|
To print this page, press CTRL+P or the print icon in your browser. Then close this window to return to site. |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Complaining from the Sidelines is not a Solution In last year’s election, voters said one thing loud and clear: DO SOMETHING ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Of course, there were a lot of different opinions about what should be done, but more inactivity was clearly not an option. Separate bills approved by the U.S. House and Senate last year were considered unpalatable by the vast majority of Americans. One version did not adequately address our broken immigration system, and the other was too permissive in its automatic path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. So, nothing changed. Meanwhile, every day, thousands of illegal immigrants continue to pour across our border (roughly 10 percent are serious criminals), workplace enforcement is a joke, and crime and violence are escalating. Now the Democrats control Congress, and it’s clear a Democrat-only bill would be more liberal than the bill passed by the Senate last year, over my objection. I was presented with a choice: sit on the sidelines and complain about a bad bill; or work hard to ensure that any bill that passed the Senate is one influenced as much as possible by my conservative principles. For weeks, senators and administration officials worked to forge a bill that secures our border, creates workable and effective interior and workplace enforcement, realistically deals with the people illegally here, and designs a truly temporary worker program that responds to the nation’s fluctuating labor needs. In these meetings, Republicans insisted on achieving certain milestones in interior and border security (like hiring 18,000 border patrol agents and constructing 370 miles of fencing) before allowing any visas for illegal immigrants – marking a departure from last year’s approach, which resisted any attempts to provide “triggers” before the border was substantially secured. Republicans also insisted on an effective and enforceable electronic employment verification system that would prevent employers from hiring illegal workers and provide stiff penalties for those who violate the law. This verification system also must be fully operational before “triggering” other features of the bill. Within one year, all illegal immigrants would have to come forth and begin a process to become legal; those who don’t will be deported when they’re caught. Those who cannot meet the conditions of their probationary period also will be required to return home. Republicans also successfully demanded that the temporary worker program require workers to return home after two years and that the program not serve as a path to citizenship. Opponents of amnesty have always insisted that Congress end the opportunities for “chain migration” – bringing in relatives who ultimately become U.S. citizens – and that is done in this bill. In addition, future green cards will be given on the basis of merit, favoring those with key job skills, education, and English-language proficiency. Providing a path to legalization was always a non-negotiable priority for Democrats, but Republicans were still able to deny an automatic path to citizenship. Under the bill, all permanent resident applicants must apply from the back of the line, from their home country, pay higher fines than in last year’s bill, pass a criminal background check, and show a nearly perfect work history, English proficiency, and familiarity with American civics. Those with the best records would have the highest priority for a green card, but none could earn citizenship in less than 13 years. Obviously there is much more to the bill than these few highlights. There are certainly many provisions I don’t like, and equally as many that some Democratic Senators don’t like. I think that is the reason why you’re seeing groups from both sides opposing the bill. A number of special interest lobby groups are already screaming for changes. The bill is now being debated and amended. If the core of the bipartisan consensus is not accurately reflected in the final legislative language, or is seriously undercut by amendments in the Senate or House, it will lose support, including from me. What we have shown is it that a bipartisan consensus is possible. The American people will have to determine if it is what they want; but for me, failing to try is not a solution. A version of this text first appeared on May 20, 2007, in The Arizona Republic. ### |