Why we cannot decouple legal immigration from illegal one?

[logiclife]

This question has been asked many times and it bugs many members as to why do we have to ride on bills and legislations that are 95% irrelevant to legal immigration and we cant we decouple the legal immigration reform from the illegal immigration reform. Its a valid question and I'd like to answer it one more time.

Please take some time to read below for the reasons why it cant happen:

Originally Posted by bubbles

I know IV is deep into the current immigration reform.
As I understand, the debate is about the fate of undocumented in this country. As the debate heats up, the positions on both sides are hardening and the legals are the ones suffering with delays.
Can we persuade senators/congressmen to introduce reform of legal immigration process only. Hopefully, it'll have broader consensus.

Let me answer that. To make my point, please go and read the first 30 lines of transcript between Tim Russert of NBC and Congressman Charlie Rangel of the House ways and means committee.

MR. RUSSERT: Chairman Rangel, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS. Want to talk about your book in a second, but let me start with the war. The House voted for funding for the war with a date certain, March of ‘08, to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?

REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY): Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there. But the real question was, were we doing something to stop this immoral war and what could we do instead of doing nothing except do what the president asks us to do? I think the most important thing and the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country in recent history is getting involved in the Middle East, and I didn’t care what was in that bill if there was anything to slow down, to, to say what the American people said in the last election, “Get out of Iraq!”

People who dont like congressional pork (a term used for wasteful spending provisions in spending bills), like people who support low Government spending would like to decouple spending from non-spending bills.

The coupling of legal immigration reform with the illegal immigration reform happens due to the same reason that provisions to fund peanut warehouse are in supplemental bill for Iraq war funding. PORK. Its an incentive for congressmen to vote on bills that are otherwise unpopular.

WE ARE THE PORK to attract lawmakers who support legal immigrants and reform of legal immigration system but oppose the low-skills immigration and reform for the 11 million undocumented.

The people who push for illegal immigration reform use legal immigration as pork ... akin to "Sweetening the pot" of the unsavory bills. More about sweetening the pot here :

The House bill — a whopping 169 pages long — has something for nearly everybody. Only Part One centers on funding related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part Two is hurricane relief, including $25 million for disaster loan administration and $100 million for citrus farmers hurt by Rita and Katrina. There’s more agriculture assistance in Part Three, including $25 million to help spinach farmers impacted by the E. coli scare and $74 million for what’s billed as “peanut storage costs.”

Yeah, its sucks to be pork. But do we have a choice? This is how legislation works. We can raise money to lobby congress and maybe get some input regarding immigration reform. But I dont think we can also lobby congress to run its agenda and change its centuries old habit of lumping popular and unpopular provisions into the same bill in order to secure passage of unpopular provisions. There may be many organizations in DC trying to do that too. Many websites and non-profits track congressional pork. But its not going away anytime soon. Probably never. Its unfair. But lets accept this unfairness and work with the system that exists to change the immigration laws to help ourselves.

[ngopalak]

If we are indeed the Pork that sweetens the deal, that would mean that MANY people really like legal immigrants. Which would again mean that something that focuses exclusively on the legal immigrants would have a much higher chance of being passed.

So why again do we need to be clubbed with the illegals? To sweeten their pie? i am not sure I understand....

I guess what I am trying to ask is if we can get somebody like Coryn to introduce the SKIL bill in the House. That way we dont need to worry about the STRIVE act.

[for_gc]

Logiclife:

You are neat !! Nice explanation.

[purgan]

Thanks for the nice analogy, logiclife. You made a good point.

However, may it also be mentioned that there are some congressmen/senators who are against LEGAL immigration, and don't consider us "pork". I think we all have an idea who they are.

[yabadaba]

to market..to market to buy a fat pig... home again home again jigity jigity jig

looks like uma thurman needs to help out sen cornyn

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4707302.html

[for_gc]

Originally Posted by ngopalak

If we are indeed the Pork that sweetens the deal, that would mean that MANY people really like legal immigrants. Which would again mean that something that focuses exclusively on the legal immigrants would have a much higher chance of being passed.

So why again do we need to be clubbed with the illegals? To sweeten their pie? i am not sure I understand....

So that the illegals bill can be passed as well. Its like taking a sour pill with a bit of sugar/water ...

People in control like Kennedy will not let this PORK be served just like that ... and we need to understand that ...

[yabadaba]

Originally Posted by ngopalak

If we are indeed the Pork that sweetens the deal, that would mean that MANY people really like legal immigrants. Which would again mean that something that focuses exclusively on the legal immigrants would have a much higher chance of being passed.

So why again do we need to be clubbed with the illegals? To sweeten their pie? i am not sure I understand....

I guess what I am trying to ask is if we can get somebody like Coryn to introduce the SKIL bill in the House. That way we dont need to worry about the STRIVE act.

to sweeten the pot of comprehensive immigration reform.,.. or the holy grail of immigration

[eb3India]

good one, as always makes logical sense,

if some of you still belive by thumping your chest I did my MS here, I am here for years paying taxes etc, getover it does'nt matter

on the other hand if you still think you can lobyy for leagalsl such as SKILL bill it will cost you, around 9K members of IV if everyone contributes atleast $1000, that will makeup enough money to buy ad time in major network and lobby congress, again no gurantee it will pass but could make very good case

anyone ?

[logiclife]

Originally Posted by ngopalak

If we are indeed the Pork that sweetens the deal, that would mean that MANY people really like legal immigrants. Which would again mean that something that focuses exclusively on the legal immigrants would have a much higher chance of being passed.

So why again do we need to be clubbed with the illegals? To sweeten their pie? i am not sure I understand....

I guess what I am trying to ask is if we can get somebody like Coryn to introduce the SKIL bill in the House. That way we dont need to worry about the STRIVE act.

Good question.

In order for Sen. Cornyn to be able to floor SKIL bill independenly , he needs to have support of committee chairmen and Senate leadership. Senator Cornyn cannot alone set the timetable of senate and put up SKIL bill for a vote on the Senate floor. It has to go thru the Judiciary committee. If the Judiciary committee chairman and the majority of the Judiciary committee members dont think its a good idea, then it wont happen. Similarly, if Senate Majority leader and Minority leader dont think that its a good idea to debate and vote on a legal-only immigration bill, then Sen. Cornyn is helpless.

Same thing on the House side. Cong Lofgren of immigration subcommittee and Cong John Conyers of judiciary committee of the House have to agree that its a good idea to pass standalone SKIL bill and then Speaker Pelosi and Cong Steny Hoyer have to agree to table SKIL bill standalone in the House.

There are 47,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC. There is a million places from where the pressure is exerted on leadership in House and Senate and the committee chairmen of the House and Senate. It is way way beyond one interest group to single handedly set the agenda of congress. It takes a lot more than $20 a month from a handful of members to affect that change. Sorry to bring about fundraising issues again but frankly, every time I see the low number of people contributing, I feel the need to let people know that its going to take a lot more just to get some input and some provisions inserting into the bills that move in congress. Causing the actual movement and debate or voting of our favorite SKIL bill is out of question with the kind of contributions we are getting.

[eb2waiter]

(I will not provide her name as am not sure if it is appropriate)

her response:

Unlike the House budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 4241) the Senate's budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932) did contain provisions to ease the shortage of visas. However, the final bill that emerged from the conference committee, of which I was not a part, did not contain the visa provisions, but passed the full House by a vote of 212 to 206. I voted against the bill.

I understand well that the success of U.S. companies depends on highly educated and talented U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. We need thoughtful reform that supports the American economy and allows American companies the benefit of the "best and brightest" from around the world.

Attaching important legislation about immigration reform to other bills, as the Senate attempted to do in S. 1932, is not a responsible way to approach this important issue.

[msp1976]

Originally Posted by eb2waiter

(I will not provide her name as am not sure if it is appropriate)

her response:

Unlike the House budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 4241) the Senate's budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932) did contain provisions to ease the shortage of visas. However, the final bill that emerged from the conference committee, of which I was not a part, did not contain the visa provisions, but passed the full House by a vote of 212 to 206. I voted against the bill.

I understand well that the success of U.S. companies depends on highly educated and talented U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. We need thoughtful reform that supports the American economy and allows American companies the benefit of the "best and brightest" from around the world.

Attaching important legislation about immigration reform to other bills, as the Senate attempted to do in S. 1932, is not a responsible way to approach this important issue.

This means she would want the comprehensive bill not one like the SKIL bill or S.1932...
Anyway if she is not the chairwoman of immigration subcommitee of the judiciary commitee, her opinion does not matter much..beacause the bill would never come to the floor of the house...

[ngopalak]

Logiclife

Thanks for the explanation. Sure did put things in perspective. As with everything else in the United States, legislation too has a price to it. Makes much more sense to me right now.

[msp1976]

Originally Posted by ngopalak

If we are indeed the Pork that sweetens the deal, that would mean that MANY people really like legal immigrants. Which would again mean that something that focuses exclusively on the legal immigrants would have a much higher chance of being passed.

So why again do we need to be clubbed with the illegals? To sweeten their pie? i am not sure I understand....

I guess what I am trying to ask is if we can get somebody like Coryn to introduce the SKIL bill in the House. That way we dont need to worry about the STRIVE act.

The idea is very good at theoratical level....

The fact is that the immigration subcommitee chairs of the judiciary commitees of both house and senate have to agree with you...
It happens so that Senator Kennedy and Rep. Lofgren are not in a listening mood unless there is something in the bill for the illegals...So all these pleading fall on deaf ears..

It is not immigration voice creating this situation..It is the politicians creating it....I am sure Immigration Voice has tried very hard to sell the idea and found no traction.....

[smmakani]

Hi Logiclife,
How many member do we have in immigrationvoice.org and how many have signed up for recurring contribution?
Can we start some kind of campaign to encourage people to sign up for monthly contribution? What amount would be a decent amount of collection every month? (If we can disclose this in this forum)

Does anyone have any idea, how to get more from our members?

Thanks,
Shakil

Originally Posted by logiclife

Good question.

In order for Sen. Cornyn to be able to floor SKIL bill independenly , he needs to have support of committee chairmen and Senate leadership. Senator Cornyn cannot alone set the timetable of senate and put up SKIL bill for a vote on the Senate floor. It has to go thru the Judiciary committee. If the Judiciary committee chairman and the majority of the Judiciary committee members dont think its a good idea, then it wont happen. Similarly, if Senate Majority leader and Minority leader dont think that its a good idea to debate and vote on a legal-only immigration bill, then Sen. Cornyn is helpless.

Same thing on the House side. Cong Lofgren of immigration subcommittee and Cong John Conyers of judiciary committee of the House have to agree that its a good idea to pass standalone SKIL bill and then Speaker Pelosi and Cong Steny Hoyer have to agree to table SKIL bill standalone in the House.

There are 47,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC. There is a million places from where the pressure is exerted on leadership in House and Senate and the committee chairmen of the House and Senate. It is way way beyond one interest group to single handedly set the agenda of congress. It takes a lot more than $20 a month from a handful of members to affect that change. Sorry to bring about fundraising issues again but frankly, every time I see the low number of people contributing, I feel the need to let people know that its going to take a lot more just to get some input and some provisions inserting into the bills that move in congress. Causing the actual movement and debate or voting of our favorite SKIL bill is out of question with the kind of contributions we are getting.

[logiclife]

Originally Posted by smmakani

Hi Logiclife,
How many member do we have in immigrationvoice.org and how many have signed up for recurring contribution?
Can we start some kind of campaign to encourage people to sign up for monthly contribution? What amount would be a decent amount of collection every month? (If we can disclose this in this forum)

Does anyone have any idea, how to get more from our members?

Thanks,
Shakil

We have over 10,000 members registered on this website.

We have a goal of having atleast 1000 people who contribute $20 per month. We have not reached that goal. When we started the whole recurring contribution program, I told other core group members, proudly I might add, that we will have easily 1000 contributors who will sign up to give $20 per month. That would be $20,000 per month and put us in range of desired budget for lobbying.

And I was pathetically wrong.

We have somewhere around 300 members contributing in recurring signups of $20 per month.

At some point in future, the lack of concern among the members is going to reach a tipping point with the patience of core group members who are put in the position of begging for funds that go into the lobbying activities for 500,000 individuals.