You Can’t Fix A Bad Bill By Making It Worse

Breitbart.com reported today that the Corker Amendment, added to the immigration bill to make it more palatable to those people worried about border security, actually makes the bill worse for those Americans worried about a drastic influx of instant citizens.

The article reports:

Current law states that those applying for green cards are ineligible if they are either “illegally present” at any point or overstay the terms of their work visa. Such an immigrant, in current law, would have to return to their home country and restart the immigration process. The Corker Amendment wipes away that enforcement mechanism. 

In the current draft of the Corker Amendment, any worker in the country on a legal work visa for 10 years can get a green card, even if they overstay their visa. The Corker Amendment allows immigrants to break the law in the future and still be eligible for citizenship. It absolves prospective behavior, not simply past mistakes.

The Amendment is 1,000+ pages long. Frankly, I think any law or amendment more than 50 pages should be voted down until it is put in short, easy to understand language. One aspect of the transparency we are currently lacking in our government is foot-high laws that no one reads before voting on them.

The article concludes:

Prior to the Corker Amendment, the 4.5 million immigrants outside the country on a visa waiting-list were subject to laws restricting their presence in the US. The Gang Senate bill would offer them immediate green cards, as long as they hadn’t violated current US Law. 

The language in the new Corker Amendment referenced above, however, would remove this restriction. They would become immediately eligible for a green card, even if they lived illegally in this country. The Corker Amendment wipes away any immigration enforcement. It is designed to maximize the number of individuals who qualify for citizenship. 

The Corker Amendment is an obvious attempt by the DC GOP establishment to find a path to vote for the Senate bill. It throws a lot more money at the border, but it also weakens internal enforcement and controls. The Corker Amendment actually stipulates that, in perpetuity, you can break the law, overstay your visa, and still be eligible for citizenship. 

Our immigration system is broken, Congress is attempting to break it further. We need to oppose any immigration bill that does not secure the border,  keep track of the people who are here, and do what we can do to help the people who are here illegally become citizens without slighting the people who have been waiting in line legally for years. We need a simple, well-written bill that considers both the interests of the people who want to come here and the interests of the Americans already here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why The Immigration Bill Should Not Pass

As I have previously stated, I realize that our current immigration system is broken. However, that is not an excuse to break it further. S.744, the Schumer-Rubio “comprehensive” immigration amnesty bill, would break it further.

Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller provides a ‘pocket guide’ to the problems with the bill:

“Multiple triggers”/Legalization is immediate. DHS just has to write border “plan.”  The most any “triggers” can possibly do is delay green cards and citizenship.

“90 % effectiveness”/ If not reached, triggers only toothless commission

“Pay back taxes”/ Only if already “assessed” by IRS (unlikely). Newly legalized may instead get refunds.

“Learn English”/ Only need to sign up for English class.

“Clean record”/ Allows two free misdemeanors. Additional misdemeanors (including assaults) can be waived by DHS.

No “public charge.” Must earn 125% of poverty line / They’re going to deport people who earn only 124% or less? Ha.

“Pay a fine”/ Can be waived by DHS

“Back of the line”/ Get to wait out the line while living in the U.S (unlike suckers trying to come here legally).

Border fence/ Leaves it up to DHS, which decided not to complete fence in first place

“Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy”/ Only has to be “substantially” operational–whatever that means, as defined by DHS–before green cards are issued. (Legalization has already happened, remember!)

“E-verify” employment checks/ Replaces E-Verify with new system. Requires only that this system be “implemented” ( 30%? 70%? Who knows?).  Subject to lawsuit. If still in court after 10 years, never mind!

Entry-exit system for visas/Has been required since 1996. DHS must only be “using” a system before green cards can be issued. (Using in 10% of airports? 50%? Again, who knows?)

I think Mr. Kaus pretty much covers it!

Enhanced by Zemanta