, mass numbers of people coming in have already driven down wages. To have them go away - only to return again isn't going to address that concern or problem.

I do not favor the view of going mostly with "smart technology". By the time someone gets to where a camera shows massive invasion of illegals - they are more than long gone. It isn't like the border is just a few miles wide.

I like the, "penalties for crimes committed by immigrants, including human smuggling, gang activity, and visa and document fraud." This is something that is way past due. Actually - if the current laws were already being enforced, it wouldn't be a problem - but that is just seeking the simple approach on my part (something that the government is trying to avoid).

Towards the bottom is something that is troubling. The, "These "new workers," as Gutierrez calls them, would be guaranteed the same wages and working conditions as Americans, and could change jobs. The visas would be good for three years, and renewable for another three years. After that, according to Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, workers would be eligible to apply for permanent residency through an employer petition or, after five years, by petitioning on their own."

With so MANY Americans out of work - where is the NEED to do this? With the number of jobs not keeping up with the population that we have now - this seems rather foolhardy.

Answer 3

I don't think I like the sound of this the way it is now. I don't trust that the borders will be truly sealed to prevent more illegals coming in. I don't believe that overstayers will be caught. I don't think a large percentage of the illegals want "legal status" as then, if they have to be paid the same as a citizen, they will have to compete with citizens and they know they will not usually get the jobs in that case. The only way they are able to compete now for the jobs is because they will do them "under the table" and/or for less than a legal employee will. Therefore, many of the illegals won't even come out of the "shadows" to even apply for this. Unless the borders are sealed and ALL immigration laws are enforced strictly and consistently against illegal immigrants as well as employers of illegals, nothing will change. More illegals will come in to work for less and the new "legal" immigrants will find themselves being undercut for jobs by the new "illegals." This is just another bandaid on the problem and trying to make us believe that it is a solution, but it really is not. They want to keep cheap labor for the corporations, but want to try to "look" to us like they are doing something about the problem. I don't trust this at all.

Edit: I really think I agree with the guy below me, RG.

Answer 4

Bottom Line. What part of we DON'T NEED comprehensive immigration reform don't they understand???. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Why are we trying to compromise?????Why are we making this a science project????

Here is the comprehensive plan:
Deport them all upon discovery.
eliminate all of the magnets like anchor babies, food stamps free medical etc etc
Declare martial law in sanctuary cities and cut off ALL federal funding.
We had a comprehensive plan in 1986 and it did not work.
I don't trust the government to hold up their end of the bargain.
Go with the original House bill...Enforcement only.
After 5 years of enforcement, then, maybe, we can talk comprehensive.

Answer 5

I'm finding it very fascinating how people are responding to this. Looks like people don't see it as amnesty, but actually as comprehensive immigration reform. I wonder how people in general feel about the "touchback" provision. Personally I think it is absurd and I wonder why some congresspersons are in favor. Do they think people will be satisfied by "they left and came back legally"?.

Answer 6

A rule of thumb is that any bill created by that traitor Ted Kennedy is a bad one. He is a disgrace to his patriotic brothers who served this country well. It would be national suicide to allow 12 to 28 million ignorant peasants who cannot speak English to become US citizens. Such a move only benefits big business who want to keep wages down and democrat politicians who want the votes of the illegals. Most of the illegals are poor and therefore are dependent on US social services to survive. These are the people who vote democrat. If this bill passes, our population will increase to 400 million by the year 2050, most of whom are poor, ignorant, third-world peasants who are not loyal to our nation.

We do not have to round up the illegal invaders and deport them. We need to reduce or eliminte the incentives for the illegals to be here, and to enforce our current laws. No sanctuary states like CA, or sanctuary cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and the biggest one L.A. should be tolerated. All cities and states must enforce our laws against illegal entry into our country. No schooling for illegal aliens, no social services, no welfare, medicaid, no food stamps, no housing assistance, no mortgages, and no credit cards. And most important no jobs for illegals. We need a law that all new hires be processed through the Social Security system, and the IRS should investigate the status of suspected illegals. We don't have to round them up you dunce! Enforce the damn laws!

Answer 7

the part about getting them to leave first and then return is going to perceived as a trick, they go out the door to find it has been locked when they try to come back. but if it works seems like USA,Canada and Mexico will be getting a boom to their hotel/motel/gas industry if Canada and Mexico allow OTM's to enter so that they may apply to return. but it seems kind of silly, you leave and let us open the door for you to come back in, so we can say you entered legally, will they also be subject to the $2,000 fine. as it is with the 245i regulation you pay a $1,000 fine so you can adjust status in u.s. why not introduce a similar regulation so that most of the money stays in USA

Answer 8

Gee.....enough major loopholes to fly that new air bus through!

Go back? For how long? It sounds like they just have to pull an overnighter.....otherwise why would the "head of the household" be the only one leaving? Who's gonna be providing for the family? Will there job be there when they return?

Obviously the virtual business is useless on the border.

Gee....let's see. 400,000 MORE LOW WAGE EARNERS PER YEAR? Are they INSANE!!!!!

I could go on but......no-way. There's way, way, way too much else that's not addressed.

Answer 9

Press "1" for English.

Answer 10

no but i read it now thanks DAR interesting that they just send back the head of household i wonder for how long and wont that set up families needing government support ? and i think it will drive more of them into hiding and the talk i get from the illegals i know say they are not going back !