Senate Approves Immigration Bill that would officialize English

[Harold Schiffman]

*Senate Approves Immigration Bill
*Measure Faces Tough House Opposition

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A01

The Senate yesterday approved legislation that would trigger the biggest
changes to U.S. immigration policy in decades, by strengthening border
security, establishing a guest-worker program, and providing the means for
millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and possibly become
citizens. The product of a tenuous bipartisan coalition that faced tough
conservative opposition, the measure calls for 370 miles of triple-layer
fencing along the Mexican border, a complicated three-tiered system for
determining who can stay and who must leave the country, and more jail cells
for those awaiting deportation. *It would declare English the country's
national language, *a gesture that many advocates found insulting but
accepted in hopes of helping millions of undocumented workers achieve legal
status.

But even as the Senate approved the bill 62 to
36<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/>,
the measure's backers acknowledged that it faces formidable opposition in
the House, whose political dynamics differ markedly from the Senate's.
Numerous House members insist that Congress do nothing about legalizing
immigrants until illegal border crossings are dramatically reduced.
Democrats and Republicans alike said a House-Senate accord will be nearly
impossible without the vigorous involvement of President Bush, who favors an
approach similar to the Senate's. The White House has already begun lobbying
efforts, but it faces resistance from more than 200 House Republicans
seeking reelection this fall, many in districts where the sentiment against
illegal immigrants runs high.

"This is the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history," Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a leader of the Senate effort, said of the
bill's passage. "It is a comprehensive and realistic attempt to solve the
real-world problems that have festered for too long in our broken
immigration system." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kennedy's partner in the
effort, said more than 11 million illegal immigrants "harvest our crops,
tend our gardens, work in our restaurants and clean our houses" and added:
"Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up and
send them back to the countries they came from. I don't know how you do
that. And I don't know why you would want to."

But opponents called the bill fundamentally flawed and predicted that it
will be completely rewritten by a House-Senate conference committee, which
will try next month to craft a compromise version acceptable to both
chambers. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) called the measure "a bad bill" that
"puts more emphasis on amnesty than on border security." The House in
December passed a bill that dealt only with border and workplace
enforcement. It would make illegal presence in the country a felony. After
mass demonstrations by immigrants in several cities and complaints by Roman
Catholic officials -- plus Bush's recent televised speech calling for a
comprehensive approach that would include pathways to legal status for
undocumented aliens -- House GOP leaders signaled a willingness to modify
their bill. But they said the Senate bill goes too far and would amount to
"amnesty," a term that many dispute, for millions of foreigners who broke
the law and jumped ahead of would-be immigrants waiting for legal entry.

A possible compromise, some lawmakers said, might start with tighter border
security and then -- if there is measurable evidence the crackdown is
working -- proceed to a mechanism for some illegal immigrants to achieve
legal status. But lawmakers said it is far from clear whether such a plan
would appeal to enough House Republicans, and enough Senate Democrats, to
win passage in either chamber. Further complicating matters is Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert's policy of allowing votes on major issues only if most of
the House's 231 Republicans back them. Theoretically, a compromise
immigration bill could be supported by most of the House's Democrats and
nearly half of its Republicans -- making up a clear majority in the 435-seat
chamber -- only to be thwarted by Hastert's dictum.

If the Senate had embraced the same policy, the bill would have died.
Twenty-three Republicans, 38 Democrats and one independent voted for the
immigration bill; 32 Republicans and four Democrats voted against it. Sens.
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) and John W. Warner
(R-Va.) voted for the bill. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) voted against it.

The Senate bill calls for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents and thousands of
National Guard troops to support them, plus 500 miles of vehicle barriers on
the Mexican border. Several such provisions, added during two weeks of
debate, were designed to appease Senate conservatives who threatened to kill
the entire bill. But senators repeatedly rejected conservatives' bids to
strip or weaken the provisions allowing legal status for undocumented
immigrants.

The Senate bill would provide 200,000 new temporary guest-worker visas a
year, while creating a separate guest-worker program for immigrant farm
laborers. Its key compromise would divide the nation's estimated 11 million
to 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups.

Those here five years or longer would be allowed to stay and apply for
citizenship, provided they pay back taxes, learn English and have no serious
criminal records. Those here two to five years would eventually have to
return to another country and apply for a green card, which could allow
their immediate return. The roughly 2 million immigrants who have been in
the United States illegally for less than two years would be ordered home
and be subject to deportation. Illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or
three misdemeanors would be deported no matter how long they have been in
the United States.

Critics on the left and right call the bill -- and especially its
three-tiered formulation -- unworkable. The notion of apprehending and
deporting 2 million illegal immigrants who have been in the United States
less than two years defies logic, some say. They add that the task would be
six times as great under the House proposal to empty the nation of all
illegal immigrants.

Immigrants who have lived largely underground for more than five years might
have trouble proving their length of stay, advocacy groups say, while those
who arrived less than five years ago might try to convince officials that
they have been here longer. The bill would obligate immigrants to prove
their length of residency, and fraudulent claims would be a crime.

Those claiming five years of residency or more would have to prove they were
employed for at least three years to qualify for a citizenship application.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501548_pf.html

**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree
with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20070602/b41b695b/attachment.htm>