Debate the immigration bill

Debate the immigration bill
Rodel Rodis, May 30, 2007

If you log on to the Philippine dailies that are online and search for any mention of the White House-backed immigration bill that is winding its way in the U.S. Congress, you will find nothing. Zero. Nada. Wala. Why?

This is a bill with profound consequences for the estimated 500,000 Filipinos in the Philippines with approved immigrant visas who are just waiting for their priority dates to be current as well as for the families of the estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Filipino TNTs (“overstaying tourists”) in the U.S. who may get “amnesty”.

Filipino community organizations should hold forums or debates on this issue, fleshing out the bill’s provisions and its impact on Filipinos and other groups in the U.S. The community needs to be educated about the pros and cons to determine if the bill that deserves our support or opposition.

In my last column, I expressed cautious support for the bill with reservations. But the Filipinos for Affirmative Action (FAA), based in Oakland, California, has no reservations whatsoever in its opposition to the bill “because it continues to criminalize and scapegoat immigrants, further militarizes the border, shifts immigration policy from family-based immigration to a temporary employment and merit-based immigration system, does little to fix the backlog of family petitions, and proposes an unworkable legalization plan that would benefit few undocumented.”

The FAA is factually wrong when it charges that the bill “does little to fix the backlog of family petitions.” Title V of the bill provides 400,000 immigrant visas a year directed towards speeding up the issuance of immigrant visas. For married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who were petitioned in April of 2005, they would only have to wait eight years to immigrate to the U.S., instead of 20 years. The same would be true for siblings of U.S. citizens who were petitioned in April of 2005.

The problem is for those who were petitioned after May 1, 2005. Under this bill, their petitions would be voided even if they were already approved. And those who waited for years to become U.S. citizens so that they could petition their adult married or unmarried children and their siblings will no longer be able to do so as the bill eliminates four of the five family preference categories. This is anti-family values.

On the pro side, however, is the news that this past week, the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the bill sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) that provides an additional 20,000 immigrant visas to the married and unmarried children of Filipino WW II veterans who are already in their 80s and 90s. As Sen. Akaka noted after his amendment was approved 89-7, “it would be a great final honor for these heroes to be joined and cared for by their adult children as they move through their golden years.”

The FAA is correct in asserting that the bill “continues to criminalize and scapegoat immigrants”. But that is already happening now and whether this bill passes or not, the trend will undoubtedly continue. Except that if the bill doesn’t pass, the 12 million “overstaying tourists” - who may have the opportunity to legalize themselves with Z visas - will not have any relief from their continued criminalization.

The FAA also believes that the bill offers “an unworkable legalization plan that would benefit few undocumented.” That is entirely possible but let us recall that many thought the 1986 Amnesty Bill would also be unworkable. As it turned out, the bill provided green cards to at least 3,000,000 “illegal aliens” (this term is politically incorrect but “undocumented aliens”, a term favored by the FAA, does not include most Filipino TNTs who are “overstaying documented”).

This bill creates a new four-year, renewable “Z” nonimmigrant visa to the “undocumented” and “overstaying documented” population within the U.S. The Z visa is split up into three groups: a principal or employed alien (Z-1), the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2), and the minor children of that alien (Z-3). In order to be eligible for this Z visa, one must have been illegally present within the U.S. before January 1, 2007, be currently employed and pay fees and penalties totaling $1,000.

The bill provides that once a Z applicant submits a completed application, fingerprints, and is cleared by one-day background checks, he or she will receive probationary benefits which can eventually be converted to a Z nonimmigrant status after all background checks are clear and certain “triggers” are achieved.

The Z nonimmigrant may then apply to adjust status to lawful permanent residence “after the family backlog under Title V is eliminated if the Z applicant satisfies the merit requirements in the points schedule set forth in Title V, files the application for adjustment in the Z-1’s country of origin and pays a penalty of $4,000.”

The bill also incorporates the Dream Act where “individuals under the age of 30 who were brought to the United States out of their own control as a minor are eligible to receive their green card after three years rather than eight.”

The FAA believes that the “legalization provision is a false promise for the 12 million undocumented… fraught with obstacles that are a serious deterrent to the much-needed integration of this population who exist on the margins of society.”

The FAA considers the “requirement of continuous employment and particularly the ‘touch back’ provision” to be “unworkable”. The Z nonimmigrant who seeks an immigrant visa is required to return to his or her country of origin to apply for legal status using the new merit-based, point system.

According to the FAA, “few undocumented believe that the Department of Homeland Security, which has made its anti-immigrant sentiments clear, will let them back in. Since the merit system favors the educated and very skilled, millions of the undocumented will not qualify for legal status. Many will likely view ‘touch back’ as a potential trap and not avail of it.”

The FAA may be right on that point and we will not know for sure until the bill is passed and the system is set in place. No one can guarantee that it will work but no one can also say for certain that it won’t.

But what is the alternative? To believe that the U.S. Congress will pass a perfect immigration bill that will contain only positive provisions with no negative consequences is to believe in fantasy. It just won’t happen, not in our lifetime.

Let us recall that in December of 2005, the House passed, by a lopsided margin, the extremely repressive Sensenbrenner bill that would criminalize the 12 million TNTs in the U.S. The November 2006 elections changed only about 10% of the 435 members of the House, enough to transfer power to the Democrats. But will it be enough to pass the bill now being considered by the Senate? Included in the Democratic majority are 35 members of the Blue Dog Democratic caucus who are ideologically more Republican than Democrat on social issues like the immigration bill.

Is the current broken immigration system better than the one now being proposed? Should the Filipino American community back this immigration bill or oppose it?

What do you think?

Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.

1 of 1
L. Gonzales
May 30, 2007 09:14:47

As a naturalized American from the Philippines, I can sympathize with those who have been agitating to get a path towards a legalized status, or amnesty as it should be correctly termed. But as a law-abiding citizen who immigrated to this country legally, and having had to wait my turn, I just cannot bring myself to support a bill that would reward those who broke the law.

And let's be honest about it: the million TNTs and overstaying aliens are lawbreakers. Trying to mitigate the situation with the clever use of euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants" and "overstaying documented" will not help matters any. In fact, such tactic is liable to inflamme the situation further, as is now happening after the secretly-crafted bill
was released to an unsuspecting public. It has drawn outrage from everybody, which makes me think the chances for its passage get dimmer and dimmer.

Bush and his cohorts continue to insist that the bill will not be granting amnesty. Most of us, however, can see through that chicanery. Coming to this country illegally is a crime, and so granting them legal status instead of punishing them for that crime clearly is a pardon, or amnesty. The fact that fines are meted out and triggers on border security have to be met does not change the basic issue of whether we are repeating the mistakes of that first amnesty act in 1986.

That act, signed by then President Reagan, was supposed to tighten border security, prevent further illegal invasion, and strictly enforce sanctions against businesses employing illegal aliens, the same things we are now being promised. We know now that was all a big joke. Giving that amnesty was an egregious mistake, for it led to this current invasion of 12 to 20 million illegals, and with more coming.

Just about every interest group in this country had expressed its comments about the current bill, most of them critical, including that of the FAA. I think we can discuss endlessly certain particulars of this bill as they pertain to the TNTs, but at the end of the day, as long as the vast majority of Americans perceive this as just another political gambit with no teeth, and as a ploy to win votes, nothing will come out of it.

As long as this bill is tethered on the idea that breaking the law can be rewarded, this bill is not going to go anywhere. America may be a nation of compassion, but it is also a nation of laws. Any government that thinks it's alright to violate the law without penalties deserves to be condemned, and that's certainly true for that cowboy president and his feckless stagehands. No, no, no, there is no way we should support a bill that slaps us hard in our faces. Never!