Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA) examines the proposal
In his January 20, 2004 State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush stressed his desire that Congress pass a series of immigration reforms that he had previously announced. Essentially, the President repeated his desire that a new law be passed that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrant workers.
The President had initially put forth this plan on Jan. 7, largely in the hope that this will appeal to Hispanic voters who are seen as a key element to Bush’s re-election in November. The State of the Union provided a forum for the President to seek Congressional and public support for his immigration proposals. The President specifically asked that Congress “reform our immigration laws, so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the job.”
He continued “this reform will be good for our economy –– because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. ... I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.”
In a clear sign of how difficult it will be to pass this legislation, only about a dozen Republican legislators stood and applauded this section of the speech, while most Democrats gave only lukewarm applause. This underscores the key point, namely that merely because the President puts forth a proposal and then reinforces it in his State of the Union speech, the legislation must still be passed by Congress before it becomes the law of the land.
In this case, that it likely to be a long and arduous process and it will most likely result in an Act that has significant changes from the President’s initial proposal.
Leading Senators have already stated that they did not believe it possible for significant immigration reform to pass this year. A number of Senators directly involved on immigration issues stated that the President’s proposal should be seen as the start of a long legislative struggle to draft a bill and emphasized that this effort could take more than a year.
The proposed immigration legislation that President Bush unveiled on January 7 was designed to update the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This landmark legislation allowed any illegal immigrant who was living in the United States prior to 1982 to be eligible to apply for legal permanent residency. It also established a track for these individuals to eventually to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. At the time of passage, IRCA impacted approximately three million undocumented workers.
Today, there are approximately eight to ten million undocumented workers in the United States. President Bush’s proposal would establish a renewable three-year temporary work permit. After the work permit expires, the visa holder would be allowed to apply for a one time three-year renewal or return to their country of origin.
During the two three-year visa periods, under the terms of the Bush proposal, workers would be eligible to apply to existing permanent resident categories. The three-year permit, however, does not establish a new amnesty program nor does it create a new category for people to apply for citizenship.
Additionally, President Bush’s proposal calls for a “reasonable increase in the annual limit of legal immigrants”, however it does not provide any specifics on the size of these increases.
Only a day after the State of the Union speech, two prominent Senators who have been directly involved in immigration issues proposed an alternative to President Bush’s proposals. Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) submitted a “bipartisan” immigration reform bill that differed significantly from the one proposed by the President.
The Daschle-Hagel proposal would allow illegal immigrants and their families to become “invested stakeholders” in the United States. This would put them on a track for permanent residence and eventual citizenship, presuming they meet at least a half-dozen or more additional requirements.
For example, to qualify under the Daschle-Hagel proposal, such illegal immigrants would have to have lived in this country for five years and worked here for four years, including one after the enactment of the bill. They would have to pass national security and criminal background checks, pay federal taxes, demonstrate knowledge of English and American civics and pay a fine of at least $1,000.
The Daschle-Hagel plan would admit new temporary workers from other nations, but limit their number to 350,000, as contrasted to the Bush proposal, which did not have a specific limit.
During the introduction of his bill, Daschle stressed that under his proposals, becoming a permanent resident “will not come without a great deal of effort”.
Both the President’s proposal and that put forth by the two Senators leave many questions unanswered. For example, will nationals of one country be favored over others? Will workers be forced to leave their families at home? What will happen to those who have families already with them?
Additional concerns center around whether or not a foreign worker would be tied to a particular job? If so, what protections will be available to prevent exploitation by an unscrupulous employer? Would either proposal provide expedited procedures to green cards? Under the Bush plan, would workers be subject to deportation once their three or six year work status ends?
Both the President’s plan and those proposed by Senators Daschle and Hagel, along with immigrations bills suggested by others Members of Congress must first be drafted into legislative language before they can be introduced in Congress.
Once introduced, these bills will be subjected to the normal legislative process. The bills will be referred to a variety of Committees and then to their subcommittees for study, review and possible amendments.
It is likely that both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will have primary jurisdiction. In the Senate, the subcommittee on Immigration is likely to take the lead in dealing with the various proposals. In the House, the subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims is likely to be the first to examine the proposals.
They are likely to hold extensive hearings to learn the arguments for and against all of the provisions in the bills. Advocacy groups and individuals will testify in an effort to educate lawmakers and also to influence the final language of the bill. Constituents and other concerned individuals will contact their representatives in the House and Senate to present further views on the prospective legislation.
Once the various subcommittees with relevant jurisdiction over all of the sections of the proposed bills have acted, the bills will come before the full Committees, which may accept the subcommittee versions or “mark-up” a different bill. The bills are then sent to the full House and Senate for approval or even further amending.
Once each chamber has passed their version of an immigration reform bill, the two bodies must reconcile any differences in their respective bills. A Conference Committee, consisting of representatives from both chambers and both parties, does this. When they have reconciled any differences or redrafted the legislation, both the House and Senate must again pass it before being sent to the President for his signature or, should he disapprove, his veto.
President Bush and a number of key Senators have begun the process of making reforms to American immigration laws. This process is likely to be long and
drawn-out. The final bill may - or may-not -bear a close resemblance to the initial proposals.
As a word of warning, it would be folly to assume that the President’s proposal will likely be the law of the land within a relatively brief time
frame. Thus, people should not base their personal plans on specific proposals contained in the initial drafts.
Proposals dealing with immigration reform have enormous consequences for the Indian American community. Thus, those interested in these issues are to be encouraged to contact their representatives to express their views on these vital issues. In addition, it would be a useful exercise to monitor the progress of these bills as they go though the legislative process.
(Ralph Nurnberger is Washington Associate for the Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA). He is also a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and Senior Partner in Nurnberger & Associates, a Washington-based government relations firm.)
President’s Proposal on Immigration Reform