Well it looks like a so called “COMPROMISE” Immigration Bill will be voted on in the House next week. Yesterday I posted this Diary that contained some sketchy details regarding the frame work for the Bill and how we got to this point (a good read if I do say so myself). Today we actually have a Draft Bill released by Speaker Ryan which is being touted as a “compromise”, which he intends to bring to the House Floor next week. Here’s a summary of its major points, with some details from this Huff Post Article:
1. DACA Authorization — The draft Bill would functionally institutionalize DACA by creating a temporary work authorization program, and include a conditional path to citizenship. Here are some details:
“With the exception of those who serve in the military, the draft bill does not provide an automatic avenue to legal permanent residence or citizenship. Instead, DACA recipients would have one year to apply for a renewable six-year work authorization under the category of “contingent nonimmigrant” status. In addition to an unspecified processing fee, the draft imposes a “border security fee” of $1,000 to apply. The proposal also bars DACA recipients from receiving health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act or applying for some tax benefits. DACA recipients would, however, have the opportunity to apply for a limited number of immigrant visas using a system in which applicants earn points based on their education levels, work history and English proficiency. Those who successfully apply for the visas could then pursue permanent residency and apply for citizenship in subsequent years.”
As you can see, although the Bill would cement DACA into law, the new program would make it difficult and expensive for many Dreamers to stay here legally (with no government benefits) and create an arduous path toward citizenship that likely only a few could successfully traverse.
2. Family Separation — The draft Bill would end Trump’s policy of separating children from their parents at the border. Here are some details:
“The draft legislation appears to limit protections based on that court settlement, the 1997 Flores Agreement, which bars long-term detention of children. This would allow the government to lock up kids for longer ― just with their parents rather than after being split from them.”
So it basically locks kids up with their parents instead of locking up parents and kids separately. Also, it doesn’t deal with the kids already separated from their parents or the ones that will be separated prior to the Bill becoming law.
3. More Border Agents — The draft Bill would require the U.S. Border Patrol to deploy no fewer than 26,370 agents by 2023.
”[This is] a tall order for an agency that has struggled in recent years with high levels of attrition and difficulty finding recruits to work in remote areas along the southern border. The Border Patrol employed 19,346 agents as of March, according to Mother Jones ― roughly 300 fewer than when Trump first took office.”
Now the REALLY BAD Stuff!
4. Trump Border Wall Funding — The draft bill also sets aside $16.6 billion for Trump’s proposed “border wall”.
“[However, it is] defined in less grandiose terms as “physical barriers,” including “reinforced fencing, border wall system, and levee walls.” The legislation sets aside another $6.8 billion for border security infrastructure, bringing the total investment to $23.4 billion, not including the additional personnel costs.”
5. Asylum Seekers — The draft Bill has measures that would further restrict who can apply for asylum.
”The draft narrows the criteria to apply for asylum and makes it easier for officers to turn people away at the border. It also eliminates many of the protections granted to unaccompanied minors from countries that do not border the U.S., which critics argue make it too difficult to quickly deport those kids. [Also,] in a proposal likely to cause diplomatic strife, the draft would give U.S. officials the authority to deem another nation a “safe third country” to which asylum-seekers can be deported rather than their homeland ― without an agreement with the country. This could allow the U.S. to leave asylum seekers in Mexico rather than allowing them into the country to seek relief here.”
I find that last part kind of ironically funny. As part of a bill designed to restrict illegal immigration into the US, it “authorizes” the US to conduct illegal immigration into Mexico. I would guess this violates international law.
6. Visa Lottery — The draft Bill would eliminate the current diversity lottery system.
7. Family-Based Visas — The draft Bill also places limitations on the issuance of family-based visas.
Well, that’s it! Personally, there are far too many poison pills in this Bill for me to swallow, and I’m sure many of my fellow Progressives will feel the same. Still this is only a first draft, and what ends up on the House floor for voting could be different. That will depend on whether Ryan will bring the Bill up under an OPEN or CLOSED Rule. An Open Rule would allow for amendments to be offered and voted on during debate, giving Dems. the chance to try to change the Bill if they can get some moderate Republican votes. However, under a Closed Rule very few, if any, amendments would be allowed, so the current draft would likely be voted on “as is”. Knowing Ryan’s history, a Closed Rule is more likely.
I will not go on to speculate what will happen to this Bill in the Senate should it pass the House. I’ll leave that for another diary.
But as I said in Yesterday's Diary, House Dems. need to be careful with how they vote. Although Pelosi is urging Dems. to vote “NO” on the current draft Bill (which makes sense due to the number of Poison Pills in it), we need to keep focused on how it might effect the Big Prize in November. Republicans will try to brand Democrats as opposing protections for DACA recipients and immigrant children, and that they are only interested in keeping DACA and family separation as campaign issues for the Fall. Republicans will say we don’t care about protecting Dreamers and immigrant children, and only want to use them as a political weapon. I agree that this may sound silly, but it could gain traction in some purple/red Districts. While most incumbent Dems. should be pretty safe voting “NO” on this Bill, I think the best bet for Dems. in the long run is to allow some incumbents and non-incumbent Dem. candidates to forge their own position on this based on the make up of their District’s voters. We need to do what’s best for a victory at the polls in November.
Stay Tuned!