paskal
06-13 02:49 PM
Americans want immigrants like yourself who follow the rules and contribute to American society; it is our valued tradition. What we don't want is illegals walking all over our laws. The illegals hurt lawfull immigrants. I married an immigrant who followed the rules, she's very bitter over the way this country is pandering to the Hispanic Reconquista crowd. Americans don't want the amnesty, but the government is pushing for it. Legal immigrants and applicants, IMO, should stand up and be heard to fight anmesty as well.
we simply lack the power to fight that battle....
as it is we can barely get anyone to understand our problems, if on top of that half the lawmakers dissmiss us for being against their agenda, where would we be?
in a ballott here, you would not find too mnay here that supports an amnesty i suspect.
we simply lack the power to fight that battle....
as it is we can barely get anyone to understand our problems, if on top of that half the lawmakers dissmiss us for being against their agenda, where would we be?
in a ballott here, you would not find too mnay here that supports an amnesty i suspect.
Jaime
09-15 08:29 PM
We need the large numbrs in attendance!
lermitthefrog
06-07 03:06 PM
TGG Team is a team that makes games. It stands for "that game guy", which is the nickname of the team leader. It has only started a few weeks ago. So far the team is just a forum, working on a story. I hope you will join the site later on.
desi3933
07-13 11:43 AM
I had to generate paystubs for my wife from Jan 07 to May 07 due to recent USCIS goof up. She started working from May 07. However all the paystubs generated ( 5) , have a pay period from 05/01 - 05/31 and pay date is 07/11
Does anyone know if it is ok to have the 5 paystubs with the same pay period. The Lca talks about salary per year. The employers claims that it is ok. What should I do in this case. Any suggestions are highly appreciated.
How did you "generate paystubs for wife"?
Would you please explain.
Does anyone know if it is ok to have the 5 paystubs with the same pay period. The Lca talks about salary per year. The employers claims that it is ok. What should I do in this case. Any suggestions are highly appreciated.
How did you "generate paystubs for wife"?
Would you please explain.
more...
smisachu
12-09 06:43 PM
PhD in Business from an accredited US institution; currently working as Asst Prof.
I guess there is no way to port till I graduate then. :mad:
I guess there is no way to port till I graduate then. :mad:
caca1225
12-28 08:14 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
AILA believes that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers, and due process protections to restore the rule of law in our immigration adjudications and courts.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-898415051375698769?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/12/comprehensive-immigration-reform-its.html)
You don't need a "path to citizenship" to family reunification. Please do not link A-B and so C-D. They are totally two different issues.
AILA believes that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers, and due process protections to restore the rule of law in our immigration adjudications and courts.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-898415051375698769?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/12/comprehensive-immigration-reform-its.html)
You don't need a "path to citizenship" to family reunification. Please do not link A-B and so C-D. They are totally two different issues.
more...
saint_2010
07-11 05:21 PM
hi saint, nothing against you, i wonder what is the freakin logic USCIS uses to decide on 2 year EAD approval, here i am with pd not being current for atleast next 2-3 years (given the halt of eb3-I), 2nd ead extn, in my 8th year of h1b, i got a one year EAD extn, where as a eb2 person gets a 1 year validity...i only wish we can know whats going in the minds of these decision makers..
Non taken my friend. I was surprised myself to see 2 yr extns. I think they have some wierd fuzzy logic on approvals..which is beyond our intelligent minds:cool:.
Non taken my friend. I was surprised myself to see 2 yr extns. I think they have some wierd fuzzy logic on approvals..which is beyond our intelligent minds:cool:.
rorypirrie
02-24 10:24 AM
Now that you have all your documentation, the biggest hurdle would appear to be that you didn't mention the DUI earlier. I would possibly go ahead and contact an immigration lawyer but i'm sure this is an issue which can be resolved without affecting your application.
more...
gccovet
11-18 03:01 PM
Hi All
I have a question regarding visitors visa, my parents got multiple Entry 10 years visa in 2007, but have not visited me so far, but this december my Mom is visitng me and in Feb my father( as to avoid harsh winter weather in East Coast), they will leave back in May 2009.
My Question is will there be any issue as their visa was issued in 2007 but they are visiting now
Do I need to send any new documents( I have moved onto EAD )
Looking forward to hear suggestions.
if they have multiple entry 10 year visa then there should be no problems. just for safe side, ask them to carry your cell number, give them you Passport photocopy, EAD photocopy. Make sure they do not show them unless asked for.
GCCovet
I have a question regarding visitors visa, my parents got multiple Entry 10 years visa in 2007, but have not visited me so far, but this december my Mom is visitng me and in Feb my father( as to avoid harsh winter weather in East Coast), they will leave back in May 2009.
My Question is will there be any issue as their visa was issued in 2007 but they are visiting now
Do I need to send any new documents( I have moved onto EAD )
Looking forward to hear suggestions.
if they have multiple entry 10 year visa then there should be no problems. just for safe side, ask them to carry your cell number, give them you Passport photocopy, EAD photocopy. Make sure they do not show them unless asked for.
GCCovet
saurin
02-09 09:24 AM
I inquired about the possiblity of LOA and that is definately possible according to my manager. Now how to get paystubs when there is an RFE?
more...
camarasa
08-01 07:01 PM
Did we ever hear anything back regarding the July 2nd questions she sent to USCIS? Remember she gave them three days to answer?
funny
08-13 01:20 PM
Hi,
Can you tell me what your lawyer sent to the USCIS. How did he link the approved 140 to the pending 485. Did he fill any form? I am in the same boat. My both 140's are with the same company though.
Thanks
Whatever my Lawyer has done , has not worked so far, I guess he sent copies of both I140's and a letter requesting to use the EB3 PD with the EB2 case.
Can you tell me what your lawyer sent to the USCIS. How did he link the approved 140 to the pending 485. Did he fill any form? I am in the same boat. My both 140's are with the same company though.
Thanks
Whatever my Lawyer has done , has not worked so far, I guess he sent copies of both I140's and a letter requesting to use the EB3 PD with the EB2 case.
more...
texanguy
01-20 02:44 PM
"recent forum posts" block truncates the subject matter. old site had all of them on one side, they were complete and it really looked good.
otherwise, the site looks good.
it is going to be a little hard to get used to this new look. afterall, the old site had a background color which was very unique. That stood it apart from other sites.
oh well, the CHANGE has finally come to IV's site as well...I for one, am planning to embrace it :cool:
otherwise, the site looks good.
it is going to be a little hard to get used to this new look. afterall, the old site had a background color which was very unique. That stood it apart from other sites.
oh well, the CHANGE has finally come to IV's site as well...I for one, am planning to embrace it :cool:
Kushal
07-17 01:53 PM
Not a single contribution by anyone....
I think CORE and all active members should shut this website down right now and let all the non paying members feel the misery without this site...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 11:19 AM PDT
Google Order #537910701830239
I think CORE and all active members should shut this website down right now and let all the non paying members feel the misery without this site...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 11:19 AM PDT
Google Order #537910701830239
more...
snathan
06-04 10:37 AM
thank you very much for your help. It makes me feel much better now.just the employer has told me that the business is low these days, will their incom and cotracts will review again? it is a very small size company.
Thanks again
Yes...if they can not prove their viable business and ability to pay....you would have hard time to get the extension.
Thanks again
Yes...if they can not prove their viable business and ability to pay....you would have hard time to get the extension.
realizeit
08-01 03:32 PM
HR 5882 Counterpart Introduced in Senate by Hon. MENENDEZ
Link: http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=301666&
Press Release of Senator Menendez
SENATOR MENENDEZ INTRODUCES BILL TO EXTEND E-VERIFY PROGRAM, INCREASE VISA EFFICIENCY AND STRENGTHEN FAMILIES
E-verify portion of bill mirrors version passed overwhelmingly passed by House this evening
Friday, August 1, 2008
WASHINGTON� U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) yesterday evening introduced legislation to renew the electronic system for employers to check the documentation of prospective employees, and to ensure that unused work or family-based visas are utilized. The Visa Efficiency and E-Verify Extension Act of 2008 will help American businesses and will protect family unity by reauthorizing the E-Verify program, recapturing unused or unclaimed employment-based visas and family-sponsored visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 and allowing unused family and employment-based visas in future years to automatically �roll over� to the next fiscal year. The E-Verify portion of the legislation mirrors E-Verify legislation passed this evening in the House of Representatives by a 407-2 vote.
Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Maria Cantwell (WA) joined Senator Menendez as co-sponsors of the bill. The proposed legislation would shorten the long lines of families and employees currently waiting to receive green cards.
�Verifying that workers have their proper documentation is certainly important, and this bill ensures we are doing that while being fair to families who have waited in line for years and have paid their visa fees to reunite with their loved ones,� said Sen. Menendez. �We must couple the E-verify effort, which is good for business, with policy that is also good for families � it fits with our American value system and is a step towards fixing our broken immigration system.�
Summary of The Visa Efficiency and E-Verify Extension Act of 2008:
Recapture of Unused Visas: This bill recaptures unused or unclaimed employment-based visas and family-sponsored visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 and allows unused family and employment-based visas in future years to automatically �roll over� to the next fiscal year.
Extension of the Conrad State 30 Program: The bill extends the Conrad State 30 program for 5 years to June 1, 2013. The Conrad State 30 program was designed to provide each of the fifty U.S. states with 30 waivers for J-1 physicians each fiscal year.
Extension of Religious Worker Program: The bill requires DHS to issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud related to the granting of special immigrant status for individuals working in a religious vocation or occupation. The bill extends the special immigrant non-minister religious worker program to October 1, 2011. Under this bill, the DHS Inspector General shall submit on the effectiveness of the regulations to reduce fraud by 2010.
Reauthorization of E-verify: This bill also reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security�s (DHS) Basic Pilot electronic employment eligibility verification program, also known as �E-Verify.� This legislation provides for a 5-year extension of this program for the electronic employment verification of employees.
Protection of Social Security Administration Programs: This legislation requires DHS to provide timely and appropriate payments to the Social Security Administration so that E-verify does not interfere with SSA�s ability to serve seniors, people with disabilities, and survivors.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study of Basic Pilot Confirmation System: This bill requires the GAO to report to Congress on the causes of erroneous tentative nonconfirmations, how they are remedied and the effect they have on individuals, employers and federal agencies. It also requires the GAO to examine the experiences of small businesses, non-profits and municipalities with using Basic Pilot.
Link: http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=301666&
Press Release of Senator Menendez
SENATOR MENENDEZ INTRODUCES BILL TO EXTEND E-VERIFY PROGRAM, INCREASE VISA EFFICIENCY AND STRENGTHEN FAMILIES
E-verify portion of bill mirrors version passed overwhelmingly passed by House this evening
Friday, August 1, 2008
WASHINGTON� U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) yesterday evening introduced legislation to renew the electronic system for employers to check the documentation of prospective employees, and to ensure that unused work or family-based visas are utilized. The Visa Efficiency and E-Verify Extension Act of 2008 will help American businesses and will protect family unity by reauthorizing the E-Verify program, recapturing unused or unclaimed employment-based visas and family-sponsored visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 and allowing unused family and employment-based visas in future years to automatically �roll over� to the next fiscal year. The E-Verify portion of the legislation mirrors E-Verify legislation passed this evening in the House of Representatives by a 407-2 vote.
Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Maria Cantwell (WA) joined Senator Menendez as co-sponsors of the bill. The proposed legislation would shorten the long lines of families and employees currently waiting to receive green cards.
�Verifying that workers have their proper documentation is certainly important, and this bill ensures we are doing that while being fair to families who have waited in line for years and have paid their visa fees to reunite with their loved ones,� said Sen. Menendez. �We must couple the E-verify effort, which is good for business, with policy that is also good for families � it fits with our American value system and is a step towards fixing our broken immigration system.�
Summary of The Visa Efficiency and E-Verify Extension Act of 2008:
Recapture of Unused Visas: This bill recaptures unused or unclaimed employment-based visas and family-sponsored visas from fiscal years 1992 through 2007 and allows unused family and employment-based visas in future years to automatically �roll over� to the next fiscal year.
Extension of the Conrad State 30 Program: The bill extends the Conrad State 30 program for 5 years to June 1, 2013. The Conrad State 30 program was designed to provide each of the fifty U.S. states with 30 waivers for J-1 physicians each fiscal year.
Extension of Religious Worker Program: The bill requires DHS to issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud related to the granting of special immigrant status for individuals working in a religious vocation or occupation. The bill extends the special immigrant non-minister religious worker program to October 1, 2011. Under this bill, the DHS Inspector General shall submit on the effectiveness of the regulations to reduce fraud by 2010.
Reauthorization of E-verify: This bill also reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security�s (DHS) Basic Pilot electronic employment eligibility verification program, also known as �E-Verify.� This legislation provides for a 5-year extension of this program for the electronic employment verification of employees.
Protection of Social Security Administration Programs: This legislation requires DHS to provide timely and appropriate payments to the Social Security Administration so that E-verify does not interfere with SSA�s ability to serve seniors, people with disabilities, and survivors.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study of Basic Pilot Confirmation System: This bill requires the GAO to report to Congress on the causes of erroneous tentative nonconfirmations, how they are remedied and the effect they have on individuals, employers and federal agencies. It also requires the GAO to examine the experiences of small businesses, non-profits and municipalities with using Basic Pilot.
more...
texcan
09-25 02:06 PM
How do I see or get LUD for I140 ? Mine was approved in DEC, 2006. Applied 485 in August 2nd week. Will I also get LUD?
sign up on uscis.gov, add you case number to profile, and you can see LUD (its one of the columns)
HTH
sign up on uscis.gov, add you case number to profile, and you can see LUD (its one of the columns)
HTH
hnordberg
October 24th, 2004, 08:24 PM
I like #3 the best because it is the one that would let me into the field. And the composition is simple and interesting.
gc_buddy
12-02 01:06 AM
We got an RFE on my wife's I-485 requesting for copy of marriage certificate. Our priority date is August 2005. ND is September 05, 2007.
Anyone else in the same boat? Does this mean USCIS has began processing the 2005 apps?
Not really. There appears to be no orderly fashion. My PD is June 2007 EB2. I got an RFE on My I 485 in May 2008.
Anyone else in the same boat? Does this mean USCIS has began processing the 2005 apps?
Not really. There appears to be no orderly fashion. My PD is June 2007 EB2. I got an RFE on My I 485 in May 2008.
krishmunn
04-25 04:22 PM
I have had a bad experience working with ICICI Lombard insurance. Issues i had with ICICI
1) They do not have any rates negotiated with US hospitals. I have seen when your insurance does not have a negotiated rate, an emergency room can cost upto $5000 vs a negotiated rate of $1000 (based on real experience). But there is a cap on how much ICICI will pay for each kind of service which means my out of pocket would have been quite a bit.
.
Was this a recent experience ? ICICI claims to have a network through United Health Care; not sure if it is true .
As for US v/s India, none of the US insurance companies selling these travel health insurance are licensed and regulated by US authorities. Most , if not all, of these are underwritten by carriers at Lloyds of London.
I would say there is not a single travel insurance company (US or India) which provides good service.
1) They do not have any rates negotiated with US hospitals. I have seen when your insurance does not have a negotiated rate, an emergency room can cost upto $5000 vs a negotiated rate of $1000 (based on real experience). But there is a cap on how much ICICI will pay for each kind of service which means my out of pocket would have been quite a bit.
.
Was this a recent experience ? ICICI claims to have a network through United Health Care; not sure if it is true .
As for US v/s India, none of the US insurance companies selling these travel health insurance are licensed and regulated by US authorities. Most , if not all, of these are underwritten by carriers at Lloyds of London.
I would say there is not a single travel insurance company (US or India) which provides good service.
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment