Couple convicted of harboring maid
Via www.jsonline.com
They face up to 45 years in prison, deportation
By LISA SINK
Posted: May 26, 2006
A wealthy Brookfield couple face up to 45 years in prison, forfeiture of their home and deportation to their native Philippines after being the first convicted in eastern Wisconsin of imposing forced labor on an illegal immigrant they harbored as a maid for 19 years.
A federal jury deliberated about seven hours before finding Jefferson N. and Elnora Calimlim guilty of all four felony immigration charges filed against them, including what a prosecutor said may be the nation’s first forced labor conviction not involving use of violence.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Johnson hailed the convictions as a victory for protecting the civil rights of all people and preventing human trafficking.
“Holding somebody in involuntary servitude goes against the very nature and foundation of the United States,” Johnson said in an interview. “The Department of Justice is dedicated to preserving people’s rights, regardless of their status in life.”
Defense attorneys immediately vowed to appeal, saying the case was rife with issues because the forced labor charge was enacted in 2000 and largely untested in courts.
Prosecutors contended in trial that the Calimlims exploited and manipulated an uneducated woman from an impoverished family into thinking she had no choice but to work for them for long hours with minimal pay under harsh restrictions or face deportation.
Defense attorneys acknowledged that the family went to great lengths to keep her hidden in the home, but said that was done to protect her, not coerce her. They said the woman, Irma Martinez, agreed to the rules because she wanted to work for them rather than live in the Philippines.
The Calimlims’ son Jefferson M. Calimlim, 31, was found guilty of one felony for harboring an illegal immigrant but acquitted of two other charges. He faces a maximum five-year prison term when he and his parents are sentenced Sept. 15.
The parents each were convicted of harboring an illegal immigrant for financial gain, conspiracy to harbor an illegal immigrant, forced labor and attempted forced labor.
Because they are legal, permanent residents of the United States but citizens of the Philippines, the parents face “practically inevitable” deportation, Johnson told Chief Judge Rudolph T. Randa as she argued that the couple be jailed pending sentencing.
Deportation will be decided not by the judge but by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, Johnson said.
Johnson argued that the couple are a high flight risk because of their wealth and family connections to the Philippines, given the substantial prison time they faced.
She said they would be unable to fathom changing from “living from a life of privilege to living in a 10-by-13 cell.”
The husband is a practicing ear, nose and throat doctor; his wife is a licensed physician who stopped working in 1982.
Defense attorneys Tom Brown and Michael Fitzgerald objected to immediate incarceration, saying the two were professionals who would not want to be separated from their three U.S.-born children or the husband’s medical practice.
Government holds passports
Randa declined to jail the couple but said the government will continue to hold their passports.
The family declined to comment, as did Brown and Fitzgerald. Martinez, who is living in Chicago with federal assistance, was not in court when the verdicts were delivered.
Defense attorney Rodney Cubbie, representing the Calimlims’ son, argued that his client should never have been charged. He was not involved in hiring, paying or setting the terms of Martinez’s employment, which began when he was 11.
After graduating from college, Jeff Jr. was living at home when agents raided the family’s 8,600-square-foot home on Still Point Trail in September 2004 – acting on a tip from the estranged wife of another son, Jack Calimlim.
During the raid, Jeff Jr. lied to an FBI agent who quickly questioned the son as he was sitting on a bathroom toilet. The son said he hadn’t seen the maid in about a year, but the father showed agents where she was hiding in her basement bedroom closet. The jury acquitted the son of lying to the agent.
The eight-day trial included testimony from the maid and her parents, whom the federal government had flown to the United States and who lived in Chicago in preparation for the trial.
Defense attorneys focused their attacks on the forced labor charges, acknowledging that the couple did knowingly harbor an illegal immigrant.
They argued, however, that it was not done for financial gain – a required element of the crime. They said the couple, who live in a $1.2 million suburban Milwaukee home with tennis courts and a four-car garage, were not motivated by obtaining cheap labor as the prosecution contended.
They said the family was driven by their Filipino culture.
The couple were raised in well-off families, with the family trees dominated by generations of doctors and nurses. Elnora Calimlim said she and her five siblings each had their own nanny growing up and she was very close to her nanny, confiding in her like a mother.
Elnora’s father, a physician, was the one who found Irma Martinez and made arrangements for her to be his daughter’s housekeeper and help raise his grandchildren.
Susan French, a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights division in Washington, D.C., told jurors that the Calimlims’ stance that they wanted to help, not exploit, an impoverished Filipino woman was “bogus” and “preposterous.”
If they wanted to help her and her family, why didn’t they pay her a U.S. minimum wage? French asked.
Elnora Calimlim testified that Irma Martinez was paid $1,800 a year for the first 10 years and $4,800 a year thereafter.
Brown said those wages, while “peanuts” in the U.S., were worth much more in pesos to the Martinez family. With the wages, they bought a sturdier home, land to farm, farming tools, medicine and education for their children.
Current Cap Count for H-1B’s FY 2007 as of 05/25/2006
Cap | Beneficiaries Approved | Beneficiaries Pending | Beneficiary Target 1 | Total | Date of Last Count | |
H-1B | 58,200 2 | 7,718 | 41,316 | 61,000 | 49,034 | 5/25/2006 |
H-1B Advance Degree Exemption | 20,000 | 1,672 | 4,158 | 21,000 | 5,830 | 5/25/2006 |
H-1B (FY 06) | 58,200 | —— | —— | —— | Cap Reached | 8/10/2005 |
H-1B Advance Degree Exemption (FY 06) | 20,000 | —— | —— | —— | Cap Reached | 1/17/2006 |
Current H-1B Cap Count for Fiscal Year 2007 as of 05/23/2006
|
Cap |
Beneficiaries Approved |
Beneficiaries |
Beneficiary Target 1 |
Total |
Date of Last Count |
|
|
H-1B |
58,200 2 |
7,396 |
37,754 |
61,000 |
45,150 |
5/23/2006 |
|
H-1B Advance Degree |
20,000 |
1,611 |
3,944 |
21,000 |
5,555 |
5/23/2006 |
|
H-1B (FY 06) |
58,200 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
8/10/2005 |
|
H-1B Advance Degree Exemption (FY |
20,000 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
1/17/2006 |
Infosys to Hire 300 US Grads
As part of its globalization plan, the Indian software giant will hire graduates fresh out of college in the U.S. and the U.K.
Infosys Technologies, a major Indian technology consultant, announced Monday it would recruit 300 college graduates from universities across the United States this year.
The first batch of 100 recruits will be brought to India, undergo training at the company’s development centers across India for six months before returning to work for Infosys in the U.S.
No Indian company has hired foreigners in such large numbers at one time. TCS, Wipro and Satyam, all rivals to Infosys, hire locally in the countries they operate in, such as China, Malaysia, and of course in the U.S., but their numbers pale in comparison with what Infosys is planning to do.
“We firmly believe that the future success of Infosys lies in its ability to create an environment that is open to people from different nationalities and ethnicities,” said Infosys Chairman Narayana Murthy, the company’s chief mentor.
With this move, Infosys will mirror what global rivals Accenture and IBM have always been doing. Both of those companies have huge numbers of Indians working for them in India.
“It’s a smart move,” said Partha Iyengar, vice president of research at Gartner in India. He has been following the software industry’s growth in India for over a decade and believes such an initiative is just the beginning.
As Indian software services companies innovate and move up the value chain in their offerings to customers, they need to have a deep understanding of the local markets.
Local Presence Needed
“No longer will it suffice to have H1B visa holders from India work onsite at client premises and then move the work to India. These companies will need a big local presence,” said Mr. Iyengar.
Infosys began recruiting for entry-level software engineer positions at top universities in the U.S. following a successful program that brought 10 young Americans to work in Bangalore last year. Applications were admitted from all majors, including liberal arts, for the software engineering position.
Along the same lines, a pilot program will take place to recruit students from universities in the United Kingdom. In 2007, about 25 students will be hired from the U.K.
TV Mohandas Pai, director of human resources and education and research, said: “We plan to run a pilot at top universities in the U.K. this year for 25 positions.”
While this is the first time Infosys will recruit fresh graduates for permanent positions, students from schools such as Stanford Graduate School of Business, MIT Sloan School of Management, Harvard Business School, and the Said Business School of Oxford have been competing to visit Infosys’ Bangalore campus for InStep, the Infosys internship program.
Last year InStep received over 11,000 applications for 100 positions. InStep recruits students from 82 universities in 18 countries to come to India for eight to 24 weeks to learn as an intern at Infosys.
Immigration bill’s timeline hit
In a recent Washington Times interview, the new director of USCIS indicated that he does not believe 90 days is enough time to prepare for the administration of the proposed guest worker plan.
Senate Approves Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill
Via AILA
05/25/2005
The Senate voted 62 to 36 to approve compromise immigration reform
legislation (S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006), thereby setting the stage for what will likely be a contentious
House/Senate conference, in which the Senate-passed bill will now have
to be harmonized with the harsh, enforcement-only bill (H.R. 4437)
passed by the House in December. Despite attempts by a handful of
Senators to fundamentally alter the bill that was reported out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in March, the basic architecture of
comprehensive immigration reform survived intact after nearly four
weeks of Senate Floor debate on the measure and votes on more than 40
amendments.
The Senate bill includes a path to permanent legal status for most
of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country, a new
temporary worker program, significant increases in family- and
employment-based permanent visas, important reforms to the agricultural
worker program, significant reforms to the high-skilled immigration
programs, and relief for undocumented high school graduates (DREAM
Act). The bill also includes some very harsh enforcement provisions and
erosion of due process protections that will need to be addressed and
corrected as negotiations move forward.
Senators tackled several controversial issues today before voting
for the bill’s passage. The first of these was an amendment (No. 4097)
offered by Senator Cornyn (R-TX) that would strike provisions in the
bill that would preserve the confidentiality of information furnished
by applicants for legalization and allow government agencies to share
an undocumented immigrant’s personal information if his or her
application and all appeals for legal status have been denied.
Opponents of the amendment argued that striking these important
safeguards would serve as a major disincentive for undocumented
immigrants to come out of the shadows and participate in the program.
The Senate rejected the Cornyn amendment on a tie vote of 49-49.
Senator Bingaman (D-NM) offered an amendment (No. 4131) that would
cap the number of employment-based immigrant visas available to workers
and their immediate relatives at 650,000 visas. This is a net reduction
of several hundred thousand permanent visas compared to the number that
would be available under the current bill. Thirty percent of the
worldwide visas would be available annually to workers in the new H-2C
category. Under the Bingaman amendment that number would be
approximately 200,000 (30% of 650,000). At a rate of 200,000 H-2C
temporary worker entrants per year plus another 200,000 derivative
spouses and children, there could be 400,000 entrants vying for 200,000
slots in a given year. The result would be a backlog in immigrant visas
growing by 200,000 per year. Senator Bingaman argued that his amendment
was designed to establish certainty about how many individuals would be
eligible for permanent status under this bill. However, opponents
responded that the amendment would create significant uncertainty as to
how many workers could pursue permanent residence in any given year.
Indeed, they added, the spouses and children of principals from one
preference category could end up taking slots that would otherwise be
allocated to employment based principals in another high demand
preference category.
The Bingaman amendment was nonetheless approved by a vote of 51 to 47.
Next up was Senator Feingold (D-WI), with an amendment (No. 4083)
that would strike an obscure provision in the bill-section 227(c)-that
was added during Committee markup without any discussion, and with
little awareness by most Members or staff that it had been included.
Section 227(c) would bar federal courts from staying the deportation of
any immigrant with a final removal order unless he or she shows by
“clear and convincing evidence” that deportation is prohibited as a
matter of law. This heightened standard would make it virtually
impossible for most asylum seekers, domestic abuse victims, and human
trafficking victims to obtain stays of deportation while their cases
are on appeal to the federal courts, resulting in grave, potentially
life-threatening consequences for legitimate asylum seekers. Section
227(c) also would cause the United States to violate the United Nations
Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which
prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they will face
persecution. This same provision was stricken by the Senate during the
conference negotiations over the REAL ID Act.
Senators approved the Feingold amendment on a vote of 52 to 45.
Senator Sessions (R-AL) was next on deck, with an amendment (No.
4108) that would deny eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit to
aliens adjusting their status under either the new H-2C guestworker
program, the earned adjustment program for undocumented immigrants
currently present in the country, or the AgJobs program.
The Sessions amendment was rejected by a vote of 37 to 60.
Senator Ensign (R-NV) offered the final amendment to the bill, which
was similar to the Sessions amendment above. The Ensign amendment (No.
4136) would preclude an alien who legalizes under the bill’s earned
adjustment program from collecting any tax refund for tax years prior
to 2006, even if he or she paid all of taxes on time and is owed the
refund because of an inadvertent overpayment or an IRS error. In
addition, the amendment would preclude such individuals from filing a
claim for the Earned Income Tax Credit or any other tax credits for tax
years prior to 2006, potentially requiring legalized immigrants to pay
more taxes than other people.
Senators approved the Ensign amendment on a vote of 50 to 47.
After the Ensign vote, Senators turned to a manager’s amendment, a
package of numerous individual amendment agreed to in advance by both
sides that would make a number of fixes to the underlying bill. We have
not yet seen the text of the amendment so we don’t know with any
certainty what changes were included.
Senators voted 56 to 41 (with one Member voting “present”) to
approve the manager’s amendment after which a final vote on the bill
was ordered.
The Senate approved S. 2611 by a vote of 62 to 36.
Senate set to clear US immigration bill
Via Boston.com
05/25/2006
Vote could spark a clash with House
WASHINGTON
— A bill that would require sweeping changes in immigration law is on
track for final approval today in the Senate, setting up contentious
election-year negotiations with conservative House leaders who are
demanding a harsher crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
The Senate bill, which incorporates ingredients of President Bush’s
proposal, combines enhanced border security measures, a guest worker
program, and a path to citizenship for most of the 12 million
undocumented immigrants now in the United States.
The bill’s supporters said they expect an overwhelming vote in favor
of the bill today, with a margin similar to yesterday’s 73-to-25 vote
to close off debate.
The leaders said they hoped the size of the majority in the Senate
will convince House opponents that any bill must include ways for
undocumented immigrants to achieve legal status — a key difference
between the two chambers.
“This creates major momentum for this legislation,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy , the Massachusetts Democrat.
“Overwhelming bipartisan support for a common-sense, comprehensive
immigration reform — this may be the most important vote that we cast
[this year] here in the United States Senate.”
Final Senate approval will mark a victory for Bush, whose televised
address a week ago last Monday called on the Senate to make such a
move. The bill’s supporters received 13 more votes than the 60 needed
to block a filibuster by conservative Republicans — a margin that both
Republicans and Democrats said was unthinkable before Bush’s speech.
Still, House leaders remained adamantly opposed to legal status for
those who entered the country illegally. They label this principle
“amnesty.”
The Senate bill may have to be significantly watered down before it
could become law — possibly removing the ability for illegal
immigrants to eventually become citizens. If not, the entire issue
could ultimately die in stalled negotiations between the two bodies.
With that possibility of an impasse in mind, a group of influential
Republican senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Chuck Hagel of
Nebraska, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina — have begun meeting
with rank-and-file Republican House members, to persuade them to
support the Senate approach. Bush’s top political aide, Karl Rove, is
holding similar meetings with other House members.
“The American people are liking what they see” in the Senate bill,
Graham said at a press conference. “To those who believe that
[approving] no bill is a good answer, you’re dead wrong. . . . To do
nothing is a political loser.”
Graham and McCain said they are warning their fellow Republicans
that a failure to act will reflect poorly on the GOP’s leadership on an
issue that is of great concern to the public.
“It would contribute to the low opinion which Americans have of
Congress,” McCain said at a press conference. “We need to make
progress.”
House leaders have yet to bend on the issue of immigration changes
as laid out in the Senate measure. Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the
House majority leader, John A. Boehner , said yesterday that the
chamber’s leaders are keeping an open mind.
But Madden also said that everyone should be aware that the House
approach is far different from the one being supported in the Senate.
“No one underestimates the challenges that lie ahead in trying to come
up with an agreement,” Madden said.
The bill is emerging from two weeks of Senate debate with a series
of changes sought by conservatives. Senators approved a 370-mile fence
along portions of the Mexican border, voted to make English the
“national language” of the United States, and voted to cap the guest
worker visas at 200,000 per year, down from 400,000 in the original
bill.
The original bill had no fence or English-language provisions.
Those concessions are particularly troubling because the bill is
likely to become even less accommodating of immigrants in talks with
the House, said Ali Noorani , executive director of the Massachusetts
Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “They’re setting some really
scary precedents,” Noorani said. “They keep toeing the line of going
too far. They haven’t quite crossed the line yet, but they’re
definitely close.”
The National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a coalition
of immigrants’ rights groups, is opposing the Senate bill, saying it
makes citizenship too difficult to achieve for undocumented immigrants.
“The rush to reach a bipartisan accord on immigration legislation has
led to a compromise that would create deep divisions within the
immigrant community and leave millions of undocumented immigrants in
the shadows of our country,” the group wrote in a joint statement. “We
say, `No deal.’ “
But architects of the Senate compromise said they succeeded in
turning back a series of more damaging amendments. One proposal would
have prevented guest workers from ever becoming citizens. Another would
have delayed any new work programs for immigrants until the Department
of Homeland Security declares the nation’s borders to be sealed; this
would be unlikely to happen for many years.
The changes that were approved by the Senate were necessary for the
sake of compromise, said Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic
whip. “There are plenty of things wrong with this bill, but there are
plenty of things right with it, too,” he said.
Still, the amendments were not enough to convince a core group of
conservative senators, foreshadowing the greater opposition the bill
will face in the House.
Senator Jeff Sessions , an Alabama Republican, said the country can
expect to add 28 million new legal residents over the next decade if
the bill becomes law. This would leave taxpayers with a huge burden of
services that will need to be provided, he said.
“It’s still not fixed, in my opinion, in a whole number of ways,”
Sessions said of the Senate bill. “It will absolutely leave us in a
weaker fiscal position than we are today.”
Twenty-three of the 25 votes against advancing the bill were cast by
Republicans; they were joined by two Democratic senators, Robert C.
Byrd of West Virginia and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. All 12 New
England senators voted in favor of moving the bill forward, as did the
majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee.
The bill would separate illegal immigrants into three categories,
based on how long they have been in the United States. Those here for
longer than five years — an estimated 7 million people — could earn
legal work status immediately and could get on a path to citizenship by
paying fines and back taxes, learning English, and maintaining stable
work histories and clean criminal records. Those who have been here for
between two and five years — about 3 million people — would have to
leave the country and apply for work permits at a port of entry before
beginning the path to legal work status and eventual citizenship.
The 1 million to 2 million undocumented immigrants with less than
two years in the United States would be on a slower path to citizenship.
They would have to return to their countries of origin and apply for
standard work permits and green cards if they want to return. Unlike
those who have been in the country longer, they would not receive
preference for work permits.
The measure would also increase penalties for employers who hire
undocumented immigrants, and would require deportation for undocumented
immigrants convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors. In addition, it
would more than double the Border Patrol force of 11,300 agents within
the next five years.
Tough House-Senate negotiations over immigration expected
04/25/2006
VIA CNN.com
Senate poised to pass measure that includes legalization plan
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators are betting the U.S. would benefit from giving most illegal immigrants the chance to become American citizens — highlighting their resolve to pass a landmark immigration overhaul.
With approval expected by mid-Thursday, the Senate first had to work through several amendments that did not threaten the overall measure.
“I will be voting for it,” Majority Leader Bill Frist said after senators finished work late Wednesday. Frist, R-Tennessee, said the Senate would have a strong bill to take to negotiations with the House.
Opponents made a last-ditch attempt on Wednesday to derail the bill, contending it violated spending limits. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, said the bill would bust the budget. Supporters countered that immigrants will be working and contributing more than they will cost.
“The economy is as good as it’s ever going to get in your lifetime,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. The estimated 12 million immigrants in the country have assimilated into the economy “and it’s humming,” he said. The effort was defeated 67-31.
Immigration Bill Backed in Senate, Setting Up Clash
Via The New York Times
WASHINGTON, May 24 — A compromise Senate bill that would toughen border security and put most illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship emerged intact Wednesday from more than a week of impassioned debate. Its advance set up a showdown with the House over the most substantial overhaul of immigration law in 20 years.
After eight days of amendments and fiery arguments about national identity, the Senate voted 73 to 25 to limit further debate on the bill, suggesting that it had broad bipartisan support. The Senate also defeated several last-ditch efforts to derail the legislation, and members of both parties predicted that it would pass on Thursday.
The effort to limit the tide of illegal immigration and deal with those illegal immigrants who are already in the United States will then move to negotiation between the Senate and the House, which has passed legislation that focuses on bolstering border security and offers no provision for citizenship. The gulf between the two versions is so vast, and the politics of immigration so heated in this election year, that the prospects for a deal remain murky at best.
Many House Republicans vehemently oppose the provisions in the Senate bill that would legalize most illegal immigrants and create a guest worker program that would bring 200,000 foreign workers into the country each year. They have vowed to fight to prevent the legislation from becoming law, and they have the support of many grass-roots conservatives around the country.
But supporters of the bill hailed the coalition of Republicans and Democrats that fended off conservatives’ repeated efforts to kill it. Enactment of the measure would also be a victory for President Bush, who has thrown his support behind it.
“We’re now down the homestretch,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, one of the bill’s architects.
In December, the House defied Mr. Bush’s call for a guest worker program and passed a border security bill that would criminalize illegal immigrants’ presence in the country. Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, said Wednesday that he and other House conservatives remained steadfast in “support for a security-first approach to immigration.”
So with passage of the Senate legislation on track, senators and Bush administration officials quickly turned their attention to wooing the House. For the second straight week, the administration dispatched Karl Rove, the president’s political adviser, to a meeting of House Republicans to press Mr. Bush’s case for an approach broader than theirs.
In an effort to reassure conservatives, administration officials also moved swiftly to make good on their promise to reinforce beleaguered Border Patrol agents, telling the House Armed Services Committee that the first contingent of up to 6,000 National Guard troops would be deployed to the border with Mexico on June 1.
A number of Senate Republicans, including Mr. McCain, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said that they were reaching out to their House colleagues and that some seemed interested in finding common ground.
The leader of the conservative caucus in the House, Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, proposed a bill on Tuesday that would allow illegal immigrants to become guest workers, though they would not be allowed to become permanent residents or citizens.
In addition, Mr. McCain said he had spoken to Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, who told him that several of his colleagues were interested in supporting a compromise.
But Mr. Castle, a moderate who supports the outlines of the Senate bill, warned that the negotiations ahead would be extremely hard and said both the measure produced by the House and the one produced by the Senate might end up being significantly rewritten.
“There are House members who think the Senate has already gone too far,” Mr. Castle said. “Blending it with the House bill is going to be a very difficult process.”
“I wish I could tell you that I think a majority of the House is looking for the same kind of solution” as the Senate, he said. “I couldn’t say that right now.”
Senators opposed to their chamber’s bill said they were now placing hopes on their allies in the House.
“We’ve had some good debate in the Senate,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who is a fierce critic of the measure. “But it’s still not fixed, in my opinion, in a whole number of ways. What really needs to be done is for the bill to be pulled down.”
Under the Senate agreement, illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, about seven million people, would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, passed background checks, paid fines and back taxes, and enrolled in English classes.
Illegal immigrants who have lived here two to five years, about three million people, would have to leave the country briefly and receive a temporary work visa before returning, as a guest worker. Over time, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency and ultimately citizenship.
Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years, about one million people, would be required to leave the country altogether. They could apply for the guest worker program, but they would not be guaranteed acceptance in it.
The legislation would also require employers to use a new employment verification system that would distinguish between legal and illegal workers. In addition, it would impose stiff fines for violations by employers, create legal-immigrant documents resistant to counterfeiting, increase the number of Border Patrol agents and mandate other enforcement measures.
Critics of the bill did gain some notable victories. They won passage on amendments that call for 370 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, designate English as the national language and reduce the number of foreign guest workers to be admitted annually to 200,000 a year from 320,000.
Still, the central elements of the bill, the legalization of illegal immigrants and the guest worker program, emerged almost entirely intact.
UPDATE -Immigration bill passes U.S Senate hurdles
WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) – A bill that would toughen border security while giving millions of illegal immigrants a chance to earn U.S. citizenship cleared key test votes in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, setting the stage for passage this week and a big battle with the House of Representatives.
The Senate voted 73-25 to limit further debate on the bill as a bipartisan coalition withstood several attempts by opponents to unravel the legislation. Lawmakers now expect the bill to be passed, most likely on Thursday.
“We’re now down the home stretch,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who backs the compromise. “We fought off a number of very clearly crafted amendments that would basically have destroyed the bill.”
The Senate, on a vote of 67-31, also beat back a challenge from some Republican opponents who sought to kill the bill through a budget procedural point saying it busted spending blueprints. They argued that low-wage immigrants who become legal residents and citizens will be eligible for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs, adding billions of dollars in costs to the budget.
“This bill is indeed a tremendous budget buster,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who opposes the bill. He said studies show the long-term cost to the federal government could top $50 billion a year.
Supporters said Wednesday’s strong bipartisan test votes should help in negotiations with the House, which has already passed a vastly different enforcement and border security bill and where many Republican lawmakers see the Senate legislation as tantamount to an amnesty for people who violated U.S. laws.
“This was an overwhelming show of force to move forward on our common sense and comprehensive plan for immigration reform,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who is helping shepherd the bill through the Senate.
MORE MONEY, MORE CLOUT
As the Senate worked toward passage of the legislation, it approved an amendment that would assess a $500 fee on illegal immigrants who benefit from the legalization program to help pay for border security. That would be on top of $2,750 in fines and other fees that were already included in the bill.
The Senate also voted to change an existing visa lottery program to ensure that at least 33,000 of the 50,000 visas issued annually under the program go to highly educated people with advanced degrees.
President George W. Bush, mindful of the growing clout of Hispanic voters, backs an approach similar to the Senate bill, but tough negotiations are expected with the House and it is unclear whether a final bill will emerge before the November congressional elections.
Bush said in a nationally televised address this month that thousands of National Guard troops would be deployed to secure the leaky border with Mexico, but the approach was dismissed by many conservatives in the House as inadequate.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who opposes the bill and will play a role in negotiations with the House, said it was a “50-50 proposition” whether House Republicans will accept a comprehensive approach in line with the Senate bill.
Many lawmakers say Bush will have to work hard to win a final bill before the November elections, in which Democrats are hoping for their best showing in more than a decade.
Polls show immigration reform is an important issue, and many Republicans believe that getting a bill that assuages some of voters’ concerns to Bush for his signature could help their sagging poll ratings.
Bush seeks the center on U.S. immigration
Via The Baltimore Sun
WASHINGTON // President Bush’s decision to step into the middle of an immigration crossfire among Republicans has opened a messy and high-stakes congressional battle that analysts and strategists say signals a new approach by Bush.
By insisting on a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, the president is showing a greater willingness to break with his party’s conservative wing, once the bloc that backed him most staunchly. To help persuade them to accept it, he is pushing for a package of tougher border security measures.
The strategy could yield a compromise on a tricky domestic issue and help cement Bush’s legacy, but Republicans acknowledge that it is fraught with risks for their party. Likely Senate passage this week of an immigration measure similar to the president’s plan would mark the beginning of prolonged House-Senate negotiations that would spotlight the divisions between Bush and warring Republican factions as the November elections creep closer.
“The worst-case scenario is that you simultaneously anger everybody, and [Bush and his team] seem to be headed in that direction,” said Michael Franc of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The approach stands in stark contrast to the way Bush worked with Congress during his first five years in office, when he put a premium on forging a unified front with congressional Republicans, especially the conservatives who dominate the House and make up his base, on major issues.
“The House used to be the most reliable source of support for anything the president wanted to do, but on this one — partly because this issue scrambles the normal party lines in a way that most others don’t — he can’t count on that,” said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political scientist. “They’re sticking to their guns for the time being.”
With his popularity at record lows and Republicans worried about their re-election chances, such symbiosis — which helped produce victories for Bush during his first term on tax cuts, education and prescription drugs — might no longer be possible, or even desirable, strategists and lawmakers said.
“Those days have ended,” said Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, referring to the time when Bush could depend on party congressional leaders to push through his agenda without question. “It’s not in his interest or ours. … We’re an independent body, and we need to act that way.”
Immigration is a vivid example. Bush’s position is at odds with that of the Republican-led House of Representatives, which passed a border security-only measure last year, and where key players view any guest worker plan that gives illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship as a nonstarter.
Bush’s strong focus last week on border security — including his call in a nationally televised address to deploy the National Guard to help police the U.S.-Mexican border — drew praise from conservatives. But it appears to have done little to increase the chances that they will accept his broader plan.
“I liken it to taking a bite out of an apple. The first bite at the immigration apple is border security. What they want to do is shove the whole apple down our throats,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, a North Carolina Republican, who called Bush’s guest worker plan “amnesty with makeup.”
The Senate is moving toward passage this week of a measure that pairs beefed-up security — including construction of a 370-mile fence to seal popular border crossings — with a guest worker program that would allow some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here to earn their way to citizenship by paying fines and taxes, learning English and holding down a job.
Republicans acknowledge that reconciling the Senate measure with the House version will be difficult.
“You’ve got an 18-wheel truck leaving the Senate and a one-wheel unicycle coming out of the House, and how do you, in that, build a comprehensive vehicle? I don’t know,” said Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho, a leading backer of the Senate measure and Bush’s approach.
Franc of the Heritage Foundation said Bush’s immigration stance is “one of the first signs of true triangulation that I’ve seen” from this president.
“He seems to be adopting a more take-charge attitude toward Congress,” Franc added.
Dick Morris, who is credited with perfecting the approach for Clinton, said Bush’s immigration strategy is “triangulation at its best.” “He is taking the best from the right and from the left and discarding the rest,” Morris said in an e-mail.
The strategy could work if Bush “builds the wall brick by brick, mile after mile, with the whole nation watching,” Morris said.
Continue reading
Senate Vote Preserves Immigration Bill
Via ABCNews.com
WASHINGTON May 23, 2006 (AP)— The Senate rejected a California Democrat’s plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country to remain, work and eventually become Americans, preserving a fragile bipartisan coalition needed to pass the bill.
Several lawmakers who voted against the proposal offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday said they did so reluctantly, but out of necessity to ensure survival of the broader immigration bill. The legislation is expected to win Senate passage Wednesday or Thursday.
“This legislation is on the edge of the ledge as it is,” said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, one of the Republicans supporting a delicate compromise that has kept the bill alive letting two-thirds of illegal immigrants stay but making the other third leave.
Feinstein’s amendment, defeated 61 to 37, would have supplanted the compromise that allows illegal immigrants here five years or more to stay and work six years and seek legal residency after paying back taxes and fines and showing they were learning English.
Those in the country two to five years under the compromise would have to go to a point of entry, exit and file an application to return as a guest worker. Those here less than two years must leave the country, but could apply from their native country to return as a guest worker and wait in line to get a visa.
“I have come to believe that the three-tiered system is unworkable, that it would create a bureaucratic nightmare and it would lead to substantial fraud,” Feinstein said Tuesday.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the compromise bill could mean losing Latinos in his state who have helped revive some of its small towns by buying homes and starting small businesses.
Feinstein offered the plan just before Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist set the stage for a preliminary vote Wednesday that could quickly bring the bill to a final vote. The bill appears headed for passage.
A bigger fight on the bill is still to come when the House and Senate meet to negotiate a compromise bill. The House passed an enforcement-only bill that makes illegal immigrants felons, cracks down on hiring of illegal immigrants and steps up border security. It offers no path to citizenship or a guest worker program, which critics say is amnesty.
Continue reading
Senate immigration bill on track after vote
Via Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Backers of a comprehensive immigration overhaul said they were optimistic about Senate passage later this week after lawmakers on Tuesday rejected a move to expand a compromise bill’s provision giving illegal immigrants a chance for citizenship.
In a vote of 37-61, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the California Democrat said would have streamlined the legalization process for some of the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants.
The vote showed the fragile coalition backing the compromise bipartisan immigration bill is holding together, increasing chances the measure will clear the Senate by the end of the week.
“I am very optimistic,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.
Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, said he expected a “sizable” majority in favor of the bill when the Senate votes on it later this week.
Feinstein would have created a new visa for illegal immigrants living in the United States before January 1, 2006. They would have been able to work in the country for six years and then apply for a green-card visa that gives them permanent residence and puts them on a path to citizenship.
Some lawmakers who supported the Feinstein approach ended up voting against it in order to preserve the underlying bipartisan compromise.
The compromise bill creates a three-tiered approach to addressing illegal immigrants. Those who have been in the United States for more than five years are given a path to citizenship, those in the United States between two and five years would have to step outside the country to get a temporary work permit, and those who have been in the country less than two years would have to leave.
Continue reading
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 