what would be wrong with building a big fucking wall on our southern border and telling 'em all to go through the gate?
What are they hiding if they don’t want to imigrate legally?
I support an immigration policy that encourages LEGAL immigration.
But come through the fucking gate!
I can understand that our economy and our farms needs these workers. I can even accept the argument that mexican immigrants take jobs that American workers don’t want.
But come through the fucking gate!
COME THROUGH THE FUCKING GATE!
Why is it a bad policy to ask imigrants to come to our country legally?
By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON ? The Senate is set to vote today on measures that could open the door to legalizing an estimated 500,000 immigrant farmworkers and their families.
It will be the first test of strength in years between senators who support legalized status for at least some of the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in this country and senators who advocate reducing illegal immigration by tightening enforcement and border controls.
Each side said today’s votes also could signal how much support there was in the Senate for the sort of comprehensive immigration reform President Bush had said he wanted Congress to enact this session.
Bush’s proposals have met stiff opposition from some Republicans, particularly in the House, who say the measures would amount to amnesty for the majority of the nation’s illegal workforce.
At the core of the Senate debate, which opened Monday, is a provision sponsored by Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) dubbed AgJobs. It would provide a two-step process for illegal farmworkers to achieve permanent residency. Any permanent resident then could apply for citizenship.
Under AgJobs, those who did at least 100 hours of agricultural work in the 18 months before the legislation became law could apply for temporary residency. If that status is granted, workers who then put in 360 days in agriculture over the next three to six years could gain permanent residency. Their spouses and children also could apply for permanent residency.
Craig is offering the measure as an amendment to an $80-billion-plus emergency funding bill designed mainly to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Senate adopted AgJobs, the plan would face an uncertain fate. House negotiators probably would try to kill the measure in talks with the Senate over the emergency funding bill.
But the amendment’s advocates say that even if AgJobs does not become law now, the Senate’s debate has focused attention on the need to reform immigration laws.
“It’s put farmworkers on the front burner,” said Marc Grossman, spokesman for the United Farm Workers union.
Grossman said as many as half of the nation’s estimated 500,000 illegal farmworkers were in California, with the rest scattered across other farming states.
AgJobs supporters say the amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), would address chronic labor shortages in agriculture and improve living conditions for farmworkers.
Critics say AgJobs would grant amnesty to lawbreakers and would encourage thousands ? even millions ? to join them.
The measure is the result of years of negotiations between farming organizations and advocates for farmworkers.
The White House has not publicly taken a position on Craig’s plan. But Bush has advocated a broader guest-worker program that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to temporarily legalize their status in the U.S., but would offer no path to citizenship.
AgJobs opponents offered an alternative Monday that would temporarily legalize some farmworkers but would give them no chance of achieving permanent residency.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who is sponsoring the alternative plan, said it would solve farmers’ labor problems without “rewarding” illegal workers.
“We do not put anybody on a path to legal status,” Chambliss said of his proposal. “We grant them temporary status ?. They will return to their native land.”
The votes today are to limit debate on the immigration measures.
Supporters of Craig’s proposal expressed cautious optimism that they could secure the 60 votes needed to limit debate and pave the way for the amendment to be added to the emergency funding bill. Opponents, however, said they believed they could maintain a filibuster against it.
Chambliss’ measure is opposed by Democrats and some moderate Republicans, meaning it faces an uphill battle overcoming a filibuster.
Craig, whose home state of Idaho has a large farm economy, has been pushing for a floor vote on his measure for the last few years.
“While we have been trying since 9/11 to understand and reform our immigration laws, there has been a great deal of talk, but very little done,” he said.
Craig says that his initiative would improve national security by encouraging illegal farmworkers to step forward, identify themselves and undergo background checks to achieve temporary residency.
In Monday’s debate, several Republican senators objected to the substance of the proposal and to Craig’s insistence on attaching it to the emergency spending bill.
“The supplemental [bill] is not really the appropriate place to be debating immigration,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), adding that AgJobs was flawed because it offered a chance at citizenship to those who had broken the law. “We do not believe that great opportunity should be granted to someone on the basis of their illegality.”
Advocates on both sides of the debate stepped up lobbying efforts, urging supporters to flood Senate offices with phone calls and faxes in an effort to influence the outcome of the votes.
“Everybody is working very, very hard on the vote count,” said Cecilia Munoz, executive vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights organization. La Raza supports Craig’s measure and opposes Chambliss’ alternative.
The Senate took up the politically sensitive issue of restructuring immigration after the House attached controversial immigration measures to the version of the emergency funding bill it passed last month.
The House measures include completing the new border fence between California and Mexico and establishing federal standards for driver’s licenses that are designed to deny licenses to illegal immigrants.
For weeks, GOP Senate leaders tried to persuade Craig to back down from offering his proposal. They said that it was inappropriate to attach immigration measures to a bill meant to speed supplies and weapons to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also said it was bad politics to focus attention on an issue that divided Republicans when the party was struggling to build support for Bush’s plan to restructure Social Security and preparing for a bitter debate with Democrats over judicial nominees.
But Craig stood his ground.
“This is an issue whose time is coming and we believe, for agriculture, it’s now,” he said.
