Join the community


Learn More: Blogs People Photos

2 Easy Steps

  1. Create an Account
  2. Add Your Profile
 
The little immigration bill that could, (but so far hasn't)

By Tiara Etheridge

President George W. Bush visited Capitol Hill Tuesday to assure the GOP that the immigration bill was not lax on illegal immigration; rather, border security was the “driving force” behind the legislation, according to Time magazine’s blog.

As the president works toward getting his key domestic legislation approved, rumors abound on the seemingly liberal stance Bush has taken on this issue. The Immigration Equality blog, accessible at http://immigrationequality.org/blog/?p=116, claims Bush’s strategy is aimed toward the changing voting demographics and gaining the support of the large and presumably influential Hispanic sector. Whereas, Newsweek columnist, Howard Fineman, said the President believes he is doing his party a favor by providing wealthy Republicans a steady stream of cheap labor.

(Link to Fineman’s article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19191564/site/newsweek/.)

But how much do we really know about this seemingly ill-fated bill?

According to a June 18 article in Newsweek, the following provisions comprised the immigration reform legislation:

Border control- 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of fence, 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 70 radar and camera towers.

Work sites- employers would be required to verify the legal status of all applicants and employees through an electronic employment-verification system, with heavy penalties for those who hire illegal aliens- up to $75,000 or jail time. (Read my blog, “Illegal immigration, and the measure that could jeopardize your job,” for more information.)

Guest workers- 200,000 workers per year could fill jobs American refuse to take. Each worker would be allowed multiple extended stays after spending an interim year abroad.

Legalization- (the most publicized measure of the bill), illegal immigrants who arrived before January 7 could work and pay fines while applying for multi-year Z visas, although they must return to their home countries to renew. After eight years, they can apply- and pay more- for permanent status.

Visas- 440,000 or less granted per year to reduce backlog of legal immigrants; future admissions based on new points system with qualifying characteristics like job skills, education, and English-speaking ability.

So why is the bill floundering in legal limbo, especially with the bipartisan measures it includes? Simply, our government is following the uncompromising paths of the ancient Roman Senate right before the reign of the Caesars. Like the ancient Roman Senate, our government leaders are too possessed by power, greed and money-setting agendas to resolve even the smallest problems, which are left to fester aside as they accumulate into cancerous growths that plague are political environment today.

With issues like illegal immigration, Social Security and the war itself, our government needs to buckle up, relinquish some of those stringent political ideologies and take one for the team. Otherwise, the “it’s my way or the highway” mentality of both parties will only result in a stagnant, downward path for American policy.

One way to look at the

One way to look at the failure of the bill is that it was not despite the many bipartisan components, but rather because of them. It crammed together so many provisions to get the support of groups with frankly contradictory preferences. Border control for conservatives, guest workers for business, legalization for liberals and the Hispanic community, and so on. However, enough Senators found enough to dislike in the other components in the bill that it overrode the parts of it they did like.

Its a little unfair to blame the failure on both parties, though. In the vote that sealed its fate, 37 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted to break the filibuster, while 38 Republicans, 11 Democrats and 1 Independent voted against it. It was primarily Republicans who kept the bill from passing.

The difficultly of finding a good compromise on this is understandable. It's not like the two sides have different solutions to one "immigration problem"; they don't even agree on what the problem is. Someone who is worried primarily about punishing those who break our immigration laws and the perceived negative influence of Spanish-speaking culture is going to have very different priorities than someone who's concerned with labor protections and the humanitarian crisis of undocumented workers.

I hope it doesn't like I'm nitpicking you too much! You're a great writer and I always like hearing your perspective. Keep up the blogging!

-Gene