**OFFICIAL** Illegal Immigration Reform Thread.

[BigRedChief]

You know its coming. As soon as the fiscal cliff is finished, illegal immigration is next.

Sen. Graham and Sen. Shumar have already resumed their illegal immigration talks from two years ago. Both were on the sunday shows talking about the plan. Both are seeing a possible huge bi-partisan deal is now possible based on their earlier work form two years ago.

Main points of the deal:

• Lock down the border. Spend whatever money and political will to truly stop the flow of people over our borders.
• A nationwide verification of employment. The idea is to come up with some kind of non forgeable document. A E-Verify for immigrants.
• Increase legal immigration, especially for scientists, engineers and other fields that benefit America or workers are in short supply, i.e. workers who pick our produce in the fields.
• Stiff and severe penalties for businesses that hire illegals after the "E-Verify type" system is in place.
• The Dream act is part of the total package.
• Every illegal in the country is possible allowed to stay legally in the country. The conditions are:

1. They must enter into that "E-Verify type" system.
2. They are allowed to apply for citizenship but they go to the back of the line of people that already have green cards or have already applied for citizenship.
3. They must pay a fine for entering the country illegally.
4. They are allowed to stay as long until their citizenship paperwork is finalized, as long as they commit no crimes and pay all taxes that everyone else pays. Failure to so that = immediate deportation.
5. What crime is deportable is TBD.
6. Size of the fine is TBD.

The Gang of Six bipartisan proposal.

Today a group of powerful U.S. Senators announced they have agreed to a framework on comprehensive immigration reform. The bipartisan group includes Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Michael Bennett (D-CO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John McCain (R-AZ), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). The fact that both parties have agreed to the deal gives it much better prospects for passage.

Path to Citizenship

• The bill would include a “tough, fair, and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the United States.” At the same time, the framework states that this path to citizenship would be “contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.”
• The bill would require those currently living in the United States illegally to register with the government, pass a background check, and settle their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes. Individuals with a serious criminal background or those who “pose a threat to our national security” would be ineligible and subject to deportation.
• Current restrictions keeping non-immigrants from accessing “public benefits” would also apply to those who are on the path the citizenship.
• Once they have passed the background check and paid their “debt to society”, those on “probationary legal status” will be placed at the back of the line for prospective immigrants. These probationary immigrants will then have to “pass another background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment” in order to apply for lawful permanent residency.
• Exemptions would be made for minors who did not knowingly violate U.S. immigration laws when they entered the United States and agricultural workers.

Border Security

• The Bill would increase Border Patrol efforts by “providing them with the latest technology, infrastructure, and personnel needed.” The legislation would increase the number of Border Patrol agents and the number of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, monitoring the border.
• The bill would “strengthen prohibitions against racial profiling and inappropriate use of force” by increasing the training of border patrol agents and increasing oversight.
• The bill would create an “entry-exit system” that would track whether all persons entering the United States on a temporary visa leave the country as required by law.
• The bill would create a commission of “governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and make recommendations.”

Skilled Worker Immigration

• The bill would develop a “rational legal immigration system” to reduce the backlog of visas which force families to live apart and keep specialized jobs unfilled.
• The bill would also award a green card to immigrants who receive a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or math from an American university.

Employment Verification

• The bill would implement a “fast and reliable method to confirm whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the United States.”
• The bill would place stiff fines and criminal penalties on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Low Skilled Workers

• The bill would allow “more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs, and fewer when our economy is not creating jobs.”
• Employers who want to hire lower-skilled immigrants would have to demonstrate that they could not successfully recruit an American and that the hiring of the immigrant will not displace American workers

[Bo's Pelini]

Rand Paul endorsed a path way to citizenship and thus ending his chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Rand Paul endorsed a path way to citizenship and thus ending his chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

By the most effective and virtually only way to become fluid in a second language. Would you care to know what that is?

That isn't what I asked, but what is it? Being fluid (heh) in a first language?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Donger

That isn't what I asked, but what is it? Being fluid (heh) in a first language?

Complete immersion. Lol, meant to say fluent.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Complete immersion. Lol, meant to say fluent.

Yeah, I was just having fun with you. For 100%, dreaming in that language, fluency, I'd agree with you. KCnative didn't say that, however. He said, "Learning English for some of them is impossible."

Horsehit.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yeah, I was just having fun with you. For 100%, dreaming in that language, fluency, I'd agree with you. KCnative didn't say that, however. He said, "Learning English for some of them is impossible."

Horsehit.

It's true. It only took me about three months to learn British English.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yeah, I was just having fun with you. For 100%, dreaming in that language, fluency, I'd agree with you. KCnative didn't say that, however. He said, "Learning English for some of them is impossible."

Horsehit.

You can't fix stupid.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC native

You can't fix stupid.

What percentage of these immigrants are you saying are too irredeemably stupid to learn English? 5%? 50%?

[Direckshun]

It is not even close.

A majority of Americans -- almost a filibuster-proof majority -- support a path to citizenship.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...social-issues/

Majority Supports Path to Citizenship; Greater Division on Other Social Issues

A PATH – Fifty-seven percent of Americans in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, with 39 percent opposed. That’s virtually identical to results of a similar question last asked in mid-2010, with support up from its earlier levels, as low as 49 percent in late 2007.

Debate on the issue was heightened by restrictive immigration policies enacted in Arizona in 2010 and Alabama in 2011, and, in June, when Obama moved in another direction, granting immunity from deportation to many undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children.

Hispanics accounted for 10 percent of voters in Tuesday’s presidential election, reaching double-digits for the first time, and Obama won them by 71-27 percent, improving on his 2008 margin in this group. In the exit poll, voters overall, by more than 2-1, said illegal immigrants working here should be offered a chance to apply for legal status rather than being deported.

In this survey, support for a path to citizenship peaks at 82 percent among Hispanics, 71 percent among Democrats and liberals alike and 69 percent among young adults, all key Obama groups. Support’s at 68 percent among nonwhites overall, compared with 51 percent among non-Hispanic whites. Obama lost white voters by 20 points last week, but won nonwhites — who accounted for a record 28 percent of the electorate – by 61 points. It was a record racial gap.

GAY MARRIAGE – Fifty-one percent of Americans support gay marriage, slightly more than half for the fifth time straight in ABC/Post polls since March 2011, and up sharply from its levels in similar questions earlier this decade, as low as 32 percent (of registered voters) in mid-2004.

More in this survey are “opposed” to gay marriage, 47 percent, than said in recent polls that it should be “illegal” (39 percent last May), likely because making something illegal is more punitive than opposing it personally.

While 30 states have constitutionally banned gay marriage, voters approved pro-gay marriage ballot initiatives in Maryland, Maine and Washington last week, and those in Minnesota rejected a constitutional ban on it. Obama announced his personal support for gay marriage in May, saying individual states should decide on its legality.

Last week’s exit poll found voters similarly divided, 49-46 percent, on gay marriage. Supporters favored Obama over Mitt Romney by 73-25 percent. And Obama won gay and lesbian voters, 5 percent of the electorate, by 76-22 percent, vs. 70-27 percent in 2008.

Support for gay marriage in this poll tops out at more than three in four liberals and more than six in 10 young adults and Democrats. It’s opposed by a broad 81 percent of those who describe themselves as “very conservative,” and by two-thirds of senior citizens.

MARIJUANA – Relaxing restrictions on marijuana met with mixed results on Election Day, approved by voters in Colorado, Washington and Massachusetts, rejected in Arkansas and Oregon.

Americans split by 48-50 percent in this survey on “legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.” Nonetheless that marks a new high in support in polls back to 1985, and the first time opposition has slipped to less than a majority. Support for legalizing marijuana has grown sharply from just 22 percent in 1997.

Despite increased acceptance of the idea, intensity of sentiment is tilted against relaxing marijuana restrictions: Thirty-seven percent are strongly opposed to legalization, vs. 26 percent who strongly support it.

GROUPS – There are sharp differences among generational groups, with support for each item higher among young adults than seniors. There’s also a wide 18-point difference between men and women on gay marriage, as well as racial and ethnic differences on immigration and, on marijuana, a regional gap, with support far lower in the South than elsewhere.

The division between the sexes on gay marriage is especially striking: Women are in favor by 59-38 percent, men opposed by 55-41 percent.

There also are broad divisions across partisan and ideological groups, with support for a path to citizenship, gay marriage and legalizing marijuana alike substantially higher among Democrats and liberals than among Republicans and conservatives. Independents are closer to Democrats in each case.

There, however, are some differences between Americans who call themselves “somewhat” conservative compared with those who are “very conservative”; most notably, somewhat conservatives are 23 points less apt than very conservatives to oppose gay marriage, 58 percent vs. 81 percent.

Moreover, a narrow majority of somewhat conservatives, 52 percent, support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, while 55 percent of very conservatives are opposed. That – plus the 60 percent opposition among Republicans – underscores the party’s challenges as it seeks to address its comparatively weak support among Hispanics.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Nov. 7-11, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,023 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Rand Paul endorsed a path way to citizenship and thus ending his chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

Thats what true leaders do. The majority of Americans approve with giving them a path to citizenship. A path doesn't mean immediately and they should go to the back of the line but, America is ready for this to happen. I'm positive by this time next year immigration reform will be a done deal.

Republicans need to get on board with immigration reform, gay marriage and forget about social issues if they want to not get run over by that demographic freight train.

[BigRedChief]

R's trying to win over Latinos now.

The Daily Caller report on which this is based. http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/15/de...am-act-emerge/ Details about the GOP’s alternative to the DREAM Act emerge Matt Lewis 3:41 PM 11/15/2012 The Daily Caller has obtained details of an ACHIEVE Act proposal being floated by some Senate Republicans. It appears similar to the conservative alternative to the Dream Act that Sen. Marco Rubio worked on last summer (before President Obama issued his executive order, effectively tabling the issue until after the election). Essentially, the proposal involves several tiers: W-1 visa status would allow an immigrant to attend college or serve in the military (they have six years to get a degree). After doing so, they would be eligible to apply for a four-year nonimmigrant work visa (also can be used for graduate degrees.) Next, applicants would be eligible to apply for a permanent visa (no welfare benefits.) Finally, after a set number of years, citizenship “could follow…” Below are a few of the details being floated to be eligible for the W-1 visa: - “Applicant must have lived in the U.S. for five year’s prior to the Act’s enactment”; - Must have entered the country before age 14 - Must have good moral character - “Applicant must not have committed a felony, must not have committed more than one misdemeanor with a jail term of more than 30 days, must not have committed a crime of moral turpitude, and must not have a final order of removal pending”‘ - Must have knowledge of the English language, U.S. history, “and of principles of U.S. government” - Applicant must be 28 or younger at time of application (or 32 if they have a bachelor’s degree from a U.S. college); - Must pay a $525 fee - Must submit to a medical exam and a background check, submit biometric and biographic data, and register with the Selective Service. My take: Children who grew up in the U.S. but are undocumented, become — not just a legal issue — but also (as Rubio has said) a humanitarian one. Many conservatives, of course, opposed the DREAM Act because it creates a special pathway to citizenship, allowing illegal immigrants to get in line ahead of other immigrants who are following the rules, and potentially creating a problem of chain migration. The ACHIEVE Act seems to resolve this problem by granting undocumented children nonimmigrant visas so that they can go to school and work in the U.S., and, after a decade, or so, puts them on the regular pathway towards permanent residence (and potentially, citizenship.)

[blaise]

Yeah, there's a thread about that.

[Buehler445]

Man, this is a tough issue. It covers a HUGE number of people in a HUGE number of different circumstances. Invariably some people (probably mostly kids) are going to suffer for stuff that is absolutely not their fault. Ultimately it would be nice if we could apply some common sense to individual cases, but I don't see any real way to do that. But ultimately the problem is terribly complex and difficult.

I can tell you that from the people around my part of the world, that getting citizenship from Mexico is difficult. There are a lot of people here that definitely contribute to society and deserve to be here. There are also a lot of ****ing shitbags that need to GTFO, but that is not exclusive to immigrants.

On the assimilation issue, there are people around here that suggest that assimilation won't be an issue in a generation, because as stated above, the children will do it. Again, that's a pretty wide generalization applied to a large diverse group. But assimilation doesn't always occur through time. My great great grandparents came over from Germany in the nineteen teens. Grandpa always remembered that they knew German fluently but absolutely refused to speak it because of the war. Sometimes a reason to disassociate is necessary to assimilate.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Man, this is a tough issue. It covers a HUGE number of people in a HUGE number of different circumstances. Invariably some people (probably mostly kids) are going to suffer for stuff that is absolutely not their fault. Ultimately it would be nice if we could apply some common sense to individual cases, but I don't see any real way to do that. But ultimately the problem is terribly complex and difficult.

I can tell you that from the people around my part of the world, that getting citizenship from Mexico is difficult. There are a lot of people here that definitely contribute to society and deserve to be here. There are also a lot of ****ing shitbags that need to GTFO, but that is not exclusive to immigrants.

On the assimilation issue, there are people around here that suggest that assimilation won't be an issue in a generation, because as stated above, the children will do it. Again, that's a pretty wide generalization applied to a large diverse group. But assimilation doesn't always occur through time. My great great grandparents came over from Germany in the nineteen teens. Grandpa always remembered that they knew German fluently but absolutely refused to speak it because of the war. Sometimes a reason to disassociate is necessary to assimilate.

Two points:

1. There are a ton of people in lots of countries around the world who would like to emigrate here. It's hard for most of them to get here legally so many never get in. The only difference between Mexicans and these other potential immigrants is that Mexicans have an easier time coming here illegally. So, the fact that legal immigration is tough and can take quite a while isn't an special excuse for Mexicans.

2. It's a lot more likely that the 2nd generation will assimilate to a greater extent if there isn't such a large, concentrated, monolithic immigrant community that successfully convinces local authorities and businesses to cater to them in terms of language and motherland culture.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm not sure that the majority of illegals actually do want to become Americans, at least to the point where they would accept assimilation.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Two points:

1. There are a ton of people in lots of countries around the world who would like to emigrate here. It's hard for most of them to get here legally so many never get in. The only difference between Mexicans and these other potential immigrants is that Mexicans have an easier time coming here illegally. So, the fact that legal immigration is tough and can take quite a while isn't an special excuse for Mexicans.

2. It's a lot more likely that the 2nd generation will assimilate to a greater extent if there isn't such a large, concentrated, monolithic immigrant community that successfully convinces local authorities and businesses to cater to them in terms of language and motherland culture.

Mexicans are just what I have exposure to. The fact is that the process to become a legal immigrant and needs addressed.

As for assimilation, I have a hard time believing the people that say assimilation will happen within a generation. When I stated that, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted that I believed that. I agree with everything about point #2, but by the same token, this isn't the first time it has happen. See little China, the Irish sector, pretty much NYC throughout history.