Tech asks departing Republicans for favors
By Anne Broache
The CNet News, November 14, 2006
As Republican politicians return this week to Washington for the waning days of their rule of Capitol Hill, technology lobbyists are frantically pressing for last-minute legislation before Democrats take over next year.
At issue are proposals including renewing a popular tax credit for research and development expenses and expanding the number of H1-B visas, which are temporary visas designed for skilled foreign workers. Many spending bills to fund the federal government through the next year have yet to be considered, and the final versions could include antipiracy measures and Web censorship requirements.
The R&D tax credit expired on the last day of 2005, a phenomenon that is 'leaving big and small companies in the lurch,' said Phil Bond, president of the Information Technology Association of America. Bond hopes that Congress will extend the tax benefit in an appropriations bill before politicians leave town for the holidays.
Some of the proposals like the R&D tax credit and H1-B visas are, at least in theory, supported by both major political parties. But Washington representatives of tech companies fret about additional delays--and the incoming Democratic leaders have stressed that they will be occupied with other topics like the Iraq war and increasing the minimum wage after they assume control.
Which explains the frenzy of press events designed to coincide with a lame-duck Congress. On Monday, more than 200 companies, universities and organizations circulated a letter supporting further action on a Senate proposal to boost the quota for H1-B visas, which proponents argue are necessary to fill gaps in their operations where qualified Americans aren't available. They said the need for action sooner than later is especially urgent because U.S. companies exceeded the H-1B quota for the next fiscal year scarcely two months after the application window opened.
Immigration and the 110th Congress
by Gregory Siskind
The Democratic Party has won twice as many seats as needed to take over the US House of Representatives and seem to be in a position to take over the US Senate as well in a stunning defeat for the Republican Party. In January, the 100th Congress will be sworn in and new leaders will be chosen to run committees which focus on immigration legislation.
Immigration was set to be the Republicans secret political weapon this year, but a funny thing happened on the way to the election. While most Republicans promoted tough immigration positions that emphasized strong enforcement and an opposition to any kind of relief for undocumented immigrants, voters generally rejected this hard-line approach and supported candidates more likely to support comprehensive immigration reform proposals.
The most telling evidence of this is the fact that Tom Tancredo's anti-immigrant Immigration Reform Caucus (comprised of 101 Republicans and 2 Democrats) had a horrible evening yesterday. As many as 20 of its members will be gone in the next Congress. (See further details below)
The rejection of the anti-immigrant message was seen in the overwhelming defeat of John Hostettler (R-IN), the chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Hostettler lost 61% to 39%, a landslide by any definition. He made immigration his major issue and touted his record as rejecting any form of relief for the undocumented immigrant.
Another high profile anti-immigrant Congressman to go down in defeat was J.D. Hayworth, the Arizona Republican who frequently is seen on national television discussing immigration. In another Arizona race, Randy Graf lost by a large margin to Gabrielle Giffords to take over the seat of Jim Kolbe. Graf, a Minuteman, not surprisingly took a number of extremely tough immigration positions including opposing US citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizens, opposition to earned legalization for undocumented immigrants, and supporting of the CLEAR Act, a bill with numerous provisions removing due process rights for immigrants.
Kolbe noted that the anti-immigration strategy of Republicans like Graf was actually hurting the GOP. Kolbe told the Tucson Citizen newspaper "The focus on immigration hurt Republicans. They need to focus on key issues such as terrorism and economic growth."
That's not to say the message was totally one-sided. Arizona voters also approved several messages that limit rights for undocumented immigrants including
" Prohibiting bail for those who commit felonies
" Barring undocumented immigrants from receiving punitive damages in civil lawsuits
" Requiring all official business to be conducted only in English
" Limiting access to public services
But Arizona voters' support of these measures might be misread to indicate that voters have no interest in measures reforming the immigration system. In fact, voters appear to simultaneously support making it tougher to get into the country illegally and limiting rights for undocumented immigrants while at the same time supporting measures to make it possible for the undocumented to legalize their status. That is basically the position of Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano who won re-election last night by a large margin despite strong opposition from the anti-immigrant right wing.
So where does this leave immigration legislation? There is a possibility that Congress could take up at least some immigration legislation in the "lame duck" session that will start next Monday and go on for a few weeks after that. Pro-immigration groups have been pushing for passage of the SKIL Act during the interim session. This legislation would increase the number of H-1B visas and also make more employment-based permanent residency visas available. But the soon to be exiting House leadership will need to decide if it wants to move on this while it still has some power or pass on it until the Democrats take over.
The 110th House of Representatives is likely to have a much different attitude on immigration issues than the 109th. For the last twelve years, the House Judiciary Committee and its Immigration Subcommittee have been chaired by a number of virulently anti-immigration Congressmen. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensensbrenner's name is synonymous with being anti-immigration and the combination of Hostettler and Sensenbrenner have ensured that very little pro-immigration legislation has passed in the last few years. This is the case even though the GOP overall is much less anti-immigrant than the Judiciary Committee. In fact, if a measure like the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill were voted on by the entire House of Representatives, it would very possibly have passed.
The election will have a less profound effect on the US Senate (assuming it changes hands as now appears likely). The US Senate's Republican members have generally been moderate on immigration issues as was evidenced by its passage of the bipartisan immigration reform bill last may.
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) is likely to take over the Immigration Subcommittee and John Conyers (R-MI) is should be the next chair of the Judiciary Committee. Both are strongly pro-immigrant and have long track records on this issue. On the Senate side, it is less clear who will take over the relevant immigration committees, though the odds are quite good that the new chair will be strongly pro-immigration. Nancy Pelosi will likely take on the position of Speaker of the House and Harry Reid will assume the position of Senate Majority Leader. Each has a strong record in support of comprehensive immigration reform.
Expect comprehensive immigration reform legislation to be re-introduced early in the next Congress. The legislation could move quickly since Democrats will be able to get the bills easily passed in friendlier subcommittees and enough pro-immigration Republicans should sign on to easily pass the bills. President Bush has strongly pushed for a comprehensive immigration bill and Democratic leaders will likely be interested in passing something quickly that will not be vetoed by the President. And the President is likely to see immigration reform as one of the few areas where he can enjoy success legislatively. It seems ironic that it will take a Democratic Congress to give Bush this victory.
No matter what is said after this election, the American public spoke and made it clear that they do not buy the anti-immigrant rhetoric of some in Congress. Not a single pro-immigrant Congressman lost to an anti-immigrant opponent as far as I can tell.
Proposal for Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Light of the Midterm Election Results
November 8, 2006
Peter Schey, President, Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
As the principal legal organization that has represented hundreds of thousands of immigrants in court cases seeking legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), and having provided technical and drafting assistance to the Congress when it addressed IRCA in 1986 and again when it drafted the LIFE Act in 2000, and based upon guidance provided by CBOs and legal services providers nationwide, we urge all institutions concerned with immigration reform to consider the following recommendations.
The last comprehensive immigration reform that took place in 1986 followed several years of serious study of the highly complex issues that make up migration and the U.S. response. Before the IRCA was drafted, the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy heard from a range of academics, local elected officials, CBOs, business groups, religious groups, unions, etc. before it crafted recommendations for a law that combined a balance of enforcement with legalization opportunities, and protections for particularly vulnerable immigrants.
The IRCA legalized at least half the undocumented population in 1986 (and could have legalized far more if properly implemented), and for the first time initiated employer sanctions.
Most experts agree that the large undocumented community some 20 years after IRCA results because (1) there is no rational relationship whatsoever between the number of visas issued and the U.S. demand for skilled and unskilled labor, and (2) the drive for family unity is more powerful than statutory bars that preclude millions of families from reuniting legally.
Need for a select commission to study migration -- Regardless of the causes of the current migration crisis, there obviously has been no effort undertaken by the Congress or the President to study through a broad-based prominent commission with staff and resources the complex issues underlying migration policy.
In the absence of serious study and hearings, and in the election-year political climate, the House and Senate bills passed in 2005-06 were both ill-conceived and fatally flawed (despite the positive intentions of many elected officials including Senators McCain and Kennedy). The House bill would have turned all migrants into felons, driving them deeper underground and dramatically increasing the opportunity to exploit them, a result hardly helpful to U.S. workers or communities. The Senate bill may have legalized about 3-4 million immigrants, but left the majority and all future flows in a permanent undocumented status by blocking legalization for any migrant who used another person’s name to work. This approach would quickly increase the size of the undocumented population. The Senate bill also made illegal entry a "continuing crime," turning all undocumented migrants into criminals, though not felons as the House proposed.
Questions that need answers in order to formulate a rational immigration policy -- As opposed to rushing into a new set of proposals, we recommend that elected officials, CBOs, and all others concerned with immigration policy consider supporting a select commission appointed by Congress to study the fundamental questions that must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform can take shape. Non-government groups may also form committees and commissions to study migration issues and develop policy recommendations. Among other fundamental issues that must be understood before any rational policy can be formulated are the following –
(1) What are the current economic, social, and political conditions giving rise to migration from identifiable major sending communities, and to what extent and how (if at all) may these specific conditions be addressed?
(2) How may the role played by the U.S. demand for migrant labor be addressed in a manner that reduces undocumented migration and protects U.S. workers?
(3) How has implementation of NAFTA impacted migration and may NAFTA provisions be reinterpreted or renegotiated to reduce undocumented migration? What are the benefits or adverse consequences of recognizing the U.S. border relationship with Mexico in formulating a unilateral or a bi-national policy?
(4) To what extent do present visa numbers and per country quotas drive up undocumented migration, and what are the benefits or adverse consequences of modifying visa allocations to realistically reflect family reunification and labor market demand? What is the best method to measure the demand so that policy decisions can be made regarding how much of the realistic demand to meet?
(5) What are the benefits or potential adverse consequences of promptly granting lawful permanent resident status to several hundred thousand Central American refugees languishing in an assortment of temporary federal programs for several decades?
(6) What is a reasonable estimate of the number of undocumented migrants residing permanently in the U.S., and what types of programs would legalize different numbers of migrants in this population? What impact (economic, social, etc.) would the U.S. likely experience if different percentages of this population were legalized?
(7) What are the results of 20 years of border militarization and criminalization, what has been the impact on migrant flows, the safety and security of border communities, the environment, the human rights of migrants, and the national security?
(8) To what extent are existing major provisions in the federal immigration law having adverse or positive impacts on immigration control and increasing or decreasing the size of the undocumented population?
Until these questions are carefully considered, and answers obtained and understood, comprehensive immigration reform may do about as well as U.S. policy in Iraq.
Study and educate the public now, legislate tomorrow -- The 2008 Presidential election started today. Immigration reform could easily again fall victim to the politics of fear given the damage done to public opinion by the year-long anti-immigrant campaign waged by the extreme right starting with the Sensenbrenner bill in December 2005. We doubt that the negative stereotypes popularized by this year’s political campaign will quickly dissipate from the public mind. The best approach to comprehensive immigration reform may be during 2007-08 to study the important issues that must be analyzed before reform can be structured, and engage in public education regarding immigrants and what they offer the country, with the goal of considering and passing comprehensive legislation after the 2008 election.
Shorter-range policy changes -- In the interim, there are several shorter-range administrative and legislative changes that could be considered and addressed, including, to mention only a few examples, passage of the Dream Act, reintroduction of 245i relief, state-side processing or pre-approval of 3 and 10-year bar waivers (if not possibly repealing the bars entirely), decreasing visa processing and security check times, resurrecting judicial review for immigrants stripped from the courts in 1996, issuance of U visa application forms for immigrant victims of violent crimes (still not done six years after Congress passed the U visa law), use of the military along the border, etc.
"March today, vote tomorrow" -- Also, in the interim, organizations can give substance to the slogan, "march today, vote tomorrow." All concerned institutions and groups could maximize their efforts to naturalize eligible immigrants, register new citizens to vote, and provide tools for new citizens to integrate into the political process. To the extent that the Administration slows down naturalization applications preventing large numbers of people from voting in 2008, we will work with unions and others starting in 2007 to challenge such delays in the federal courts. We also wish to work collaboratively with others to devise a protocol that makes the process of applying for naturalization as quick and efficient as possible.
This work may result in an election in 2008 in which candidates seriously concerned with migration policy and its economic, social, human, and political consequences, are elected to office making the passage of comprehensive immigration reform more likely than in the present environment.
Should legislation be formulated before the 2008 election, which is very possible, interested groups will obviously engage in the process and assess their support of or opposition to whatever proposals emerge.
In summary, we recommend a program to (1) educate the Congress, the NGOs, and the public about the complex issues involved in formulating comprehensive immigration policy, a process we believe will take two years, (2) at the same organize naturalization and voter registration campaigns, (3) vote for candidates who support rational immigration reform in 2008, and (4) work with Congress to draft and enact comprehensive immigration reform after the 2008 election.
This is a longer-term plan than we and many others would prefer, but a solid foundation for legislation, public education, a decrease in the present level of anti-immigrant sentiment, and an environment in which Presidential politics are not involved, may be the conditions needed for comprehensive reform that is both in the national interest and protects the human rights of migrants.
Congress Debated Immigration Reform for 2 Years, and All We Got Was A Lousy Fence Bill?
by Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, a non-profit, non-partisan pro-immigration advocacy group.
How did we get from there to here?
The past two years has witnessed an extraordinary set of developments in the U.S. immigration policy debate. It's worth recalling some of the high and low lights...
Following his re-election, President George W. Bush makes comprehensive immigration reform a top priority for his second term. In December 2005, and in response to talk radio, talk TV, and the Minutemen, House leaders turn their backs on an increasingly unpopular President and pass the harshest immigration bill in 80 years. In the spring of 2006, millions of immigrants and their allies take to the streets in protest. In an Oval Office address, the President declares that the time has come to get control over the nation's borders by combining tough enforcement with a realistic framework for legal immigration. In a rare display of bipartisan problem-solving, a comprehensive immigration reform bill passes the Senate that combines tough border and workplace enforcement measures with more worker and family visas and a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In a series of independent polls, the public demands action from its leaders and declares its preference for the Senate approach. The stage is set for difficult but promising negotiations with the House.
And then, in an extraordinary display of cynical election-year calculation (miscalculation?), House leaders sidestep a conference committee with the Senate, mock the bipartisan Senate bill by labeling it the "Reid-Kennedy bill," and take their base-turnout strategy on a summer road show of "faux hearings." Upon returning to Washington for the last month of pre-election legislative action, the House Republican leadership pieces together a set of sweeping legislative measures straight out of their previously-passed enforcement-only bill, has them approved on the House floor (again), and attempts to impose its will on the Senate by adding them to must-pass appropriations measures.
Thanks to determined opposition from members on both sides of the aisle, cooler heads prevail and stop most of the sweeping House measures from becoming law. Senators Specter (R-PA), Gregg (R-NH), and Warner (R-VA), all of whom supported the comprehensive Senate immigration bill, refuse to yield to aggressive backroom attempts by House leaders to add the anti-immigrant bills to spending measures. Senators McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), Martinez (R-FL), Hagel (R-NE), Brownback (R-KS), and Craig (R-ID) among others, continue to speak out forcefully for comprehensive reform as the only way to truly fix the problem. And just as heroically, Senators Reid (D-NV), Kennedy (D-MA), Salazar (D-CO), Feinstein (D-CA), Durbin (D-IL), Lieberman (D-CT), and Obama (D-IL), among others, maintain their steadfast support for comprehensive reform in the face of a crass pre-election attempt to paint Democrats as "soft on illegal immigration."
This spirit of bipartisanship is mostly absent in the House, but Democratic House leaders such as Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA), Minority Whip Hoyer (D-MD), members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and many others, add their voices to those who rightly denounce the House tactics as the triumph of bad politics over good policy. Courageous Republican voices, such as Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), as well as others, bravely make the case for a comprehensive approach.
In the end, Congress appropriates more money for border security, approves a measure to make tunnel-building illegal, and in its highest profile "accomplishment," authorizes the construction of 700 miles of fencing along our 2,000 mile border with Mexico. (In fact, Congress authorizes 700 miles of fence in the "Secure Fence Act" but only appropriates enough money for DHS to build approximately 90 miles!)
Is this the best we can do?
This is what passes for political leadership? Refuse to convene a conference committee to negotiate a far-reaching reform on a pressing policy priority? A political road show aimed at throwing red meat to a minority of voters in hopes that they get angry enough to show up in November? Playing "gotcha" politics anchored in cynical disregard for the intelligence of American voters? A fence to nowhere with funds from nowhere? Is the failure to deliver workable reform one of the reasons Congress' approval rating is so low?
What's next?
What's next is the election. And the election results will have a considerable impact on future prospects for comprehensive immigration reform.
If House Republicans retain or expand their current majority and conclude that their hard line on immigration helped them do so, one suspects that Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will continue to be the face of the House Republican agenda on immigration issues. If House Republicans lose numerous seats or their majority, then prospects for comprehensive immigration reform will improve significantly. We believe there has been and will be a bipartisan majority for workable comprehensive reform in the House, no matter which party is in the majority. The main question is whether the leadership will allow this majority to work its will.
Whether the Senate is led by Republicans or Democrats, the upper chamber has already proven its ability to enact architecturally-sound comprehensive reform. The challenge for the Senate will be to improve on its 2006 bill so that it not only passes with strong bipartisan support, but works once implemented.
What about a lame duck session of Congress? Some proponents of comprehensive immigration reform are holding out hope that something good might happen when Congress returns the week after Election Day. We would be pleased to be proved wrong, but we are not optimistic. After all, what are the chances the House Republican leadership, after spending six months trashing comprehensive immigration reform, will come back in November and enact comprehensive immigration reform?
In fact, the more likely scenario is that House leaders will return determined to attach some or all of the sweeping enforcement-only measures rebuffed in September to must-pass appropriations measures. We hope and expect our allies in both parties and in both chambers will continue to resist this backdoor attempt to enact measures that will only serve to make our broken immigration system more dysfunctional.
What's needed?
We believe that the immigration debate will continue to roil American politics and American communities, and that voters will become more insistent that our leaders lead. We believe they will become more demanding that Congress and the President size up problems in their full dimensions so that our responses are realistic and workable. We believe they will intensify their call on Congress to solve complex problems like the broken immigration system with comprehensive, common-sense, bipartisan solutions—instead of the partisan polarization and paralysis we have today.
In the immigration debate, this would mean that we stop ignoring the facts of life. We can no longer ignore the fact that the U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on an increasingly integrated labor market with the world in general and Latin America in particular. We can no longer ignore the fact that 500,000 workers settle in the U.S. without legal status each year in part because there are only 5,000 visas for full-time low-skilled service workers. We can no longer ignore the fact that our family reunification system is badly backlogged and keeps spouses and children separated from loved ones for years. We can no longer ignore the fact that 20 years of enforcement-only strategies have failed to reduce illegal immigration, but have instead increased smuggling fees, the proliferation of fake documents, and the number of gruesome migrant deaths in the Arizona desert. We can no longer ignore the fact that the majority of the 12 million or so undocumented immigrants in this country work hard, live in families, and have been settled in the U.S. for years, making up 5% of the U.S. labor force and living as welcome members of many local communities.
We look forward to a continuing debate over how to reform our immigration laws so that we regain control of our borders, strengthen our economy, reunite families, level the playing field in the workplace, protect civil rights, and renew our nation's commitment to citizenship. We sincerely believe that replacing the broken status quo with a 21st century regulatory system that works is a matter of "when," not "if." We are confident that the next Congress will move beyond fences and slogans to fixes and solutions.
USCIS Reminds Applicats to Apply for Travel Documents for Holiday Travel Abroad Before the End of October
October 18, 2006
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) anticipates an unusually high volume of requests for advance parole and other travel documents this winter, given the occurrence of three major religious observances - Christmas, Hanukkah, and Hajj during the month of December. USCIS urges applicants needing a travel document (Reentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, or Advance Parole) to file
Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, before the end of October 2006.
If you are applying for renewal of your advance parole document (I-512L or I-512), USCIS will accept and adjudicate a Form I-131 filed up to 120 days before the date your current advance parole expires. If you currently have a valid reentry permit or refugee travel document that will soon expire, you may obtain a new reentry permit or refugee travel document by filing Form I-131 and returning the current document to USCIS. A new Form I-131 may be filed regardless of the expiration date of your current reentry permit or refugee travel document.
Please Note:
Individuals requesting advance parole must be approved before leaving the United States. Travel outside of the United States without advance parole may result in serious consequences including being unable to return to the United States and having pending immigration-related applications denied. An asylum applicant who leaves the United States on advance parole and returns to the country of claimed persecution shall be presumed to have abandoned his or her asylum application absent compelling reasons for such return.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, stipulates that immigrants who depart the United States after being unlawfully present in the United States for certain periods can be barred from admission to lawful permanent resident status, even if they have obtained advance parole. Those immigrants who have been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days, but less than one year are inadmissible for three years; those who have been unlawfully present for a year or more are inadmissible for 10 years. Immigrants who are unlawfully present and depart the U.S. and subsequently re-enter under a grant of parole, may nevertheless be ineligible to adjust their status.
USCIS recommends all immigrants with pending applications for adjustment of status check the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283, consult an immigration attorney, or an immigration assistance organization accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals before making any foreign travel plans.
-USCIS-
Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages
A crucial question in the current debate over immigration is what impact immigrants have on the wages of native-born workers. At first glance, it might seem that the simple economics of supply and demand provides the answer: immigrants increase the supply of labor; hence they should decrease the wages of native workers. However, the reality is more complicated than this. The latest study published by the Immigration Policy Center addresses this issue. The study, authored by Giovanni Peri, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Davis, and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is entitled "Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages: New Data and Analysis from 1990 2004."
In the study, Professor Peri argues that the widespread notion that immigrants decrease native wages is a misconception, complicated by two often overlooked reasons. First, immigrants and natives, with different skills and education levels, do not compete with each other for the same jobs, but actually complement each other performing interdependent jobs, thereby increasing the wages and productivity of natives. Second, evidence shows that new workers added to the labor force stimulate investment by entrepreneurs. When these two factors are included in the analysis of immigration and wages, it becomes clear that immigration has a positive effect on the wages of most native-born workers. To read the executive summary and for a link to the full report, visit the Immigration Policy Center at: http://www.ailf.org/ipc/infocus/infocus_10306.shtml
Be on the Lookout for Increased Deportation Proceedings
Sep. 28, 2006
A recently-posted USCIS July 11, 2006, memo from Michael Aytes, Associate Director, Domestic Operations on the issuance of NTAs, "Disposition of Cases Involving Removable Aliens", posted September 8, 2006, reveals that the USCIS is more precisely defining its procedures with respect to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the issuance of Notices To Appear for Removal/Deportation ("NTAs").
The USCIS has always had the authority to issue NTAs however increased awareness is warranted because of the ramifications that could flow from the filing of an application or petition for benefits for an alien who is not in a lawful status. (i.e. with respect to a pending I-130 petition for classification in the family preference categories or the filing of an I-130 petition in the family preference categories where the alien beneficiary is not in status). There is increasing concern that USCIS will be devoting attention to the status issue when reviewing these petitions and that they may, in the future, more aggressively exercise prosecutorial discretion unfavorably and elect to issue an NTA.
Armey blasts Republicans over opposition to guest-worker plan
By Dave Montgomery
September 27,2006
(MCT)
WASHINGTON - As the No. 2 man in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for nearly eight years, former Texas congressman Dick Armey never hesitated when it came to assailing Democrats.
But three years after leaving Congress, the former House majority leader is now savaging conservatives in his own party for what he calls "knee-jerk" opposition - "emphasis on jerk" - to the Bush administration's efforts to create a temporary guest-worker program and overhaul the nation's immigration system.
Armey, who is chairman of a Washington-based grass-roots organization called FreedomWorks, was a leading architect of the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 and remains a prominent and outspoken advocate for conservative causes.
But when it comes to the immigration debate that's raged in Congress for much of the past two years, he takes an almost polar-opposite position from many of his former Republican House colleagues, who are pressing for tough border security measures, including a 700-mile fence along the Southwest border.
"This has been rallied up by a lot of people that are very visible, make a lot of noise and have never been guilty of any deep thinking," Armey told reporters Tuesday after an appearance with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., co-sponsors of a proposed immigration compromise that includes a privately managed guest-worker program.
Unabashedly naming names, Armey described Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., as the "cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate" and said conservative commentator Pat Buchanan "is content to be a rock star" for "10 percent of the most militant voters in America."
Tancredo leads a coalition of House Republicans vehemently opposed to the president's guest-worker plan. Buchanan, who ran for president in 2000 as a Reform Party candidate, wants to defend the borders with U.S. troops and has said that the United States is in danger of becoming "MexiAmerica."
Armey also said he was "disappointed" with House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chief sponsor of an enforcement-only immigration plan passed by the House in December.
Several provisions, including the border fence, are being recycled as piecemeal border security measures that House leaders hope will clear Congress before a pre-election recess this week.
"I would have expected more deep thought from Sensenbrenner," Armey said.
USCIS to Expand Premium Processing Service
September 22, 2006
Three Additional Employment-based Immigrant Visa Categories Available Starting September 25, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today the addition of three new categories to the Premium Processing Service, which allows U.S. businesses to pay a $1,000 Premium Processing fee in exchange for 15-calendar-day processing of their case.
Starting on September 25, 2006, USCIS will begin accepting Premium Processing requests for
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, involving the following immigrant visa categories:
1.
EB-1, outstanding professors and researchers,
2. EB-2, members of professions with advanced degrees or exceptional ability not seeking a National Interest Waiver, and
3.
EB-3, workers other than skilled workers and professionals (i.e., unskilled labor requiring less than two years of training or experience.
Under the Premium Processing Service, USCIS guarantees petitioners that, for a $1,000 processing fee, it will issue either an approval notice, or where appropriate, a notice of intent to deny, a request for evidence or open an investigation for fraud or misrepresentation, within 15 calendar days of receipt. If the petition is not processed within 15 calendar days, USCIS will refund the $1,000 fee and continue to process the request as part of the Premium Processing Service. In addition to faster processing, petitioners who participate in the program may use a dedicated phone number and e-mail address to check on the status of their petition or ask any other questions they may have concerning their petition. Premium Processing Service continues to be available for previously designated classifications within Form I-140 and Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker.
Since 2001, Premium Processing Service has been available for several classifications within Form I-129, including E Treaty Traders and Investors, H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, H-2B Temporary Workers performing non-agricultural services, H-3 Trainees, L Intracompany Transferees, O Aliens of Extraordinary Ability and those performing essential support services, P Performers and Athletes and those performing essential support services, and Q international Cultural Exchange Visitors, R Religious Workers and NAFTA Professionals from Canada and Mexico. Form I-129 petitions for those nonimmigrant worker classifications will continue to be eligible for Premium Processing Service unless the filing period has closed (for example, when the annual cap for a specific visa has been reached.)
Also, since August 28, USCIS began accepting Premium Processing Service requests for petitions involving two other immigrant visa categories, the EB-3 Professionals, (i.e. immigrant workers with bachelor degrees who are members of the professions), and EB-3 Skilled Workers, (i.e. immigrant workers capable of performing skilled labor requiring at least two years of education, training or experience). Employers file for both of these immigrant visa categories using the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) as well.
Information about the expanded Premium Processing Service is available on the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/prem_process.htm or by calling the USCIS National Customer Service Center toll free at 1-800-375-5283.
– USCIS –
Senate Appropriators Block Harsh Enforcement Provisions from Conference Agreement on DHS Funding
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06092663 (posted Sep. 26, 2006)
House and Senate negotiators, on 9/25/06, agreed on a $34.8 billion conference report to fund the DHS in FY 2007 (H.R. 5441). This sum is an increase of $2.3 billion above fiscal year 2006 and $2.7 billion above the President’s request (includes $1.8 in emergency spending). The conference agreement is expected to be cleared by both chambers by the end of the week. Senate appropriators prevented the inclusion in the conference report of harsh immigration enforcement measures that House Republicans attempted to attach to it.
The agreement provides $21.3 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement, and related activities—a $2.1 billion increase over FY 2006. This figure includes $5.2 billion for the Secure Border Initiative which, the appropriations committee explains, will provide DHS “with the appropriate mix of technology, personnel, and infrastructure to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting our borders and immigration system.” Highlights include:
* $2.77 billion for border patrol, adding 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, for a total of 14,800;
* $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicle barriers, technology and infrastructure;
* $4.2 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
* $3.1 billion for the Coast Guard’s homeland security missions;
* $1.38 billion for ICE custody operations, adding 6,700 detention beds, for a total of 27,500;
* $28.2 million to assist state and local efforts to enforce immigration law;
* $238 million for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens;
* $600 million for Air and Marine Operations for border and airspace security;
* $183 million for a total of 75 fugitive operations teams nation-wide, an increase of 23;
* $137 million for the Criminal Alien Program;
* $44 million for Alternatives to Detention;
* $362 million for the US-VISIT program; and
* $135 million to support immigration verification systems.
Appropriators also agreed to add language criminalizing the construction of cross-border tunnels, and extending the deadline for implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) from January 1, 2008, to June 1, 2009.