Potential good news, Senate bill to be introduced

W

wantmygcnow

Volunteer Moderator
Not to get everyone's hopes up but the Senate is planning to debate the immigration bill in March & discuss in April. Possibly passing it before memorial day weekend.

The things that matter to us are:

1)4 year citizenship law
2)LPR Spouse being treated as U.S Citizen spouse
3)V visa which will allow for LPR spouses to live & work in U.S while waiting for their visas to become available

Senate illegals bill near complete
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 22, 2007


Senators and lobbyists are putting the final touches on a comprehensive immigration-reform bill that includes an easier citizenship path for illegal aliens and weaker enforcement provisions than were in the highly criticized legislation that the Senate approved last year.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who ardently supports citizenship rights for illegals, will introduce the bill as early as next week, according to Senate sources knowledgeable about the negotiations. If the Senate Judiciary Committee can make quick work of the bill, it could be ready for floor action in April.
Mr. Kennedy drafted this year's bill with help from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and outside lobbyists. Mr. McCain and the outside groups share Mr. Kennedy's support for increased immigration and leniency for illegals already in the country.
Among the most active participants have been the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both groups support giving current illegals a path to citizenship and increasing the flow of foreign workers into the country.
"It's good for the country," EWIC immigration lawyer Laura Reiff said of Mr. Kennedy's bill.
In particular, EWIC and the chamber have taken a leading role in drafting the section of the bill dealing with work-site enforcement, Senate staffers say. Lobbyists in both organizations have shuttled around Capitol Hill drafts of those provisions, which are supposed to impose sanctions on businesses that hire illegal aliens, according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Times.
"That's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," one Senate lawyer said about the pro-business chamber's involvement in drafting the punishment of employers.
One of those e-mails obtained by The Times invited Democratic immigration staffers to a briefing in early January with "key stakeholders" to discuss workplace-enforcement provisions. The invitation listed six such "stakeholders," including the chamber and EWIC. The other groups attending the meeting, according to the e-mail, were the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union.
Not included in that meeting or any of the early meetings, according to several Senate aides, were key Republican senators or their staff who crossed the aisle last year to support "comprehensive" immigration reform that most Republicans considered a form of amnesty.
"We have been held out of any discussions," said Sen. Sam Brownback, one of those who supported last year's major immigration bill. "Our staffs have asked to be involved, but they were kept out."
Even Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who as chairman of the Judiciary Committee last year ushered the immigration bill through the Senate, has been left out of the process of drafting the bill.
Mr. Specter said yesterday that he and Mr. Kennedy have discussed the need to get a bill done this year but not any details. Mr. Specter has twice complained to Mr. Kennedy, most recently at a meeting last week, that the Republican senator's staff had been left out of negotiations.
"I raised the issue again, and a Kennedy staffer said there was nothing in writing" as legislation, he said. "Neither my staff nor I have seen any draft."
Last week, aides and Republicans said, Mr. Specter, Mr. Brownback and others were invited to a meeting where they got their first briefing on the nearly completed bill. Other Republicans invited included Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida.
Laura Capps, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kennedy, said he has been working with "many senators and members of Congress to draft the new bill."
"The bipartisan coalition behind the bill remains strong and intact."
The one Republican who all agree has been part of the negotiations from the start is Mr. McCain, who is running for his party's presidential nomination. This worries Republicans who say that Mr. McCain is the last Republican they want representing their interests in negotiations with Mr. Kennedy over immigration legislation.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Kennedy have long embraced the same goal of giving illegal aliens a direct path to U.S. citizenship despite having broken laws to get here in the first place. Both men also denounce the view held by most Republicans that the federal government should first secure the border with Mexico and begin enforcing current laws before addressing other immigration issues such as what to do with the more than 10 million to 12 million aliens already here.
Who has been in and out of negotiations this year signals to Republicans that Mr. Kennedy will introduce a bill that more resembles the original McCain-Kennedy bill than the compromise that was ultimately approved last year.
As much as conservatives dislike last year's compromise bill, they consider it some improvement over the original bill because it lowered the number of new foreign workers permitted into the country each year and slightly narrowed the pool of illegals who would be granted "amnesty."
"If it's back to the old version without the changes we made last year, I don't think I could support that," Mr. Brownback said.
Ms. Capps said she expects Mr. Kennedy to introduce his bill "in the next few weeks."
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is "committed to getting something done this year," his spokesman said.
 
Anxious

I can't wait for this bill to pass not only for the obvious reason that I can apply for my citizenship a year ahead but mainly I'm pleased that it will unite so many LPR with their families. This time I'm really hopeful that this bill will go through. Bush has mentioned it so many times in his address to the nation and many other occasions and requested Senate to get this bill to his table for him to sign it. Right now Bush need a boost in his rating and this just might do the trick to some degree.
 
It will pass this year - and probably by late summer. How do I know this? Well because I'm "lucky" that way! Some would say unlucky... :) I waited for this last year because I would have been eligible by Nov. 2006 if the 4-year provision had passed. This year, I won't benefit from the 1 year reduction but will probably get an extra month on top of my 90 day allowance (again my luck)! HA!

I am eager to see about the family reunification piece however, as it would be great to have my wife apply for her GC without waiting for me to become a citizen. We have an approved I-130 that is collecting dust here. Even if they double the numbers, she may automatically become elligible to adjust- so I am very excited about this bill.

Of course, I am happy for everyone here who can apply 3 years after getting their approval - rather than 4 years.
 
Punjabi_Munda said:
I can't wait for this bill to pass not only for the obvious reason that I can apply for my citizenship a year ahead but mainly I'm pleased that it will unite so many LPR with their families. This time I'm really hopeful that this bill will go through. Bush has mentioned it so many times in his address to the nation and many other occasions and requested Senate to get this bill to his table for him to sign it. Right now Bush need a boost in his rating and this just might do the trick to some degree.
Click to expand...

Pm,

Unfortunately, congress doesn't like legal immigrants so I do not think they will include anything for LPR spouses. The hope is that they realize that they can't screw legal immigrants and give illegal every benefit....Hagel/Martinez bill introduced last year took in the issue of LPR spouses/kids but the final bill that passed last year in Senate DID NOT INCLUDE LPR SPOUSE/KID relief. They took it out.

Unitefamilies.org is working to get that in the bill. Our lobbyist is thinking that the congress MAY give more visas for LPR spouses/kids but remove the nuclear family visas(brother, sister of US Citizen). It really boils down to legal vs illegal aliens....Congress is going to give priority to illegal aliens rather than Legal aliens since legals are already in the "system".

The way we can fix is to hold rallies, meeting with congressmen, write letters etc. We have been doing that but maybe hold a rally in March.
 
Want: thanks for reviving hope once we give up hope on this legislation; Here are also two article that are related to the subject:

Senator Clinton Aligns With Bush on Immigration
By RUSSELL BERMAN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 21, 2007

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


A D V E R T I S E M E N T

MIAMI — As Senator Clinton prepares to face off with many of her Democratic rivals today, she aligned herself directly with President Bush on the issue of immigration, using a campaign stop in South Florida to highlight a rare point of agreement with an administration that she criticizes at every turn.

Speaking to about 300 community leaders in an area with a large immigrant population, Mrs. Clinton staked out a centrist position on the hot-button topic, saying she supported a "pathway to legalization" for the nation's 11 million to 12 million estimated undocumented immigrants, but only if they waited in line and paid fines. She described her stance as "basically" what the president has proposed.

"I think, on this issue, the president is right," Mrs. Clinton said.

Immigration is one of few areas where Mr. Bush may find common ground with the Democratic Congress, but Mrs. Clinton's frank characterization was unusual in a presidential campaign in which even Republican contenders are distancing themselves from the White House on some issues.

It comes a day before the Democrats gather in Carson City, Nev., for the first candidate forum of the 2008 race. The event could yield the sharpest distinctions yet among a crowded field of hopefuls, but the candidates are not expected to meet face to face. Instead, they will take questions individually from ABC News's George Stephanopoulos, who rose to prominence as a top adviser to President Clinton when he ran for the White House in 1992. The forum will also be missing one of the early front-runners for the nomination, Senator Obama, who will be campaigning in Iowa instead.

Iraq and health care have dominated the early Democratic race, but immigration could loom large when it comes up for debate in Congress, where five of the party's White House contenders may have to cast votes. Another candidate, Governor Richardson of New Mexico — a border state — supports a guest-worker program but staunchly opposes the construction of a physical fence.Continued from page 1 of 2]

Mrs. Clinton did not mention the fence issue yesterday. She has said she supports a wall "in certain areas," but she made clear that tougher enforcement of current immigration laws was a top priority. While she scoffed at the suggestion of deporting all illegal immigrants, she had strong words for those who break the law. "The ones who are criminals, let's deport them. If they're criminals, let's move them back to where they came from," Mrs. Clinton said, drawing applause from the crowd.

She called for stricter sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and she echoed Mr. Bush in saying undocumented immigrants should have to pay fines and should have a lower priority than legal residents in applying for citizenship, even if it takes "10 to 15 years." Mr. Obama has also stood with the president on immigration, championing legislation that passed the Senate with Mr. Bush's support but that stalled in the House.

While she spoke extensively about immigration yesterday, Mrs. Clinton did not address one of Miami's most politically sensitive issues: American-Cuban relations. The next president is likely to be the first since Dwight Eisenhower to take office without Fidel Castro in power. The Cuban leader is seriously ill, and American officials have said he could die within months, although the Cuban government has disputed that assessment. Mrs. Clinton's husband drew heated criticism for his handling of the case of Elian Gonzalez, a young boy who reached America after his mother and 10 others died trying to flea Cuba on a small boat in 1999. After a highly publicized dispute, federal immigration officials seized Elian from his relatives at gunpoint in Miami and ordered him returned to his father in Cuba.

In her first campaign trip to Florida, the former first lady instead focused on courting black voters, as she did in a swing through South Carolina on Monday. After holding a fund-raiser in Tampa, she flew to Miami, where she appeared at a community center in Liberty City, a predominantly black neighborhood. She was introduced by Rep. Kendrick Meek and his mother, Carrie Meek, whom he replaced in Congress.

After hearing Mrs. Clinton speak on a range of issues in addition to immigration, several audience members said they came away impressed.

"She knows how to work a room," the executive director of the Miami-Dade Community Relations Board, Larry Capp, said. Then he added, referring to President Clinton: "I guess she learns from the best."

The praise was not universal, however. A board member of a local Jewish organization, Tobi Ash, said that while Mrs. Clinton appeared "practiced and studied," she gave "a lot of pat answers to a lot of difficult questions."

This article is different from the above one:
Senate hearing to push Bush on immigration
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2007


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy will hold a hearing next week that he hopes will get the Bush administration to confirm publicly that it wants "comprehensive immigration reform" this year.
"Chairman Leahy is looking for the Bush administration to walk the walk on comprehensive immigration reform," Tracy Schmaler, spokeswoman for the Vermont Democrat, said yesterday. "President Bush has publicly indicated his support for comprehensive reforms that would provide a realistic solution to bringing millions out of shadows, improve internal and border security and meet the pressing needs of employers for willing workers."
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will testify at the Wednesday hearing.
The White House yesterday said Mr. Bush remains committed to comprehensive reform, which many Republicans fear will contain some sort of amnesty for illegal aliens and usher millions of new foreign workers into the country.
"In his State of the Union address, the president called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders, enhance interior and work-site enforcement, create a temporary-worker program and resolve -- without amnesty or animosity -- the status of illegal immigrants already here," Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
"The president would like Congress to address immigration reform as soon as possible, as the issue is not getting any less complicated with the passage of time," he said.
Last year, Mr. Bush supported legislation that the Senate approved but was rejected by the Republican-led House. That bill offered a direct path to citizenship for most of the 12 million aliens in the country.
With Democrats now controlling both chambers and Mr. Bush sharing their views on immigration, conservatives worry about what will come of legislation this year. But Democrats have been adamant that Mr. Bush take an active role in the immigration debate so that he will share equally any criticism over the legislation.
"As the Senate begins the process of considering bipartisan legislation, Chairman Leahy believes it is important for the committee to hear from administration officials, in clear and unequivocal terms, their commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform this year," Miss Schmaler said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce a major bill sometime after next week, his office said yesterday.
Mr. Kennedy's staff has kept the administration informed on the developments of drafting the bill, according to Mr. Kennedy's office. And, after a Jan. 8 meeting at the White House on another matter, Mr. Bush pulled Mr. Kennedy aside to reiterate his support for comprehensive immigration reform this year.
Several Republicans on Capitol Hill who supported last year's comprehensive reform, however, now complain that they have been left out of negotiations. As a consequence, they and others worry that the bill is being pushed further to the left than last year's final bill.
Among those who complain of being left out of negotiations is Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican who supported last year's legislation and is running for his party's presidential nomination.
But Senate aides said yesterday that Mr. Brownback has skipped or canceled meetings at which he was invited to discuss the bill with Mr. Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and co-author of the bill.
"He's chosen not to be involved and canceled meeting after meeting," said one Senate staffer with knowledge of negotiations. "He's chosen to distance himself from a bill that he was an original co-sponsor of because of presidential politics."
 
I think it is a good idea that we all contact our senators and urge them to vite yes for this.
 
memo said:
I think it is a good idea that we all contact our senators and urge them to vite yes for this.
Click to expand...

The sticking point for most congressmen is: the trade-off between US citizens' spouses and LPR spouses and kids. Their thinking is why should non-US citizens who are LPR have the same benefit as USC? Which makes sense if you say it loud but doesn't make sense if you look at it logically...LPR is soon to be a USC, so LPR's should have more rights than an H1, L1, F1 non-immigrant visa holders who can bring their spouses without any wait time..

Here is the language of the LPR spouse bill..Best to contact ur rep and ask him/her to vote yes for Family Unity FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

LPR spouses and kids

"Immediate Relatives- Section 201(b)(2)(A) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A) (i)) is amended--

(1) in the first sentence, by inserting `or the spouses and children of aliens lawfully
admitted for permanent residence,' after `United States,';

(2) in the second sentence--

(A) by inserting `or lawful permanent resident' after `citizen' each place
that term appears; and

(B) by inserting `or lawful permanent resident's' after `citizen's'
each place that term appears;

(3) in the third sentence, by inserting `or the lawful permanent resident loses
lawful permanent resident status' after `United States citizenship' ; and

(4) by adding at the end the following: `A spouse or child, as defined in subparagraph
(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1), shall be entitled to the same status,
and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying
or following to join the spouse or parent. The same treatment shall apply to parents
of citizens of the United States being entitled to the same status, and the same
order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or
following to join their daughter or son.'."
 
I don't see a reference to the 4-year citizenship in the article. Am I missing something here? Also what about writing to our congressman and women asking them to support a provision that backdates the permanent residency date for asylees to the date when asylum was granted? Refugees are considered LPR's the moment they arrive in the U.S. Similar provisions should apply to asylees, don’t you think?
 
Lexi said:
I don't see a reference to the 4-year citizenship in the article. Am I missing something here? Also what about writing to our congressman and women asking them to support a provision that backdates the permanent residency date for asylees to the date when asylum was granted? Refugees are considered LPR's the moment they arrive in the U.S. Similar provisions should apply to asylees, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

An immigration bill can have multiple things in it..so no article will tell you exactly what is in it until it becomes available to the public...

If you write to congressmen about backdating asylee GCs, that will go nowhere. The best thing for us right now is the 4 year citizenship rule which may pass...Why waste time in writing to lawmakers that wont' get you anywhere?
 
yes, bill will come and go but change to Name check!!!

Is there anything in the bill to improve the name check?????

What ever they come with if your name is stuck... what is the use????

There will be another backlog because of this bill and we all get stuck again ... I bet..
 
mamamiax said:
Is there anything in the bill to improve the name check?????

What ever they come with if your name is stuck... what is the use????

There will be another backlog because of this bill and we all get stuck again ... I bet..
Click to expand...

There is already a thing called STCOOU that can get your name check faster.



STCOOU=Suing The Crap Out Of USCIS
 
Lexi said:
I don't see a reference to the 4-year citizenship in the article. Am I missing something here? Also what about writing to our congressman and women asking them to support a provision that backdates the permanent residency date for asylees to the date when asylum was granted? Refugees are considered LPR's the moment they arrive in the U.S. Similar provisions should apply to asylees, don’t you think?
Click to expand...



A newspaper article will not completely detail a complicated immigration bill.
 
Now STCOOU also don't work

wantmygcnow said:
There is already a thing called STCOOU that can get your name check faster.



STCOOU=Suing The Crap Out Of USCIS
Click to expand...


Did you read the latest rule regarding FBI name check? nothing is going to shake their butt.. only condition is if you are sure and proof that you are going to die then they can speed up the process etc bla bla bla.

So this CIR is not going to help that too... only burden the immgration system and we will be under that mountain....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top