WT - House passes bill on border security
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
House passes bill on border security
By Stephen Dinan
December 17, 2005
The House last night passed a major border enforcement and immigration security bill after approving amendments ending the diversity visa lottery program and requiring immigration authorities to complete background checks before granting an immigration benefit.
This is huge. Ending the DV is long overdue. And why wouldn't completed background checks be required before an immigration benefit could be granted is best left for the explanations of a forensic attorney or politician.
Those who have been pushing for years for more immigration controls said the bill, which passed 239-182, is a major victory, even if it doesn't include all they had sought.
"The great thing about this is the momentum is on our side," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican. "I really feel good about the issue of adding more stuff to it because of that momentum."
On Thursday, the House passed a provision calling for nearly 700 miles of fence to be built on the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, yesterday, it passed an amendment ending the diversity visa lottery, a system that grants 50,000 green cards every year without tying it to family relationships or employment. It passed 273-148.
Why, in the name of all that his good an holy, would we want to randomly award immigration benefits to persons with no family connection to the U.S. nor a valuable and employable skill? I know what I was told in training, I'm just not sure I can explain it in a manner which does not suggest bafflement (or even contempt) for the legislative and political process which gave birth to the DV program.
Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, said the lottery makes no sense and pointed to examples of terrorists who have entered the country through the lottery.
"Don't gamble with national security," he said.
Some Democrats defended the program, with Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan saying the rest of the immigration system is geared toward employment and family reunification, which benefits large or industrialized nations and countries that already have sent a lot of immigrants. The lottery, he said, is often the only way for those from other countries to enter.
Remind me why it's a good thing, why diversity for its own sake, has become a goal unto itself. The DV program is alike to a self-licking ice-cream cone.
"The diversity visa program is a chance for many people of color from around the world to immigrate," he said.
Congress also passed an amendment requiring that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services complete background checks before granting an immigration benefit such as a green card or citizenship.
I'm not going to go into the blame game and point fingers about why one political party or another thought it was a good thing to "streamline" the immigration and naturalization process to the point where citizenship was being granted to felons. It's enough of a victory that this is now on the table.
A lot of the contentious work was done by the House Rules Committee, which blocked an amendment that would have created a foreign worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, sought by Democrats, and another amendment sought by conservatives that would have ended birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States.
This last part truly surprised me, I thought this legislative initiative was solely the brain-child of pajama-wearing web log denizens like Yours Truly.
Though they failed to secure a vote on an amendment to end birthright citizenship, Mr. Tancredo and members of his Immigration Reform Caucus forced Republican leaders to allow votes on a fence and other enforcement measures, and blocked any consideration of a guest-worker or legalization plan.
"This is a big step. It's not just a small step, especially with the amendments that have been added," he said. "I am certainly satisfied there was a good-faith effort on the part of our leadership, and I haven't been able to say that."
Page 2
Democrats said the bill is dead because the Senate will never consider it as is, and they said enforcement won't work without first legalizing the 11 million illegal aliens already here.
This is a nonsequiter and disingenuous to boot. Enforcement won't work unless it's enforced against the ELEVEN MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS ALREADY HERE.
"This bill is either an insult to our intelligence or a con on the American people," said Rep. Howard L. Berman, California Democrat.
Senators plan to begin a debate early next year on border security, interior enforcement, a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and some Republicans are worried the Senate will insist those provisions be matched up against the House enforcement bill in a conference committee.
Mr. Tancredo and Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said a House Republican leader has promised that they will not allow their border enforcement bill to come back from a conference.
But Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who wants a broad foreign worker and legalization plan, disputed that.
"I checked with each member of the current leadership and none of them made that promise," Mr. Flake said.
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, who opposes guest-worker plans, challenged House leaders to say on the House floor that they wouldn't allow a guest-worker plan, but none did.
"I think that speaks volumes," he said, adding that the Rules Committee also blocked him from offering an amendment that would have put the House on record opposing a guest-worker plan.
House passes bill on border security
By Stephen Dinan
December 17, 2005
The House last night passed a major border enforcement and immigration security bill after approving amendments ending the diversity visa lottery program and requiring immigration authorities to complete background checks before granting an immigration benefit.
This is huge. Ending the DV is long overdue. And why wouldn't completed background checks be required before an immigration benefit could be granted is best left for the explanations of a forensic attorney or politician.
Those who have been pushing for years for more immigration controls said the bill, which passed 239-182, is a major victory, even if it doesn't include all they had sought.
"The great thing about this is the momentum is on our side," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican. "I really feel good about the issue of adding more stuff to it because of that momentum."
On Thursday, the House passed a provision calling for nearly 700 miles of fence to be built on the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, yesterday, it passed an amendment ending the diversity visa lottery, a system that grants 50,000 green cards every year without tying it to family relationships or employment. It passed 273-148.
Why, in the name of all that his good an holy, would we want to randomly award immigration benefits to persons with no family connection to the U.S. nor a valuable and employable skill? I know what I was told in training, I'm just not sure I can explain it in a manner which does not suggest bafflement (or even contempt) for the legislative and political process which gave birth to the DV program.
Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, said the lottery makes no sense and pointed to examples of terrorists who have entered the country through the lottery.
"Don't gamble with national security," he said.
Some Democrats defended the program, with Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan saying the rest of the immigration system is geared toward employment and family reunification, which benefits large or industrialized nations and countries that already have sent a lot of immigrants. The lottery, he said, is often the only way for those from other countries to enter.
Remind me why it's a good thing, why diversity for its own sake, has become a goal unto itself. The DV program is alike to a self-licking ice-cream cone.
"The diversity visa program is a chance for many people of color from around the world to immigrate," he said.
Congress also passed an amendment requiring that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services complete background checks before granting an immigration benefit such as a green card or citizenship.
I'm not going to go into the blame game and point fingers about why one political party or another thought it was a good thing to "streamline" the immigration and naturalization process to the point where citizenship was being granted to felons. It's enough of a victory that this is now on the table.
A lot of the contentious work was done by the House Rules Committee, which blocked an amendment that would have created a foreign worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, sought by Democrats, and another amendment sought by conservatives that would have ended birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States.
This last part truly surprised me, I thought this legislative initiative was solely the brain-child of pajama-wearing web log denizens like Yours Truly.
Though they failed to secure a vote on an amendment to end birthright citizenship, Mr. Tancredo and members of his Immigration Reform Caucus forced Republican leaders to allow votes on a fence and other enforcement measures, and blocked any consideration of a guest-worker or legalization plan.
"This is a big step. It's not just a small step, especially with the amendments that have been added," he said. "I am certainly satisfied there was a good-faith effort on the part of our leadership, and I haven't been able to say that."
Page 2
Democrats said the bill is dead because the Senate will never consider it as is, and they said enforcement won't work without first legalizing the 11 million illegal aliens already here.
This is a nonsequiter and disingenuous to boot. Enforcement won't work unless it's enforced against the ELEVEN MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS ALREADY HERE.
"This bill is either an insult to our intelligence or a con on the American people," said Rep. Howard L. Berman, California Democrat.
Senators plan to begin a debate early next year on border security, interior enforcement, a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and some Republicans are worried the Senate will insist those provisions be matched up against the House enforcement bill in a conference committee.
Mr. Tancredo and Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said a House Republican leader has promised that they will not allow their border enforcement bill to come back from a conference.
But Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who wants a broad foreign worker and legalization plan, disputed that.
"I checked with each member of the current leadership and none of them made that promise," Mr. Flake said.
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, who opposes guest-worker plans, challenged House leaders to say on the House floor that they wouldn't allow a guest-worker plan, but none did.
"I think that speaks volumes," he said, adding that the Rules Committee also blocked him from offering an amendment that would have put the House on record opposing a guest-worker plan.
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 2:06 AM
8 Comments:
I am glad the House passed the Immigration bill, but I think more needs to be done. For one, as the grandchild of an immigrant and the husband of another, I know first-hand how LEGAL immigrants enrich this country--and how they hate ILLEGAL immigrants. Why would anyone like someone who cuts in line, or skirts the system? But it is obvious that America has opportunities that brought my family and my spouse here, and where there is such great demand, we should increase supply.
By increasing the amount of LEGAL immigrants America lets in, and streamlining the horribly corrupt and inefficient USCIS, the pressure to enter America illegally will decrease and these items just passed that work against illegals will work better.
I'm not fully read in on the DV aka "the Green Card Lottery" process and why you think it's such a bad idea. My wife is a legal immigrant (I'm a former MSG) and the wait time for her to sponsor her sister's immigration was over 10 years. Well, the sister won big in the green card lottery, immigrated legally, and she and her husband have now established a successful architectural practice in Texas. Without DV these successful, now naturalized, citizens would be still sitting in Zimbabwe, under the thumb of a ruthless dictator, watching the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly. Now, I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but surely with cases like this DV can not be all bad and could have been fixed rather than abolished?
BTW, as legal immigrants and naturalized citizens, both my wife and her sister despise illegals.
Just my opinion,
Snowflake
Both of the commenters before me avow that they dislike illegal immigrants, but neither addresses what I see as the core of the problem- that any child born on our soil, whether by an illegal alien or not, is automatically a citizen. AFAIK there is a cottage industry in Southern California creating new citizens by this method. What worked 200+ years ago may not be applicable when so many are gaming the system. My view- if both parents are citizens, then the child born here is too. If both are not- legal OR illegal- then they must gain citizenship as any other immigrant has to. Until we recognize this problem, illegals will continue to be a huge problem. My 2p
Triet: I'm descended from immigrants from various different places who came here at various different times, including through Ellis Island; I'm not against legal immigration, quite the contrary, I just wish it was done a bit more rationally and securely. Unfortunately, "streamlining" is what got us to the point where the House felt it had to specifically legislate that immigration authorities were required to complete background checks before issuing green cards or citizenship.
Snowflake: The DV system is a lottery, it's more-or-less random and an open invitation for fraud. It's intended to allow immigration from countries which have the least amount of immigrants already in the U.S., or something whacky like that. So you get people coming from places with little or no cultural affinity for the U.S., for democracy, for western values (aside from the value of public assistance and benefits).
Wouldn't it be better if instead of a DV lottery, family-based petitions and immigration could be handled more swiftly?
If you feel strongly that the U.S. should admit refugees from Zimbabwe (a perfectly reasonable opinion, IMHO), please so inform your congressional representative. Congress has made lots of specific exceptions and programs targeting deserving/needy groups in terms of opening avenues for U.S. immigration; why not one for the Zimbabweans?
Thanks for coming by and dropping off your opinion.
Jim: I think the two U.S. citizen parent requirement would be a bit much, don't you think?
Consul-at-arms: No, no. I agree that it should be done more rationally and securely. My comment on "streamlining" comes more from recent experience helping my wife. We filled out numberless forms (each with its own fee) to apply for her permanent residency. Each form wanted the same information plus a little more. I could shrink all the forms down to one or two, and xerox them, add a check for $500 and be done. It would save me time and money, and save the government time and money by not paying people to deal with all these separate forms.
I do think, however, that America can, in addition to making the process more rational and secure, increase the number of legal immigrants it takes in. Big business opposses stopping illegal immigration because it's providing low pay workers. If America could increase the number of immigrants who come here legally, it could help take pressure off employers to hire illegals.
triet: you may be right, that the IV and naturalization process is ripe for modernization. The Department moved light-years forward in terms of automated processing during Sec. Powell's tenure, but I'm not sure how up-to-date DHS automated data processing has become.
Post a Comment
<< Home