Immigration Bill has been introduced, but

[faysal]

Hello Guys:

Today, an immigration bill has been introduced in the House, but it seems the media is silent about it. It seems to me that the guys who introduced it are senators with low profile and the media do not think they can push it through. What do you guys think?

[LolaLi]

Hi faysal,

Actually the bill was introduced in the House - so the submitters are Congressmen not Senators. And, in my opinion, the reason why the media has been silent about immigration in general (with an exception to Lou Dobbs) is that it is no longer newsworthy. The bill is a bi-partisan bill with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle (i.e. Rep and Dem) have co-sponsored - so there's nothing to sensationalize. I mean what is so newsworthy about a topic that has some support between the two parties? In addition, there has been this talk that an immigration bill will be passed this year, so there is nothing to use to rile up the American public. There certainly isn't an election to lose this year.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I'm certainly not far from the truth.

[Care2much]

MY opinion is there will be no immigratioin reform till next year,2008.
MAny bills will pass but it will not take effect till next year.
Oh god I wsh I was wrong.

[LolaLi]

Originally Posted by Care2much

MY opinion is there will be no immigratioin reform till next year,2008.
MAny bills will pass but it will not take effect till next year.
Oh god I wsh I was wrong.

You are absolutely correct - care2much. However, the bill pass date will be this year (2007) and the enactment date will be next year (2008). So as far as the law and politicians are concerned - the pass date is what counts. On the positive note, certain applications can be submitted - I'm sure - right after the President signs the new law. For example, the increase in the family-based Visa numbers will probably result in the State Dept. sending out thousands of letters to eligible individuals who would be able to submit I-485 applications prior to 2008. It could also be possible that portions of the bill come in effect immediately - while others will come into affect in 2008 (especially those dealing with enforcement and illegal immigrants).

Just my 2 cents.

[ma1231]

Hi Faysal & LolaLi,

How do you monitor which bills get introuduced in the House or the Senate? I tried congress.org but could not find anything. Thanks.

[John Smith 1]

Originally Posted by LolaLi

Hi faysal,

Actually the bill was introduced in the House - so the submitters are Congressmen not Senators. And, in my opinion, the reason why the media has been silent about immigration in general (with an exception to Lou Dobbs) is that it is no longer newsworthy. The bill is a bi-partisan bill with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle (i.e. Rep and Dem) have co-sponsored - so there's nothing to sensationalize. I mean what is so newsworthy about a topic that has some support between the two parties? In addition, there has been this talk that an immigration bill will be passed this year, so there is nothing to use to rile up the American public. There certainly isn't an election to lose this year.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I'm certainly not far from the truth.

thanks

[wantmygcnow]

Bill to allow permanent residents' kin to visit US

PTI | March 22, 2007 | 15:18 IST

A senior Democrat lawmaker has introduced a legislation in the US House of Representatives which will allow relatives of legal permanent residents to visit the country on a temporary visa during the pendency of their application for permanent citizenship.
"This legislation will fix a harsh provision in our current immigration system that keeps permanent resident aliens separated from their spouses and children, often for periods of several years," New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone said.

The "Spousal Reunification Act" will permit non-immigrant visitors, who are married to or are children of US green card holders residing and working in this country, to visit the US.

Currently, the relatives of legal permanent residents are not allowed to visit the US while they wait for approval of their application.

At present the families of US permanent aliens remain separated owing to the long duration for processing of the application, which is several years in some cases. "This bill would simply make it easier for family members to come to the US on a temporary basis, for events such as holidays and weddings and for those children who wish to attend school," he added.

Pallone said his legislation is necessary, because current law prejudges non-immigrant visitors who have petitioned for permanent residency. The lawmaker noted that other types of legal immigrants are able to "sponsor" or bring along family members on their visa during their time in the US.

[unsure]

Originally Posted by ma1231

Hi Faysal & LolaLi,

How do you monitor which bills get introuduced in the House or the Senate? I tried congress.org but could not find anything. Thanks.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

[thankful]

Originally Posted by John Smith 1

thanks

It is a 700 page document. I looked for the citizenship provision and could not find it. I could have missed it, however.

[Minsk]

Oh God. I hope it's in there.

[samird]

So I have been looking for keywords in http://thomas.loc.gov/ and for 'naturalization' found 28 bills in which I could not find any language that spells-out 4yrs (instead of 5) residency requirement.

Anyone else tried?

[wantmygcnow]

Originally Posted by samird

So I have been looking for keywords in http://thomas.loc.gov/ and for 'naturalization' found 28 bills in which I could not find any language that spells-out 4yrs (instead of 5) residency requirement.

Anyone else tried?

It wont be there until somoene adds it..thats why you write your senators.

[GotPR?]

Originally Posted by samird

So I have been looking for keywords in http://thomas.loc.gov/ and for 'naturalization' found 28 bills in which I could not find any language that spells-out 4yrs (instead of 5) residency requirement.

Anyone else tried?

Bill# is HR1645. Not on thomas.gov yet.

[memo]

want,
Is there a template to write to the senators to ask them to support the bill?with all the details and numbers and stuff?

[thankful]

Originally Posted by GotPR?

Bill# is HR1645. Not on thomas.gov yet.

The full text is attached--if you have the inclination read this 700 page file.

[porkman]

if the 4 year citizenship is not there, then it basically meaningless for us; though I do wish the illegal immigrants would benefit from this bill.

[masylee]

Originally Posted by thankful

The full text is attached--if you have the inclination read this 700 page file.

hi, guys. the faster citizenship for english fluency is at the page 649 part "G" at the lines 18-2 of the page 650.
So don't get sad to quick, this reform might bring some good news for us
"A lawful permanent resident of the united states who demostrates english fluency, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the secretary of homeland security, in consultation of the secretary of state, will satisfy the resident requirement under subsection (a) upon the completion of four years of continuos legal residency in the united states"
So let's cheer up and wait for the best. keep positive!

[wantmygcnow]

Originally Posted by masylee

hi, guys. the faster citizenship for english fluency is at the page 649 part "G" at the lines 18-2 of the page 650.
So don't get sad to quick, this reform might bring some good news for us
"A lawful permanent resident of the united states who demostrates english fluency, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the secretary of homeland security, in consultation of the secretary of state, will satisfy the resident requirement under subsection (a) upon the completion of four years of continuos legal residency in the united states"
So let's cheer up and wait for the best. keep positive!

Awesome job masylee. Its time to call your senators so this can be passed...Cross your fingers..

[thankful]

Originally Posted by masylee

hi, guys. the faster citizenship for english fluency is at the page 649 part "G" at the lines 18-2 of the page 650.
So don't get sad to quick, this reform might bring some good news for us
"A lawful permanent resident of the united states who demostrates english fluency, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the secretary of homeland security, in consultation of the secretary of state, will satisfy the resident requirement under subsection (a) upon the completion of four years of continuos legal residency in the united states"
So let's cheer up and wait for the best. keep positive!

Good job, Maasylee.

Want to become a discovery attorney?

[masylee]

Originally Posted by thankful

Good job, Maasylee.

Want to become a discovery attorney?

Hey! not a bad idea, that'll be my part time...............

[masylee]

Originally Posted by wantmygcnow

Awesome job masylee. Its time to call your senators so this can be passed...Cross your fingers..

Thanks. By the way i did contact my congressman office about this two days ago, he's already one of the sponsors for this immigration bill (Lincon Dias-Balart), they said also that are working hard to get more compromise from all the politics and media with this bill.

[Flashington]

Originally Posted by thankful

Good job, Maasylee.

Want to become a discovery attorney?

Thankful,

How long usually takes this bill process? When can we know if it was approved and if so, if the 4 yr provision was included in the approval?

thanks

[thankful]

Originally Posted by Flashington

Thankful,

How long usually takes this bill process? When can we know if it was approved and if so, if the 4 yr provision was included in the approval?

thanks

There is no "usual" time frame for the American legislative process. There are just too many unknown variables. The main ones are how much the Congressional leadership (and possbily the administration) really wants this to move forward and also the extent of the opposition to the bill within and without Congress. If the bill does not get acted on by the end of 2008 then it dies automatically. Remember, each House of Congress needs to separately pass the bill. Then a special panel will be set up to work out differences between the two Houses. Only after that will the bill be submitted to President Bush for approval.

[thankful]

Some news articles are not that rosy about the prospects of this bill:

Doubts Arise on Immigration Bill’s Chances
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
(The New York Times)
WASHINGTON, March 22 — House lawmakers stood before the television cameras on Thursday and hailed the introduction of a new measure to secure the border and move millions of illegal immigrants toward citizenship.

But behind the scenes, there was much more uncertainty than celebration among proponents of what would be the most substantial overhaul of immigration laws in two decades.

Three months into the new Congress, immigration legislation is hitting some unexpected roadblocks. A mix of presidential politics and unforeseen fissures between Democrats and their Republican allies has stalled movement in the Senate.

Key lawmakers in both chambers seem to be moving to the right to assuage conservatives who helped derail immigration legislation last year. Now there are doubts as to whether Congress will actually send an immigration bill to President Bush this year.

Only a few months ago, Democrats and Republicans alike were predicting that immigration legislation would move relatively smoothly — with bipartisan support — through the new Democratic-controlled Congress. Lawmakers and advocates for immigrants remain hopeful that that can still happen, but they said the political environment had changed.

“I don’t know why we were so naïve to think that things were going to go so swimmingly,” said Michele Waslin of the National Council of La Raza, an immigration advocacy group, who addressed concerns about the stalemate in the Senate. “I sincerely hope the process gets back on track very soon.”

Democratic leaders say Republican backing is critical, both to ensure passage of a bill in the Senate and to protect newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats in the House, some of whom campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.

Democrats and Republicans stood side by side at the House news conference Thursday. But the possibility of a partisan rift remains palpable, particularly in the Senate.

Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is running for president, has distanced himself from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, as Mr. McCain has faced a barrage of criticism from conservatives who oppose his support of the legalization of illegal immigrants. The two men joined forces last year to help pass the Senate bill, which would have put most of the nation’s illegal aliens on a path to citizenship.

Mr. Kennedy has suggested a plan on his own, but his Republican allies have yet to embrace it. Angered by Mr. Kennedy’s decision to exclude him and other moderates from early negotiations, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and an architect of last year’s bill, is now leading a group of Republicans in drafting a competing set of immigration principles in consultation with the White House. A Senate vote on immigration, which was expected next month, may not take place now until May or June.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said the discussions between Republican lawmakers and White House officials might result in an agreement markedly different from last year’s Senate bill.

The statement of Republican principles under consideration may eliminate a path to citizenship for guest workers and require illegal immigrants to leave the country before becoming eligible for permanent residence, measures that Mr. Cornyn acknowledged might prove toxic to some Democrats.

“It could well move in a direction that will not result in a bill,” said Mr. Cornyn, who criticized last year’s Senate bill as an amnesty for lawbreakers. “It’s a delicate negotiation, still very much a work in progress.”

Mr. Specter said he still supported last year’s Senate bill, allowing guest workers and illegal immigrants to move toward citizenship. But he, too, said the Republican consensus position might be quite different.

As to whether it would be acceptable to Senate Democrats, Mr. Specter said, “It’s too soon to say.”

The new House bill would also require the majority of illegal immigrants to leave the country before they could move toward citizenship, a requirement opposed by many employers and union leaders.

“If the process doesn’t work and it strands people outside the country, the word will get around and people will stay in a subterranean economy,” said Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

The House bill, which is sponsored by Representatives Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, and Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, would give illegal immigrants six years to leave the United States and re-enter legally.

The bill would also allow 400,000 to 600,000 foreigners to participate each year in a new temporary worker program. Both programs would include a path to citizenship and would begin after border security measures and other conditions were in place.

Despite his concerns, Mr. Johnson praised the bill as a step in the right direction. Mr. Kennedy said he hoped it would prod the Senate to “forge the right kind of compromise.” Mr. Flake agreed, saying he still hoped lawmakers would send a bill to Mr. Bush by the fall.

“The fact that we’re moving in the House will jump-start the Senate a little,” Mr. Flake said. “There’s still time.”

[thankful]

Here is another article:

March 24, 2007
Dems' Immigration Bill Face Obstacles
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:32 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats may have support from President Bush on immigration, but they face other obstacles in getting a bill through Congress.

The Democrats lack enough votes within their party and must overcome lingering Republican disdain for what some consider ''amnesty'' for some people in the U.S. illegally, as well as union opposition.

The difficulty of their predicament is showing.

The bill's Senate sponsors couldn't agree and gave up their alliance on joint legislation, while its House sponsors introduced their own version, knowing its prospects are heavily dependent on Bush.

''We need to get a bill and he needs to start twisting a few arms,'' said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Although Bush supported last year's Senate bill, he also signed a House Republican bill calling for a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border. And he did little to persuade Republicans to negotiate an immigration bill.

Originally, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., planned to introduce a sweeping immigration reform bill with their House partners, Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. an Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

McCain's enthusiasm withered as he faced a mounting challenge from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and conservatives on the presidential campaign trail unwilling to accept anything less than deportation of illegal immigrants.

In response, McCain broke with Kennedy and said he is looking at proposals that could pass, including one requiring illegal immigrants to self deport and apply for jobs in the U.S. through private employment centers set up in certain countries.

''Both parties are clear where they need to be on a bipartisan bill and a realistic bill, but the politics of getting there is not easy and the clock is running,'' said Deborah Meyers, senior policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute.

Gutierrez and Flake have gone forward with the bill they began drafting with Kennedy and McCain, and have made it the starting point for debate in the House.

They hope to lure Republicans and provide some cover for Democrats elected on tough immigration platforms with a provision requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country at some point during a six-year period and return legally.

Even so, ''there aren't enough Democrats in the House to pass comprehensive immigration reform. There aren't enough senators, Democratic senators ... to pass it,'' Gutierrez said.

On the House side, Several Democratic freshmen campaigned against so-called amnesty to help their party win control of Congress.

Among them was Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas, who won the conservative Republican district once held by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

''He would not support a bill that has a road to legal residency for illegal and undocumented workers who are already here,'' said Lampson spokesman Bobby Zafarnia.

During his recent visit to Mexico, Bush pledged to intensify his push for a comprehensive immigration bill. He said he would work to reject ''protectionist sentiments'' that are bogging down the debate, and named Kennedy as his key ally in the effort.

He dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and some White House officials to meet with a group of Republican senators on immigration over several days.

The meetings have included Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, and John Cornyn, R-Texas. Both voted against last year's Senate bill and wrote their own bill that would have required illegal immigrants to return home, even for a short period, before getting on a path to citizenship.

Cornyn and Kyl also are critical of proposals to allow future guestworkers a shot at citizenship too, another feature of last year's Senate bill.

Kennedy wants to start the Senate debate with the immigration bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year -- a bill heavily written by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Four of the 12 committee members who voted for that bill were Republicans, including another Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Democrats also are facing opposition from unions. Many AFL-CIO member unions and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are concerned that employers will choose to hire foreigners over more expensive American workers.

They want limits on work visas for foreigners, but also full labor protections that would let them join unions.

''The ideal immigration reform bill would not contain a guest worker program,'' said Yvette Pena Lopes, a Teamsters lobbyist. If one is created, the Teamsters and other unions want it to expire in three to five years, Lopes said.

Immigration bill sponsors say allowing workers to become legal permanent residents after several years of work will help protect them from exploitation by employers.

The bill is HR1645.

[Colombian PR]

Masylee:
You gave light to my life. Thank you. You are the best.com

[TortFeasor]

Hi All!

1. First of all, even if the Bill with the reduced (4 years) waiting period for citizenship is enacted to become law, note that the actual implementation of the English fluency exemption requires the adoption of regulations by the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State. Adopting agency regulations through the required rule-making process (notice, opportunity for comments, final rules enacted in the Federal Register) may add months and sometimes years to the process.

2. Even if the potential beneficiaries may be people who are just getting adjusted or were adjusted in the last two years, as the reforms are quite positive, everyone should urge their representatives to support that section of the Bill (refer to Section 663 of HR 1645 specifically, titled “Strengthening American Citizenship”) otherwise, referring to the entire Bill may not be sufficient to focus their attention.

3. On the other hand, I am not sure that the other proposed compromises make practical sense. I do not know what universe some of these bozo Congressmen and Senators are living in but tell me which undocumented person would agree to leaving the country after living and waiting for 6 years as a “conditional nonimmigrant” on top of paying penalties, application fees, taxes and presenting all kinds of ridiculous documentation. Can you imagine the “ever-efficient” INS properly handling the exodus and re-entry of 12 million folks? Please, do not make me die with laughter!!

4. Why do not they make it as simple as possible – give amnesty to all right away and call it amnesty! If the concern is that we may piss-off the right wing dickheads then so be it! Let them eat dirt and go nuts with fury and anger. Tell Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo to eat dirt and go f**k themselves (or each other if they so desire)! The Hispanic community (the main victims of the racist and xenophobic tirade) must show these idiots who did not seem to get the message from November 2006. How long are you people going to take this crap from this crowd?

5. Plus - forget about that dimwitted MoFo Bush! His *** is on fire and trying to save his skin and even relevancy due to rampant corruption, abuse of authority, violation of the Constitution and big *** fiasco in Iraq – he is not going to twist any arms of rightwing Representatives or Senators to agree to immigration reform. He needs those bozos to save him from the onslaught of investigations and inquiries that should have been done a long time ago. In the end, the showdown between Capitol Hill (under new management) and the White House may prove fatal to the Bill.

Cheerio

[comcast]

If a liberal democract like Rep Gutierrez. introduces something that restrictive I am afraid that this will not pass.

[masylee]

Originally Posted by Colombian PR

Masylee:
You gave light to my life. Thank you. You are the best.com

Thanks for the post but i just found the text, i did not introduce the bill .
Let's just wait for good news from it. I know we need to be realistic with this bill and maybe don't expect to much but at the same time i think that some of you people (not you Colombian PR) are way to negative about it, and taking conclutions before it is even debate by the goverment.
A little positive vibe doesn't hurt anybody ..........................................

[kiev]

Without Republican support there will be no immigration reform.