PDA

View Full Version : Hatch being an obstacle to immigration reform?



okie52
5/21/2013, 11:23 AM
Hatch Insists on Immigration Bill Changes to Gain Backing
Monday, 20 May 2013 10:03 PM

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said he won’t support a bipartisan U.S. immigration bill unless lawmakers agree to his changes on taxes immigrants must pay and social benefits they can receive.

Hatch, of Utah, is a critical vote on the Judiciary Committee, in its fourth day of considering amendments to the bill, and in the full Senate. The bipartisan authors of the Senate measure have been courting his vote.

“It won’t be going anywhere without these amendments, because you’re not going to get any Republicans,” Hatch told reporters today in Washington. “These aren’t killer amendments; these are amendments that make the bill palatable not just to Republicans but to Democrats too, some Democrats.”

Among the changes Hatch said must be made to gain his vote are requiring immigrants who seek citizenship to pay additional taxes and to make clear that unauthorized employment can’t count toward eligibility for Social Security benefits.

The Senate bill would open a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. if they meet certain criteria, including paying back taxes and a fine and passing a criminal background check.

Hatch wants to impose a five-year waiting period before people on the path to citizenship can receive subsidies under the 2010 health-care law.

At the same time, Hatch has said he will oppose the legislation unless Democrats agree to a series of amendments favoring technology companies that seek to hire more foreign workers. He has been meeting with Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois, Democratic authors of the immigration bill, to try to reach a compromise.

‘Working Assiduously’

“We’re working assiduously at it; I hope we can get it done,” Hatch told reporters today. “We’re not there yet.”

“I am working in good faith, they’re working in good faith,” Hatch said. He said he would vote for the bill in the Judiciary Committee if lawmakers reach what he views as an acceptable compromise on the high-tech visa issue.

Unions led by the AFL-CIO labor federation said technology companies are trying to undermine job security and opportunity for U.S. workers.

Durbin, the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat, has said he couldn’t support Hatch’s amendments on high-tech jobs because they would weaken job opportunities for U.S. workers.

The Senate bill would raise the annual H-1B visa limit for high-skilled foreign workers to 135,000 from 85,000 and require companies to recruit U.S. workers before hiring foreign ones. Technology companies say that invites bureaucratic scrutiny by the government and lawsuits from disgruntled U.S. workers.

One of Hatch’s amendments would require employers to show that a U.S. worker wasn’t available only when they initially hire a foreign employee, not with each visa extension. Another would allow people who intend to immigrate to the U.S. to be counted as U.S. workers under certain circumstances.


© Copyright 2013 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/orrin-hatch-immigration-bill/2013/05/20/id/505486#ixzz2Twe7VvUq
.

SanJoaquinSooner
5/21/2013, 05:35 PM
Damned labor unions.

olevetonahill
5/21/2013, 05:49 PM
Damned labor unions.

Dayumed Illegal Messicans :love_heart:

SanJoaquinSooner
5/21/2013, 05:54 PM
Dayumed Illegal Messicans :love_heart:

Labor unions prefer that to guest workers.

olevetonahill
5/21/2013, 06:07 PM
Labor unions prefer that to guest workers.

Hey jaun, If they a GUEST? dont they need to be INVITED 1st?

okie52
5/21/2013, 06:31 PM
Hey jaun, If they a GUEST? dont they need to be INVITED 1st?

Lol...

.juan invited them to his class

SanJoaquinSooner
5/21/2013, 06:37 PM
Hey jaun, If they a GUEST? dont they need to be INVITED 1st?


The unions say, either make them full citizens so they can join our union or leave them illegal. But don't allow guest workers.

SanJoaquinSooner
5/22/2013, 01:04 AM
Hey jaun, If they a GUEST? dont they need to be INVITED 1st?

Well, vet, you know how that works ...

The boss man says, "any of you know any good workers?, have them show up pronto."

So Gustavo calls his little brother and says, "get your *** up here if you want to make some money. I'll send you the money to get here."

So, they are invited -- by employers -- the wealth creators in America. It would be so easy to make this legal and end this illegal immigration charade. Set up the kiosks at each port of entry, have the employer send the kiosk system the info so the worker can pick up the worker visa at the kiosk. No need to get all those gov't workers involved. Ship them to eastern europe where they will be rock stars I'm sure.

Chuck Bao
5/22/2013, 02:47 AM
Heh! Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein admits that Washington can’t get its act together and Americans will have to wait for the Supreme Court to put back rights which should be afforded to all. Thanks in advance, Supreme Court Justices, I hope.

Meanwhile, I’ll be building a house for Nope and me. All he wants is to shoot wild pigs and make “larp mu”, raise white-tail deer and help in the raising of my pet turkey, Barsanuphius. As far as I’m concerned that doesn’t cost anybody else anything.


Leahy withholds amendment to include LGBT couples in immigration reform

By Carrie Dann, NBC News

Acknowledging that it would jeopardize the passage of a sweeping immigration reform bill, a top ally of LGBT rights advocates will not call for a committee vote on an amendment that would include the spouses of LGBT individuals with the same standing as heterosexual couples in immigration law.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced "with a heavy heart" that he would withhold his amendment during the final hours of the committee's negotiations on the immigration bill.

"I do not want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and love of their country," he said in his opening remarks on the amendment, for which gay rights advocates had heavily lobbied in the weeks leading up to the marathon markup session.

Republican members of the Gang of Eight had made clear in the days before the vote that the LGBT provisions - if included - would be a dealbreaker for GOP supporters of the delicate bipartisan compromise. But gay rights organizations said the inclusion of the protections for LGBT individuals is a crucial social justice issue.

The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights group, called opposition to Leahy's proposal "deplorable" and vowed to keep up the fight on the Senate floor.

"We are extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people," the organization said in a statement. "We will continue to work hard to include bi-national same-sex couples as the bill moves to the floor and remain committed to the underlying principles of inclusive and comprehensive immigration reform."

Rachel Tiven, the president of immigrant advocacy group Immigration Equality, said “there should be shame on both sides of the political aisle" for the move.

"Despite widespread support from business, labor, faith, Latino and Asian-American advocates, Senators abandoned LGBT families without a vote," she said.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the Gang of Eight negotiators, affirmed that the amendment would fracture the "strong but fragile coalition" nurtured by the bipartisan group.

"When it comes to passing this immigration bill, to interject a redefinition of marriage would be a bridge too far," he said.

Before Leahy announced the withholding of the amendment, Gang of Eight members Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats with strong records of supporting gay rights, each expressed anguish at the prospect of voting against the measure to preserve the chances of passage of the larger bill.

"I believe this is the wrong moment. This is the wrong bill," said Durbin.

Schumer acknowledged that current immigration policy towards LGBT foreign nationals amounts to "rank discrimination"

But, he added, "I cannot support this amendment if it would bring down this bill."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, said that she believes there is a "very good chance" that the Supreme Court will find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional this summer, largely addressing the concerns of the LGBT community when it comes to protections for binational couples.

"I am for what Sen. Leahy is proposing," she added. "I would just implore you to hold off on this amendment at this time."

okie52
5/22/2013, 07:13 AM
Heh! Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein admits that Washington can’t get its act together and Americans will have to wait for the Supreme Court to put back rights which should be afforded to all. Thanks in advance, Supreme Court Justices, I hope.

Meanwhile, I’ll be building a house for Nope and me. All he wants is to shoot wild pigs and make “larp mu”, raise white-tail deer and help in the raising of my pet turkey, Barsanuphius. As far as I’m concerned that doesn’t cost anybody else anything.

Chuck-these *******s have it backwards. They should be passing gay marriage legislation for US citizens and drop legalizing 11,000,000 ignorant invaders.