The New York Times says that a bill is closer to reality than appeared just a few weeks ago. It credits both parties as coming to a compromise over to provisions insisted on by Republicans – (1) triggers, or milestones in tightening up border controls first, and (2) a touchback provision, requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country and then return.
Other news reports says that enough Senate Republicans may change from opposition to support in order to provide a basis for Republican support in the House. The Senate may move on a bill in May’ the House in July.
Here is the editorial:
Two important words to remember in the immigration debate in Congress are “triggers” and “touchback.” During last year’s ill-fated wrangling, the terms made the supporters of comprehensive reform bristle. The first refers to tough border-security benchmarks that the nation would have to meet before other parts of reform would kick in. The second refers to the requirement that illegal immigrants leave the country — even if only touching down briefly over the border — before re-entering on a legal footing.
Opponents of both concepts saw them as ways to sabotage a good bill. Triggers were seen as a way to start right away on the popular fence-building and other border-sealing measures sought by Republicans while delaying, possibly forever, the more humane elements of reform: a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and temporary visas for new workers. The touchback provision was seen as just another unnecessary hurdle for immigrants, proposed to satisfy hard-liners.
The good news is that in this year’s debate, triggers and touchback have become potential areas of compromise. It remains true that maliciously devised triggers can be too onerous, but as The Wall Street Journal reported, Democrats are now saying that they are open to well-written trigger provisions, since that could give a bill broader support among Republicans. Reassuring Americans that border security is improving is reasonable, as long as achieving the benchmarks is not the sole and ultimate aim. Republican leaders, to their credit, have backed away from the narrow, enforcement-only approach that disgraced their efforts last year.
Triggers and touchback have already been conceded by the supporters of comprehensive reform; a bill in the House, the Strive Act, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, would require immigrants to leave the country and return within a six-year span. It’s not ideal, but if a touchback provision is manageable and reassures people that illegal immigrants are indeed going to the back of the line, then it will be defensible.
The possible breaking of the stalemate was only part of the good news in recent days. The other part came in the form of research showing Americans way ahead of the hard right on immigration reform. The USA Today/Gallup poll found that 78 percent favored earned citizenship.
If passion and conviction were all it took to make good legislation, this problem would have been solved long ago. But progress on an issue this difficult requires hard compromises. With the 2008 presidential election barreling up like a semi — objects in mirror are closer than they appear — time pressures have focused people’s attention. Difficult details still need to be worked out, such as whether illegal workers will have to wait years for the current immigration backlog to clear before getting on a citizenship path, and whether family members will be excluded. But the outlines of a bipartisan deal are becoming clearer.

The Migration Policy Institute issued the other day a comparison between proposals. The Strive Act, proposed by Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in March, is the only bill being actively promoted in either the House or Senate at this time. The White House proposal is known only through a Powerpoint presentation which was leaked.
Six Republican senators are working with the White House. Four Democratic senators are putting together a Senate bill. Majority Leader Reid wants a Senate bill on the floor in the last two weeks of May.,
To see a more complete comparison of the proposals, go here. I am now going to focus on just the work-related aspects of the bills. Generally speaking, the Strive bill is more generous (or less draconian) than the White House proposals, in terms of current illegal and future legal low wage immigrants will be handled. Both push for more high tech temporary workers (H-1B visas. The White House proposal, modeled in part after Canadian and Australian systems, will place more emphasis on educational achievement of immigration applicants and less on family affiliations.
Here below are some comparisons.
New Temporary Workers. The Strive Act would create a new visa, the H-2C visa, for the entry of immigrant workers. The visa would be valid for three years and renewable for another three years. To become a permanent resident, an H-2C worker could either be sponsored by an employer or could self-petition after five years of US employment. After gaining permanent residency, the worker could petition for family reunification.
The White House proposal, in contrast, would allow workers, but not their families, to enter the United States on a new Y visa to work in a list of approved jobs. The Y visa would replace the current H-2A and H-2B visas (see sidebar).
Those in the main temporary worker program could enter for two years, then would have to return home for six months before returning for another two years. After six years in the United States, some foreign workers could be eligible for adjustment to permanent resident status through the normal channels, but they would not be able to reenter on a Y visa and could not stay in the country if a permanent visa remained pending when their Y visa expired.
H-2C (under Strive Act) — for temporary workers and their families. Capped at 400,000 initially, subject to annual adjustment.
Y (under White House plan) — for temporary workers, with separate conditions for seasonal and nonseasonal workers. Unspecified initial cap, subject to biennial adjustment.
Z (under White House plan) — for current unauthorized population, permitting indefinitely renewable, three-year periods of stay. Number set to accommodate current unauthorized population.
Seasonal workers on a Y visa could enter the United States for up to nine months before returning home for three months. Seasonal workers could renew their visas for as many years as desired.
Both the Strive Act and White House proposal would require various background checks for temporary worker applicants. However, the Strive Act would require a $500 fee, while the White House proposal would require a $1,500 fee.
For the complete analysis, I have pasted it below.

Continue reading House and White House proposals compared

The NY Times ran last week an editorial congratulating President Bush for his support of immigration reform while noting retrograde proposals by Senate Republicans. It seems this division is holding up a reform package by the Administration. Reform cannot happen without bipartisan support.
Here it is:
President Bush went to the Mexico border in Arizona on Monday and showed once again that immigration is an issue he understands. He said America suffers from a system that exploits people who come to do jobs that citizens won’t do. He said the country needed “a practical answer” that promotes an orderly flow of legal immigrants, eases pressure at the border and opens a path to citizenship for the hidden 12 million who keep our economy humming. And he urged Congress to find that answer through a “serious, civil and conclusive debate.”
It was good that Mr. Bush made these points, as he periodically does. But there was a dissonance in his speech, because it came only two weeks after he and a group of Senate Republicans circulated a list of “first principles” about immigration that amounted to a huge step backward for efforts to fix a broken system in a reasonable, humane way.
It proposed new conditions on immigrant labor so punitive and extreme that they amounted to a radical rethinking of immigration — not as an expression of the nation’s ideals and an integral source of its vitality and character, but as a strictly contractual phenomenon designed to extract cheap labor from an unwelcome underclass.
New immigrant workers and those already here would all be treated as itinerant laborers. They could renew their visas, but only by paying extortionate fees and fines. There would be a path to legal status, but one so costly and long that it is essentially a mirage: by some estimates, a family of five could pay more than $64,000 and wait up to 25 years before any member could even apply for a green card. Other families would be torn apart; new workers and those who legalize themselves would have no right to sponsor relatives to join them.
In a country that views immigrants as its lifeblood and cherishes the unity of families, the Republican talking points were remarkable for their chill of nativism and exploitation. They were also unrealistic. The hurdles would create huge impediments to hiring and keeping a stable work force, while pushing the illegal economy deeper underground.
The thrust of Mr. Bush’s speech leaves little room for a vision as crabbed and inhumane as the one he and his party have circulated. It’s hard to tell whether his plainspoken eloquence in Yuma was meant to distance himself from those earlier and benighted talking points, or whether he has simply been talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Mr. Bush should clear up the confusion. He should reaffirm the importance of family-based immigration and of an achievable path to citizenship for those willing, as he put it, “to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.”
Clarity and forcefulness from Mr. Bush are important because the prospects for a good immigration bill this year are so uncertain. The Senate plans to take up the issue next month, but there is no bill yet, and the talking-points memo shows the debate drifting to the hard right. Edward Kennedy, the Senate’s most stalwart advocate of comprehensive reform, has been left in the lurch as the Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Sam Brownback have run away from sensible positions to court hard-line voters. A decent bipartisan House bill, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, may not get the hearing it deserves.
Mr. Bush made a strong case for comprehensive reform on Monday. He should keep it up — publicly and forthrightly, as he did this week, and forget about backroom negotiations that produce harsh political manifestoes to appease hard-liners.

The Houston Chronicle reports that in late May “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intends for the Senate to kick off what’s sure to be a contentious debate over fixing the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system. The Nevada Democrat says he’s reserving the last two weeks of May to take up legislation that would have a powerful effect on employers and millions of immigrants, legal and illegal. But as that date nears, there’s still no consensus among the differing factions, no bill and no plan yet for action in committee.
“And last week’s leak of a White House immigration draft that proposed less generous treatment for illegal immigrants and future arrivals than what’s under consideration by Democrats further muddied the waters as both parties grope for an as-yet elusive compromise.”

Shusterman’s Immigration Update provides a summary of a House bill introduced on 3/22 by two pro-reform Congressman, Luis Gutierrez and Jeff Flake – H. 1645. find a copy of the bill here.
“The STRIVE Act is clearly a political compromise between those who want tougher border and interior immigration enforcement, and those who maintain that our immigration problems cannot be solved solely by increased enforcement,” writes Shusterman.
Per Schusterman:
On March 23, the STRIVE (Security Through a Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007) Act of 2007 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors.
Border: The bill would create a “virtual” fence along the border between the U.S. and Mexico; increase the number of border patrol agents and immigration inspectors at the border; allow for cooperation between the border patrol and the Department of Defense as well as the government of Mexico. The bill would increase the size of the Border Patrol between 2,000 and 2,400 each year between 2008 and 2012.
Interior Enforcement: It would increase the number of ICE agents by 1,000; increase penalties for gang violence, failure to depart, alien smuggling, drunk driving, firearms possession and sale, unauthorized employment of illegal aliens, and money laundering; and expand expedited removal.
Employment Verification: The bill would create a system for employers to electronically verify workers’ employment authorization; establish criminal penalties for employers and workers who operate outside the system; and would implement strong enforcement mechanisms. It would create significant criminal penalties for individuals who falsely attest to being authorized to work and create significant civil penalties for employers who do not comply with the new system’s requirements. It would establish serious criminal penalties, including a possible three-year prison term for employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens.
Guest Workers: It would create an “H-2C” guest worker program with an initial cap of 400,000 guest workers annually. 2,000 additional inspectors from the Department of Labor would be hired to enforce the labor standards portion of the law.
Earned Citizenship: Persons who worked in H-2C status for five years would be able to apply for conditional permanent residency and eventual citizenship. They would have to meet the following requirements: (1) show physical presence in the U.S. and evidence of employment; (2) complete criminal and security background checks; (3) pay $500 application fee; (4) meet English and civic requirements; and (5) show admissibility (certain bars to admission related to undocumented status are waived; security- and criminal-related bars may not be waived).
The bill also incorporates the DREAM Act and the AgJobs bill. It would provide for significant increases in the number of H-1B, employment and family-based immigrant visas.

Thanks to the Immigration Portal we have a copy of a Powerpoint presentation of the White House’s legisaltive plans. I am posting it now without comment. go to “tools – rotate” if you need to straigthen it out.