Immigration back on front burner

Bush and Senate plans face criticism and praise, but one thing is clear: The nation’s leaders are once again talking legalization

By Coulter Jones
Adelante staff writer

Associated Press President Bush delivered a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 7 in Washington. Bush presented a proposal that would offer temporary work permits, but no chance for long-term residency, for millions of undocumented workers. Two weeks later, Senate leaders proposed a second plan that would offer a path to citizenship.

For the first time since the events of Sept. 11 pushed immigration reform aside, the legalization of millions of undocumented workers seems within reach. On Jan. 7, President George Bush proposed an overhaul of immigration policy with a temporary worker program. Two weeks later, Senate leadership introduced a bill of its own that had been in the works for nearly two years.
Immigrant advocates fear that Bush’s version would erode immigrant rights, while conservative groups say that both plans would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, rewarding those who break immigration laws.
Latino rights groups, such as the League of United Latin American Citizens and National Council of La Raza, said that despite their concerns, they were happy to see the issue make headlines.
“We’re glad that immigration is back on the table,” said Gabriella Lemus, LULAC director of legislation. “This is an opportunity to really do something.”

no amnesty Click here for details www.adelanteonline.com

Both plans hope to document the 8 million to 12 million undocumented workers residing in the United States and to tighten security along the border.
People on both sides of the political spectrum have doubts about temporary worker programs and believe they could create a constant stream of lower-paid workers with fewer rights and that they could undermine the ability of unions to organize.
“(Bush’s plan) is basically creating a second-class group of workers who would be exploited by our society,” NCLR spokeswoman Michelle Qurain said.
For immigration advocates, the biggest concerns lie with the Bush proposal, which has received greater media attention in Latino communities.

two plans at a glance Bush proposal • Offers temporary worker status for an unlimited number of workers and their families, if the workers have jobs. • Workers have to return to country of origin or apply for renewal after three years. • The renewal process will be limited to a number of years that has not yet been announced. • Temporary workers are not guaranteed minimum wage or other basic worker protections. • Would create “tax-preferred savings accounts” for workers to collect when they return home, along with “other financial incentives” that have not been explained. • Green card and permanent status would be attained in the same way as in the past. Senate proposal • Offers the possibility for permanent residency or citizenship provided the following requirements are met: –Have lived in the United States five years before the law is enacted –Worked for four of those five years, with a commitment to an additional year of work –Pass a background check –Paid all federal taxes –Paid a $1,000 fine in addition to normal green card application fees (the money raised will go to the Border Patrol) • Addresses the immigration backlog, reunifying the more than 1 million family members waiting to become U.S. citizens. • Establishes a temporary worker program, but is limited to 350,000 workers. www.adelanteonline.com

The Bush proposal, with an emphasis on a temporary worker program and U.S.-based savings accounts, brings up echoes of the World War II-era Bracero program. To combat the lack of workers in agriculture and industry due to that war, the United States signed an agreement with Mexico in 1943, allowing more than 4 million Mexican workers to fill the open positions. To ensure the workers would leave, part of their pay was withheld. Many never received full payment, and widespread abuse and misuse of workers was reported.
“We remember the Bracero program, and that was a program that hurt people and created situations of indentured servitude,” Lemus said. “I feel strongly that this is not the principles that America stands for.”
Unlike Bush’s proposal, the Senate bill offers earned legalization and prioritizes the enormous backlog of people who have applied for family reunification status. Handling the paperwork for the more than 1 million family members waiting to enter the country is a daunting task.
“We really need to see family reunification backlogs reduced,” said Lemus. “I don’t know how they’re going to do it.”
Immigrant advocates’ main concern about the Senate bill is that it is limited to 350,000 immigrants — a tiny fraction of those already living in the country without documents. Bush’s proposal mentions no such limit.
Conservative groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation of American Immigration Reform, consider both proposals to be an amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
Co-sponsors of the bill Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., deny their bill-gives amnesty to undocumented immigrants because of work requirements.
Critics, however, say it is unreasonable to assume immigrants will just return home after living and working in the United States for several years.
“People come, they’re human beings, they fall in love, they make friends, get settled,” CIS spokesman John Keeley said. “There is no such thing as a guest worker program. That’s why we assume immigrants will just return home after living and working in the United States for several years.
“People come, they’re human beings, they fall in love, they make friends, get settled,” CIS spokesman John Keeley said. “There is no such thing as a guest worker program. That’s why we call it an amnesty.”
FAIR spokesman David Ray said given the U.S. economic situation, both plans are poorly timed. He also said Bush is using different words to avoid calling his program an amnesty.
“You can put a Sunday dress on a pig, but it’s still a pig. This is clearly an amnesty,” Ray said.
Due to the controversy surrounding the issue, no legislation is likely to pass before the November elections, and then, depending on who wins, nothing may be passed at all.
“The good news for the American people is neither has a chance of enactment,” Keeley said. “In an election year, you rarely see a divisive domestic issue passed by Congress.”
Missouri Republican Sens. Kit Bond and Jim Talent have not taken a stance on the issue. Rep. Kenny Hulshof, R-Columbia, has not taken a formal stance either, but will view the issue in perspective of his beliefs on immigration, spokesman Scott Baker said.
“Overall, the congressman opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants,” Baker said. “He thinks that those that skirt the immigration laws do not deserve preferential treatment.”
Bush’s motives leave some skeptical. Despite Latino voters’ traditional allegiance with the Democratic Party, Bush and the Republican Party have worked hard to sway the demographic group.
“You look at the timing of it, the very beginning of an election year, you consider how politically unpopular it is with (Bush’s conservative) base, I think it breeds a fair bit of cynicism,” Keeley said. “From every angle you analyze it, it seems to adhere to that model of election-year pandering.”

WARNING:
THERE IS NO AMNESTY!

Despite the fact that both the Bush and the Senate proposals on immigration reform are not yet law, companies are posting advertisements in Spanish-language newspapers claiming to help handle new paperwork associated with an amnesty. Kansas City immigration lawyer Suzanne Gladney warns you not to pay anyone making these claims.
“Do not give these people money,” she said. “They cannot help you.”
The best way for undocumented workers to prepare for the eventual passage of an immigration reform law, she said, is to keep track of their work records.
Also, do not go to the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to inquire about the plan if you do not have proper documentation, she warned. A number of people have been detained when going to the federal authorities to ask questions.