Immigratsiya to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasiga qishloq xo'jaligiga o'zgartirishlar hali ham muhokama qilinmoqda
Immigratsiya to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi shu hafta oxirida qishloq xo'jaligining bir qancha qoidalari bilan ovozga qo'yilishi kutilmoqda
Qishloq xo'jaligi hisobi oziq -ovqat dunyosida muhim bo'lgan yagona qonun emas. Immigratsiya to'g'risidagi qonun birinchi navbatda oshpazlik muammosiga o'xshamaydi, lekin qonun hujjatlarining ayrim qoidalari qishloq xo'jaligiga tegishli.
Qonun loyihasi, ehtimol, ertaga yoki juma kuni Senatda ovozga qo'yiladi, demak senatorlar tuzatishlarni muhokama qilish va yakunlashning oxirgi bosqichida.
Senator Saxbi Chamblis (R-GA) qishloq xo'jaligiga bir qator tuzatishlarni taklif qildi. Chamblisga ko'ra"Hozirda, agar siz qishloq xo'jaligida bo'lsangiz, grin -kartani olish asosiy hisob -kitobga kelganda juda oson - va uni kuchaytirish kerak."
Hozirgi vaqtda yiliga to'rt marta 112 333 ta viza ajratiladi. Chambliss takliflaridan biri buni yiliga ikki marta o'zgartirishni ko'zlaydi, bu erda ularning 70 foizi ishga qabul qilish jadvalini muvofiqlashtirish uchun yanvar oyida tarqatiladi.
Birlashgan xo'jalik ishchilari uyushmasi (UFW) hozirda qonun loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatlash uchun yig'ilish. UFW prezidentiga yozadi: "Vaqt juda muhim va sizning yordamingiz bugungi kunda hal qiluvchi ahamiyatga ega ... Bu ikki partiyaviy qonun fermer xo'jaliklari ishchilari uchun juda muhim, chunki u UWF, yirik fermerlar uyushmalari va senatorlar Dianne Faynshteyn (D-Kaliforniya) tomonidan muhokama qilingan qishloq xo'jaligi qoidalarini o'z ichiga oladi. Orrin Xetch (R-Yuta), Marko Rubio (R-Fla.) Va Maykl Bennet (D-Kolo). "
Chamblissning yana bir qoidasi, doimiy yuridik maqomini olish uchun o'n yillik jarayonni besh yilga tezlashtiradi.
Ushbu tuzatishlar etarlicha qo'llab -quvvatlanadimi yoki yo'qmi haligacha aniqlanmoqda. bu yerni bosing senator bilan bog'lanish uchun.
GOP ko'proq mehnat muhojirlarini jalb qilmoqchi, lekin maoshi ancha past
Kaliforniya shtatining Oukvill shahrida uzum yig'uvchi. Erik Risberg/AP
Muhojir ishchilar amerikalik fermer xo'jaliklarini ishchi kuchi bilan ta'minlaydilar, ularning 70 foizdan ko'prog'i, ularning deyarli yarmi hujjatsiz. Garchi ish beruvchilar ko'proq ishchilarni jalb qilish yo'llarini ilgari surishgan bo'lsa-da, qonunchilar qishloq xo'jaligi ishchilari uchun H-2A dasturini isloh qilishning eng yaxshi usuli bilan kelisha olishmadi.
Oxirgi urinish-V-Virjiniya vakili Robert Gudlattning qonun loyihasi, Vakillar palatasi sud-huquq qo'mitasi raisi va H-2A islohotining eng yirik tarafdorlaridan biri. O'tgan chorshanba kuni qo'mitani biroz bo'shatib yuborgan qonun loyihasi, hozirgi mehmon-ishchilar dasturini qayta ko'rib chiqadi va uning o'rniga AQShga xorijiy qishloq xo'jaligi ishchilarini olib kelish uchun H-2C yangi vizasini beradi. Hozirgi H2-A vizasidan farqli o'laroq, "Qishloq xo'jaligi mehmonlari to'g'risidagi qonun" deb nomlangan yangi dastur vizalar sonini yiliga 450 ming kishigacha cheklab qo'yadi va ishchilar yil davomida qolish imkoniyatini beradi, shu bilan birga ish beruvchilar taqdim etadigan talabni yo'q qiladi. bepul uy -joy va transport.
Qonun loyihasi sanoat guruhlari tomonidan keng qo'llab -quvvatlansa -da, respublikachilar uchun ham, demokratlar uchun ham munozarali bo'ldi. Immigratsion himoyachilar guruhlarining aytishicha, bu ishchilarni himoya qiladi, muhojirlarning ish haqini sezilarli darajada pasaytiradi va undan ham ko'proq ishchilarni ekspluatatsiyaga olib keladi. Bu masala, ayniqsa, respublikaga ishchilar uchun ko'proq muhojirlarni olib kelish kerakmi, degan kelishmovchilikni keltirib chiqardi. (2013 yilda Goodlatte qonun loyihasining shunga o'xshash versiyasini kiritganida, u hech qachon Kongressdan chiqmagan.)
Agar qonun loyihasi qabul qilinsa, AQShda muhojir -fermer mehnatining ishlashini keskin o'zgartirishi mumkin. Mana bu haqda bilishingiz kerak bo'lgan narsa:
Hisob -kitob hozirgi fermer ishchilar dasturidan nimasi bilan farq qiladi?
Hozirgi H-2A viza dasturiga binoan, ishchilar faqat 10 oygacha bo'lgan mavsumiy ishlarga jalb qilinishi mumkin va ish beruvchilar ishchilarning turar joy va transport xarajatlarini qoplashlari shart. Dastur, shuningdek, AQSh ishchilarining ish haqi tushkunligini oldini olish uchun mehnat muhojirlariga taklif qilinadigan eng kam ish haqining "salbiy ta'sir" miqdorini ham o'z ichiga oladi. (AEWR hozirda ko'p shtatlarda soatiga 10 dollardan yuqori va ba'zi shtatlarda 13,39 dollargacha ko'tarilishi mumkin.)
Taklif qilinayotgan H-2C dasturi bilan ishchilar endi ish beruvchilar bilan yil bo'yi bo'lishlari mumkin, 36 oylik dastlabki qolish muddati. H-2C, shuningdek, "qishloq xo'jaligi ishchi kuchi" ta'rifini kengaytirib, sut va go'shtni qayta ishlash sanoati, o'rmon xo'jaligi sanoati kabi yil bo'yi band bo'lishga muhtoj bo'lgan ishchilarga viza ochadi. AQShda hozirda hujjatsiz fermer xo'jaliklari H-2C vizasini olish uchun ariza berishlari kerak edi, lekin hozircha qila olmaydilar. Mehnat boshqarmasi emas, balki qishloq xo'jaligi boshqarmasi dasturni nazorat qiladi.
H-2C, avvalgi H-2A qoidalarini qisqartiradi, endi ish beruvchilardan ishchilarni bepul transport va uy-joy bilan ta'minlashni talab qilmaydi. Ish haqi, shuningdek, federal yoki shtatning eng kam ish haqining foiziga qarab hisoblab chiqiladi, lekin ish haqi AWRni o'z ichiga olmaydi. Iqtisodiy siyosat instituti, partiyaviy bo'lmagan tadqiqot tashkilotining aytishicha, bu, shubhasiz, AQSh va mehnat muhojirlarining ish haqini kamaytiradi, H-2C dasturidagi ishchilarning aksariyatiga soatiga 8.34 dollar yoki haftasiga 334 dollar to'lanadi.
Ish beruvchilar, shuningdek, ishchilarning ish haqining 10 foizini ushlab qolishadi va ularni ishchilarning uylariga qaytishlarini kafolatlash uchun faqat AQSh elchixonasida yoki ishchilarning o'z mamlakatlaridagi konsulliklarida mavjud bo'lgan jamg'armaga o'tkazadilar. Ishchilarga ish beruvchilar ustidan shikoyat qilish uchun federal yuridik yordamdan foydalanish taqiqlanadi.
Nima ’s joriy dastur bilan noto'g'ri?
Ish beruvchilar H-2A dasturi og'ir, qimmat va ishonchsiz ekanidan shikoyat qilishdi. 2010 yilda H-2A ishchilariga murojaat qilgan fermer xo'jaliklarining 72 foizi ularni kech qabul qilishdi, New American Economy, ikki partiyali tahlil markazining ma'lumotlariga ko'ra, 169,8 million dollarlik hosil yo'qotilgan. H-2A shuningdek, ishchilarni ish beruvchilar tomonidan ekspluatatsiya qilish uchun ochiq qoldiradi. A BuzzFeed H-2 vizalari bo'yicha tergov (shuningdek, H-2B vizasi bilan olib kelingan qishloq xo'jaligi bo'lmagan vaqtinchalik ishchilarni ham o'z ichiga oladi) buni "yangi amerikalik qullik" deb atadi, bu ishchilarning maoshidan mahrum etilgani, tahqirlangani va hatto o'ldirilgani haqidagi xabarlarni hujjatlashtiradi. ish.
Qaysi tarmoqlar zarar ko'radi?
Hisob-kitob loyihada kim qatnashishi mumkinligi ko'lamini kengaytiradi, ya'ni sut, go'shtni qayta ishlash va hatto o'rmon xo'jaligi bilan bog'liq sohalarga ko'proq ishchilar olib kelish mumkin bo'ladi. Bu, ayniqsa, mehnat muhojirlariga bog'liq bo'lgan fermer xo'jaliklari uchun katta foyda bo'lardi, lekin boshqa guruhlar, masalan, sut sanoati, uzoq vaqtdan buyon mehmon -ishchilar dasturiga kirish uchun lobbi qilgan.
Kim qonun loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatlaydi? Kim bunga qarshi?
Kutilganidek, bir qator qishloq xo'jaligi va sanoat guruhlari qonun loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatladilar, chunki bu ularga o'z sohalarini saqlab qolish va qonuniy ravishda ko'proq ishchilarni yollash imkonini beradi. Ba'zi fermerlar, ayniqsa, Trump ma'muriyati ijrosini kuchaytirishi mumkinligidan xavotirda, ishchilarni qonuniy ravishda olib kelish uchun dasturni qo'llab -quvvatlashini bildirishdi.
Qonun loyihasi boshqa joylarda turlicha munosabat bildirgan. Liberal liberal tadqiqot markazi bo'lgan Kato instituti bu taklifni umuman qo'llab -quvvatladi va qonun loyihasi AQSh iqtisodiyotiga foyda keltiradi, shu bilan birga noqonuniy immigratsiyani jilovlaydi. Immigratsiya darajasini pasaytirish tarafdori bo'lgan NumbersUSA guruhi qonun loyihasini tanqid qildi va xabar berishicha, Vakillar palatasi sud -huquq qo'mitasining respublikachi a'zolariga dastlabki belgilashni kechiktirishga bosim o'tkazgan, Bloomberg BNA.
Boshqalar dastur ishchilarni himoya qilishdan mahrum qiladi va ish haqini sezilarli darajada pasaytiradi, deb aytishdi. Adrien DerVartanian, Farmworker Justice kompaniyasining immigratsiya va mehnat siyosati bo'yicha direktori, qonun loyihasini ishchilarni ekspluatatsiya qilish retsepti deb atadi. ”
“Taqdim etilgan qonunchilik ishchilarning ish haqini qisqartiradi, asosiy ish haqi himoyasini yo'q qiladi, ish beruvchilarga ish haqining 10 foizini obligatsiya sifatida ushlab qolishni va uy -joy va transport xarajatlarini ishchilarga o'tkazishni buyuradi. allaqachon yuz, ” DerVartanian dedi.
Iris Figueroa, Farmworker Justice shtatining advokati, shuningdek, qonun AQShda hujjatsiz ishchilarga hech qanday yordam bermasligini ta'kidlaydi, ayniqsa, bu ishchilarga oila yoki turmush o'rtog'ini olib kirishga ruxsat bermaydi. "Vakillar belgilash paytida ta'kidlaganidek, hujjatsiz ishchilar bu bitimni qabul qilishini kutish mumkin emas", dedi u.
Bu siyosat Amerika tarixining sharmandali davriga katta qadam bo'ladi, chunki mehnat muhojirlari asosan bir martalik mahsulot sifatida qaraladi. Ona Jons. DOLni emas, balki USDAga dasturni o'zgartirish “surreal ” va “bizarre, ”. “Siz nima qilyapsiz - bu go'sht inspektorlaridan bizning mamlakatimiz mehnat qonunlarini bajarishni va mehnat muhojirlarini himoya qilishlarini so'rab -surishtiradigan ekspluatatsiya qilinadigan dasturda va bu go'sht inspektorlari kutganidek emas. ”
O'zgartirilgan qonun loyihasi 25 oktyabrda Vakillar palatasi Adliya qo'mitasini 17-16 ovoz bilan qabul qildi, barcha demokratlar qonun loyihasiga qarshi ovoz berishdi va ikkita respublikachi-Rep. Stiv King (R-IA) va vakili Louie Gohmert (R-TX)-bunga qarshi. Beshta respublikachi ovoz berishdan bosh tortdi. Qonun loyihasi Senatga o'tishi uchun Vakillar palatasi kengroq ovozga ega bo'lishi kerak edi va Gudlatte uni ko'rib chiqish uchun qachon taklif qilishini hozircha ko'rsatmagan.
Alohida, H-2A dasturi, shuningdek, Ichki xavfsizlik vazirligi tomonidan ajratiladigan mablag 'to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasiga o'zgartirish kiritish orqali kengaytirilishi mumkin. Dan Nyuxaus vakili (R-WA) tomonidan kiritilgan o'zgartirish H-2A vizalarini barcha qishloq xo'jaligiga tatbiq etish va ishchilarga yil bo'yi qolish imkonini beradi. Qishloq xo'jaligi ishchisi Adliya tuzatishni tanqid qilib, bu qishloq xo'jaligi mehnat bozorini yanada buzib yuborishini aytdi.
Yangilanish, 16.01.2018: Vakil Gudlatte, qishloq xo'jaligida ishlash dasturini taklifini yangi immigratsion qonun loyihasiga kiritdi, u respublikachilar partiyasi homiylari bilan birgalikda 10 yanvarda uyida taklif qildi. "Amerikaning kelajagini ta'minlash to'g'risida" qonun loyihasi chegarada xavfsizlik choralarini kuchaytirishni taklif qiladi. , oilaga asoslangan migratsiya dasturlarini tugatish va immigratsiya bo'yicha muzokaralar markazida Obama davridagi dastur-bolalik uchun kelgusi harakatlar (DACA) uchun tuzatish. Loyiha respublikachilar palatasi tomonidan qo'llab -quvvatlandi, lekin immigratsiya bo'yicha ikki tomonlama kelishuvni ta'kidlagan Vakillar palatasi spikeri Pol Rayan qonun loyihasi bo'yicha ovoz berishga majbur bo'ladimi yoki yo'qmi noma'lum. Bu taklif Oq uyning bir yil uchun xarajatlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasini muhokama qilish chog'ida paydo bo'ldi. Demokratlar, agar DACA bitimiga erishilmasa, hukumat yopiladi, deb tahdid qilishdi.
Siz ishonishingiz mumkin bo'lgan yangiliklarni qidiryapsizmi?
Ga obuna bo'ling Ona Jons kundalik eng yaxshi hikoyalarimizni to'g'ridan -to'g'ri pochta qutisiga etkazish uchun.
Respublikachilar immigratsiya masalasida keskin bo'linishdi
Haydovchilik guvohnomalari uchun milliy standartlar va boshpana berishning qattiqroq qoidalari Kongressda paydo bo'ladi.
Pentagonning aytishicha, may oyining boshiga kelib Iroqdagi urush uchun pul tugay boshlaydi. Ammo Senat AQSh harbiy harakatlari uchun 80 milliard dollarlik favqulodda moliyalashtirish chorasini ko'rganda, o'tgan hafta munozaralar mavsumiy ishchilar uchun dengiz mahsulotlari sanoati uchun istiridye chayqash uchun kvotalarni oshirish zarurligiga aylandi.
Bu immigratsiya borasida siyosiy jihatdan nozik siyosat birinchi o'ringa chiqayotganidan va Respublikachilar partiyasi ichidagi kelishmovchiliklarni ochib berayotganidan dalolatdir.
Prezident Bush va Kongressdagi GOP rahbarlari bir necha oylik immigratsiya haqidagi munozaralarni to'xtatgandan so'ng, hozirda haydovchilik guvohnomalariga nisbatan qattiqroq siyosat takliflaridan tortib, AQShga ko'proq gastarbayterlar kirishiga ruxsat berishgacha, bir necha jabhalarda bo'linish muammosiga duch kelishlari kerak.
Maqsad qattiqroq bo'ladimi yoki moslashuvchan bo'ladimi, siyosatchilar milliy xavfsizlik, iqtisodiyot va ispan amerikaliklarining mamlakat siyosatida tobora ommalashib borishi bilan bog'liq qiyin tanlovlarga duch kelishmoqda.
Hozir Pensilvaniya shoh ko'chasining ikkala uchini nazorat qiladigan respublikachilar uchun immigratsiya uzoq vaqtdan beri alohida bo'linadigan muammo bo'lib kelgan. Ko'plab konservatorlar 8 milliondan 12 milliongacha hujjatsiz muhojirlarning mavjudligini qonun ustuvorligining jiddiy buzilishi, shuningdek, ular uchun ta'lim va sog'liqni saqlash xizmatlarini ko'rsatish xarajatlarini to'laydigan shtatlar va mahalliy aholi uchun og'ir yuk deb bilishadi. - "Noqonuniy" ning qaysi qismini tushunmaysiz? bu partiyaning qattiq qanoti uchun mantradir.
Shu bilan birga, prezident Bushning ispaniyalik saylovchilarni yutishdagi muvaffaqiyati GOPning immigratsiyaga nisbatan pozitsiyasini tarixiy o'zgartirish talablarini kuchaytirmoqda. 2004 yil boshida prezident immigratsion islohotlarning tamoyillarini, jumladan, mehmon-ishchi dasturi va mamlakatda hujjatsiz ishchilar uchun qonuniylik yo'lini belgilab berdi.
Yaqinda respublikachi maslahatchi Ed Goas tomonidan o'tkazilgan so'rov shuni ko'rsatadiki, saylovchilarning 25 foizi bunday rejani qo'llab -quvvatlaydi, 25 foizi bunga qarshi, 50 foizi esa aniq qarorga kelmagan. Saylovchilarning 80 foizga yaqini 10 millionga yaqin noqonuniyni deportatsiya qilish haqiqiy emas deb hisoblaydilar.
"Hozirgi kurash 50 foizni yutish uchun", deydi Tamxar Yakobi, Manxetten institutining katta ilmiy xodimi, islohotlarni konservatorlar tarafidan olib bormoqda. "Ilgari, immigratsiya haqidagi bahs ochiq chegaralar yoki yopiq, yuqori raqamlar yoki pastlik haqida edi. Hozir biz Respublikachilar partiyasida muhojirlarning mamlakat uchun yaxshi ekanligini, lekin biz ularni olib kelishimiz kerakligini tan oladigan yangi o'rtani ko'rmoqdamiz. Bu erda bizning xavfsizligimizni kuchaytiradigan nazorat ostida ".
Darhaqiqat, hech bir yirik partiya, ayniqsa ispanlarning ta'siri kuchaygan davrda, immigratsiyaga qarshi rol o'ynamoqchi emas.
Shunga qaramay, gözenekli chegaralar haqida qayg'urish ko'plab amerikaliklarni xavotirga soladi - bu oyda ko'ngilli "minutmenlar" Arizona chegarasining bir qismini qo'riqlash uchun safarbar qilingan.
Immigratsiya muammosi o'tgan yili mamlakat razvedka idoralarini tubdan o'zgartirishga olib keldi, Oq uy esa chegarachilar bilan bahsli nizomlarni bekor qilish uchun uy konservatorlari bilan kelishuvni uzishga yordam berdi. Shartnoma shartlari 109-Kongressda qabul qilinishi kerak bo'lgan birinchi qonun loyihasida ovoz berilishi mumkin edi. Iroq uchun Mudofaa qo'shimcha qonun loyihasi bilan, bu belgi o'z vaqtida keladi.
Haydovchilik guvohnomalari uchun milliy standartlar, boshpana talablari va AQSh-Meksika chegarasidagi panjara kabi loyihalarni bajarishdan voz kechish vakolatlarini o'z ichiga olgan uyning qoidalari Senatning yo'lakning har ikki tarafida ham kuchli qarshiligiga duch keladi. fuqarolik erkinliklari va immigratsion guruhlar.
Ba'zi senatorlar, ayniqsa, shtatlardan haydovchilik guvohnomasi uchun ariza beruvchilarning huquqiy maqomini tekshirishni talab qiladigan har qanday harakatga qarshi. Boshqalar, shu jumladan, mavsumiy ishchilarga tuzatish taklif qilgan Merilend shtatining senatori Barbara Mikulski (D), Senat immigratsiya masalasida o'z ustuvorliklarini hisobga olmagan holda, chegara nazorati palatasi versiyasining qonunga kirishini ko'rishni xohlamaydi.
Mikulskiy tuzatish immigratsion tuzatishlar oqimini ochdi. Aydaho shtatidan senator Larri Kreyg (R) qishloq xo'jaligi ishchilari uchun huquqiy maqomga ega bo'lishni taklif qilmoqda. Boshqalar esa, immigratsion takliflarni keng ko'lamli tayyorlamoqdalar, ular uy palatasi qonunining ustunligini ko'rishni xohlamaydilar.
O'tgan haftada o'tkazilgan 61-38 ovozda, Senat 2005 yilgi moliyaviy mudofaa uchun qo'shimcha xarajatlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasidan barcha immigratsiya qoidalarini olib tashlashga chaqirdi - bu Senat muzokarachilarini o'z uydoshlari bilan konferentsiyada kuchaytirish uchun hisoblangan. Senatorlarni bunday tuzatishlarni qaytarishga ko'ndira olmaganidan so'ng, Senatning ko'pchilik rahbari Bill Frist bu immigratsion takliflar bo'yicha munozaralarni cheklash va mudofaa qonunining qabul qilinishini tezlashtirish uchun seshanba kuni ovoz berdi. "Kongress erkaklarimiz va ayollarimizning kiyim-kechak farovonligini ta'minlash uchun zarur bo'lgan ajratmalar qabul qilinishini kechiktirmasligi kerak", dedi Texas shtatidan senator Jon Kornin. "Senatda qo'shimcha mablag 'ajratish to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi ko'rib chiqilayotganda, immigratsiya islohoti to'g'risida bahs olib borishga urinish aynan shunday bo'ladi."
Darhaqiqat, immigrantlar uchun kurash respublikachilar uchun oson bo'lmasligi mumkin.
"Respublikachilarning ko'pchiligida amnistiya dasturining har qanday turi shubhali bo'lishi mumkin degan umumiy fikr bor, chunki u ko'proq noqonuniy immigratsiyani rag'batlantiradi va qonunni buzgan odamlarni mukofotlaydi", deydi Texas shtatining vakili Lamar Smit (R), azaldan raqib. amnistiya to'g'risida.
GOPda ko'pchilik prezidentni qattiqroq yo'l tutmaganini tanqid qiladi.
Oklaxoma shtatidan birinchi kurs senatori Tom Koburn Arizona chegarasidagi ko'ngillilarga noqonuniy immigratsiyani to'xtatish haqida izoh berar ekan: "Prezident ularni hushyorlar deb ataydi. Menimcha, bu shuni anglatadiki, u buni umuman tushunmaydi".
Senatning immigratsiya qonunchiligi to'g'risidagi eshituvi o'tgan hafta aniq rasmni chizdi: deportatsiya buyrug'iga duch kelgan odamlarning 80-85 foizi bajarilmaydi va 400000 dan ortiq qochqinlarning 10 foizdan kamrog'i federal jinoyatchilar ma'lumotlar bazasiga kiritilgan.
Rayan, GOP munozarali fermer xo'jaliklari loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatlash uchun kurashmoqda
Respublikachilar rahbarlari GOP fermer xo'jaliklari to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi uchun etarli ovozlarni berkitishga urinmoqdalar, a'zolari haligacha shakarni qo'llab -quvvatlash dasturi va oziq -ovqat markalari uchun ishlash talablari bo'yicha ikkiga bo'lindi.
Qonun, iste'fodagi spiker Pol Rayan uchun ustuvor vazifadir Pol Devis RayanPaul Rayan sarlavhasi bilan Kinzinger mablag 'yig'uvchi Baydenning respublikachilar uyi bilan munosabatlari sovuq bo'lib qoldi The Hill's Morning Report - Favqulodda BioSolutions taqdim etdi - Facebook Trumpning GOP rahbarlarini Chechen MORE (R -Wis.) O'rniga Stefanikni qaytarishini qo'llab -quvvatlaydi, chunki unda farovonlik elementlari bor. islohot, bu hafta polga chiqishi rejalashtirilgan.
Ammo uy qishloq xo'jaligi qo'mitasi raisi Mayk Konaway Kennet (Mayk) Maykl KonaveyAgar Kongress bolalar ochligini hal qilish uchun birgalikda harakat qila olmasa, biz sobiq vakilga mahkum bo'lamiz. Mayk Konaway, sobiq yordamchi lobbichilik kompaniyasi Tompson, respublikachilarning qishloq xo'jaligi bo'yicha MORE, respublikachilar qonunni qabul qilish uchun zarur bo'lgan 218 ovozdan uyalishadi, dedi. Shunga qaramay, Texas respublikachisi, dam olish kunlari telefonlarni ishlatib, savollar va xavotirlarni aniqlab, ba'zi tuzatishlar ovoz berishini ko'rsatib, etarli a'zolarni aylantira olishiga ishonch bildirdi.
"Biz u erga etib boramiz deb ishonamiz. Bizda hali ham qonun loyihasini o'qiyotgan va o'z xulosalariga kelgan bir nechta odamlar bor. Bizda aniqlanmagan ko'p narsalar bor ", dedi Konaway payshanba kuni. "Men ular bilan dam olish kunlari ishlayman va ularni kerakli joyga olib boraman va kerakli ma'lumotlarni olaman, shunda ular qonun loyihasi nima ekanligini aniq tushunadilar."
"Ishonamanki, biz kelasi hafta u erda bo'lamiz va biz uni erga qo'yamiz", deya qo'shimcha qildi u.
Konaway prezident Tramp bilan ham uchrashdi Donald TrumpJudge, Baydenni tekshirish uchun Gruziya okrugida 2020 yilgi byulletenlarni ochishga rozi bo'ldi: Trump DOJ jurnalistlarning telefon yozuvlarini qidirishi "oddiygina noto'g'ri", Bayden, agar u qonun loyihasiga veto qo'yishi mumkinligi haqidagi xabarlardan so'ng, Oq uyda NUJlar haqidagi savolni KO'Proq rad etadi. u oziq -ovqat markalarini oluvchilar uchun qattiqroq ish talablarini o'z ichiga olmaydi.
Ammo Konaway hech qanday veto tahdidi muhokama qilinmaganini aytdi. Aslida, uning so'zlariga ko'ra, Trump uning harakatlarini qo'llab -quvvatlagan - bu his -tuyg'ular fermer xo'jaliklari rejasining ba'zi tarkibiy qismlariga hali ham shubha bilan qaraydigan ba'zi konservatorlar bilan uzoq yo'lni bosib o'tishi mumkin edi.
"Bu haqiqatan ham yaxshi o'tdi. Prezident juda aqlli va u Amerikaning qishloqlarida yashaydigan odamlarning qalbiga ega ekanligi aniq edi. . U ularga yordam berishni xohlaydi va u buni bir necha bor aytgan ", dedi Konaway.
"U, shuningdek, SNAP -da (Oziqlantirishga qo'shimcha yordam dasturi) takomillashtiriladigan ish talablarining haqiqiy tarafdoridir, chunki u ish - bu farovonlik yo'lidir va bizning dasturimiz odamlarga bu yo'ldan borishga yordam berishi kerak, deb o'ylaydi. davlat yordamining bir turi. "
Rayan va uning etakchi guruhi so'nggi bir necha hafta mobaynida fermer xo'jaliklari qonun loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatlash uchun agressiv ish olib borishdi, tinglash sessiyalarini o'tkazishdi, qishloq xo'jaligi kotibi Sonni Perduni GOP qamchi guruhining yig'ilishiga taklif qilishdi va Konawayni Amerika korxonalari institutining tadbiriga yuborishdi. taklif.
Liderlar, shuningdek, qonunchilarning fikrlarini bilish uchun a'zolarning uchta brifingini va ikkita xodimlar brifingini o'tkazdilar, ko'pchilik uyni qamchi Stiv Skalis Stiven (Stiv) Jozef ScaliseMcCarthy, 6 -yanvargacha guvohlik berganini aytdi, GOP a'zolari Kapitoliy xavfsizlik qonuniga qarshi ovoz berishga chaqiradi The Hill's Morning Report - Facebook tomonidan taqdim etilgan - Senat yo'llari 6 -yanvardagi panelni ma'qullaganidan keyin aniq emas (R -La. ) a'zolari bilan doimiy ravishda qonun hujjatlarini muhokama qilib kelgan.
Qo'llab -quvvatlovni ko'proq jalb qilish uchun respublikachilar rahbarlari tizimli munozara jarayoniga ruxsat berishlari kutilmoqda, bu esa ba'zi germaniyalik tuzatishlarga ovoz berish huquqini beradi.
Besh yillik fermer xo'jaliklari hisob-kitobi sentyabr oxirida tugaydigan bir qator fermer, qishloq xo'jaligi va oziq-ovqat dasturlariga ruxsat beradi.
Ammo chora -tadbirlarni moliyalashtirishning asosiy qismi - va munozaralarda chaqmoq bo'lgan sohalardan biri - oziq -ovqat tamg'asi deb nomlanuvchi SNAPga to'g'ri keladi.
Bu yilgi fermer xo'jaliklari qonun loyihasi millionlab oziq -ovqat markalarini oluvchilarga qattiqroq ish talablarini qo'yadi va dasturni moliyalashtirishni kasbiy ta'limga yo'naltiradi - Rayan va GOPning aytishicha, bu o'zgarish odamlarni qashshoqlikdan qutqarishga yordam beradi.
Ushbu choraga ko'ra, 18 yoshdan 59 yoshgacha bo'lgan barcha mehnatga layoqatli kattalar oziq-ovqat markalarini olish uchun haftasiga kamida 20 soat ishlashi yoki o'qish dasturiga yozilishi kerak. Keksa, nogiron yoki homilador bo'lgan odamlar talablardan ozod qilinadi.
Ammo bahsli g'oya Uyda partiyalararo qattiq kurashni keltirib chiqardi. O'rtacha respublikachilar yangi talablar juda qattiq va 1 million odamga oziq -ovqat yordamini olishiga to'sqinlik qiladi, deb xavotirda.
"Men SNAP bilan bog'liq xavotirlarim bor", dedi reel Leonard Lens (R-N.J.), qayta tanlov uchun qattiq taklifga duch kelmoqda. "Nyu -Jersidan mening idoramga kelganlar talablarni bajara olmasliklarini aytishdi."
Demokratlar, shuningdek, bu g'oyani shafqatsiz deb tan olishdi va bu xabar almashish qonunidan boshqa narsa emas, deb ta'kidlashdi, chunki Senatdan o'tish ehtimoli kam. Demokratlar shu yilning boshida respublikachilar SNAPni yangilashni qo'shishga qaror qilishganda, odatda ikki partiyali fermer xo'jaliklari hisobidan voz kechishdi.
“Fermer xo'jaliklari hisobi respublikachilar partiyasida bo'linish va disfunktsiyaning yana bir misolidir. . Ular murosaga kelmaslikdan voz kechishdi va ular o'z kokusining qat'iy elementlarini o'rganishda davom etishdi ”,-dedi Steny Xoyer (D-Md.), Uyning ozchilik qamchi, shu hafta jurnalistlarga. "Mening tushunishimcha, ular yo'lakka ovoz berishmaydi."
SNAP-ni ta'mirlash, odatda, fermer xo'jaliklari hisobiga qarshi chiqadigan ba'zi konservatorlarga yordam berdi-va GOP rahbarlari o'zgarishlarni asosiy savdo nuqtasi sifatida ta'kidladilar-boshqa qattiqqo'llar bu o'zgarishlar etarlicha ketmasligini va haqiqiy moliyalashtirishni talab qilishayotganini aytishadi. SNAP -ga kamayadi.
"Menga bu aslida SNAPda biror narsa qilayotgani yoqadi. Lekin menimcha, agar biz biror narsa qilmoqchi bo'lsak, unda biz haqiqatan ham tajovuzkor bo'lishimiz kerak ",-dedi Jeym Jordan (R-Ogayo shtati)," Ozodlik uyi "konservativ guruhining sobiq raisi. "Men bu etarli darajada yaxshi ekanligini ko'rishim kerak."
"Menga qancha yangi federal ishchi kuchini rivojlantirish dasturlari kerakligi haqida qiziqaman", deya qo'shimcha qildi Jordan.
Respublikachilarni fermer xo'jaliklari hisobiga jalb qilishning bir usuli - ularga ba'zi tuzatishlar bo'yicha ovoz berishga ruxsat berish. Hozirgacha 100 ga yaqin tuzatishlar palata qoidalari qo'mitasiga topshirildi, ular shu haftada yig'ilishlar bo'lib o'tadi, ular munozara qoidalarini belgilaydi.
Biroq, Conaway, agar qonun loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatlamoqchi bo'lmasa, qonunchilarga o'zgartirishlar kiritishga ruxsat bermaslikni taklif qildi.
"Agar siz nima bo'lishidan qat'iy nazar, qonun loyihasida" yo'q "bo'lsangiz, unda nima uchun siz hamma uchun yomonroq bo'lishi uchun zaharli tabletkalarga o'zgartirish kiritasiz?" Konaway shu hafta boshida aytdi.
Vakil Uorren Devidson Uorren Earl Devidson Cheyni Trampga qarshi GOPning yuzi bo'lishga tayyorlanmoqda. Boehner, nihoyat, uni "The Hill's Morning Report"-Bayden: Immigratsiya, Afg'oniston, Eron haqida kelajakka qaytish KO'PROQ (R-Ogayo), Ozodlik Kengashi a'zosi "The Hill" ga bergan intervyusida, u federal oziqlanish dasturlariga tegishli tuzatishlar ro'yxatini, shu jumladan SNAP pulini shtatlarga, ularning ro'yxatga olish raqamlariga qarab, nafaqat tegishli bo'lganlar soniga ko'ra yuborishni taklif qilmoqchi.
Agar ochiq munozaralar va tuzatishlar bo'lsa, Devidsonning aytishicha, u fermer xo'jaliklarining yakuniy qonun loyihasini qo'llab -quvvatlashga tayyor bo'ladi.
"Men aniq qaror qabul qilmadim, chunki tuzatish jarayonini mazmunli o'tkazish muhim deb o'yladim", dedi Devidson.
SNAP - bu fermer xo'jaliklari hisobida paydo bo'lgan yagona muhim nuqta emas.
A'zolar, shuningdek, shakar importiga cheklovlar qo'yish va AQShda qancha shakar ishlab chiqarilishini nazorat qilish orqali shakar narxini yuqori ushlab turishga qaratilgan qonun loyihasining federal shakar dasturi ustida kurash olib borishdi. Dastur, shuningdek, mahalliy shakar ishlab chiqaruvchilarga qaytarilmaydigan ssudalar taklif qiladi.
Vakil Virjiniya Foks (Qoidalar qo'mitasi) a'zosi, qishloq xo'jaligi kotibiga shakar importiga ruxsat berish va soliq to'lovchilarni qutqarish uchun qonun loyihasini bajarmaslik uchun moslashuvchanlikni ta'minlaydigan shakar islohotiga o'zgartirish kiritishni talab qilmoqda. shakar sanoati. Bu g'oya konservatorlar orasida katta shuhrat qozondi.
Ammo Ozodlik Kengashi a'zosi, Rep Yod (Y-Fla) a'zosi, agar u qabul qilinsa, zaharli tabletka bo'ladi, deb ogohlantirgan tuzatishga qattiq qarshilik ko'rsatmoqda. Konaway hatto shakar islohoti tili kiritilgan bo'lsa, o'z qonunlariga qarshi ovoz berishga va'da berdi.
Yoho payshanba kuni respublikachi hamkasblarini ushbu shartga qarshi turishga undash uchun ovoz berishda qatnashdi.
"Biz ularni qo'llab -quvvatlamasliklarini afzal ko'ramiz, chunki agar shunday qilsalar, bu xo'jalik hisobini xavf ostiga qo'yadi", dedi Yoho The Hill nashriga.
Biroq, Foxx tuzatish ovoz beradimi yoki yo'qmi noma'lum. Rayanning aytishicha, u shakar islohotlarini qo'llab -quvvatlasa -da, u qonunchilik palatasidan o'tishini xohlaydi.
Trumpning yangi tarif siyosati va savdo muzokaralarini hisobga olgan holda, ba'zi respublikachilar qishloq xo'jaligi sanoatini yanada siljitishni istamaydilar.
"Odamlar ko'p narsani o'zgartirishni xohlaydilar, lekin siz dehqonlarning bozor sharoitlariga qarasangiz, narxlar qayerda ekanligini va hozirgi savdo negativlarining ta'sirini ko'rib chiqsangiz, hozir katta o'zgarishlarni qilish vaqti emas", - deydi Devidson dedi.
Immigratsion islohot qanday bo'lishi kerak
Immigratsiya Amerikani o'ziga xos millat qilishga yordam beradigan asosiy qurilish bloklaridan biridir. Ammo chegara xavfsizligi va immigratsiya haqidagi bahslar toksik bo'lib qoldi, chunki siyosatchilar siyosatni printsiplardan ustun qo'ygan. Aqlli amerikaliklar har ikki tarafdagi g'ayratli kishilar orasida qolib ketishadi.
Ikki asr mobaynida Qo'shma Shtatlar dunyoning har bir burchagidan millionlab odamlarni qabul qildi.
Va bugun, biz qonuniy ravishda har yili bir milliondan ortiq odamni qabul qilamiz. Bu dunyodagi boshqa mamlakatlarga qaraganda ko'proq.
Munozaralar immigratsiyaga ruxsat berish kerakmi yoki yo'qmi haqida emas - biz buni Amerika suverenitetini himoya qiladigan, qonun ustuvorligini hurmat qiladigan va barcha amerikaliklar uchun foydali bo'lgan tarzda qilyapmiz. Xo'sh, amerikalik immigratsion islohotlarning puxta o'ylangan dasturi nimaga o'xshaydi? Bu erda to'rtta asosiy tamoyillar mavjud:
Birinchi raqam: Biz boshqariladiganlarning roziligini hurmat qilishimiz kerak, bu xalq irodasi. Fuqaro bo'lmagan shaxslar, Amerika xalqining roziligisiz Amerika fuqaroligini olish huquqiga ega emas.
Bu rozilik AQSh qonunlari bilan ifodalanadi. Bu qonunlar orqali biz odamlar boshqa mamlakatlardan, ma'lum shartlar bilan, bizni rezident va vatandosh sifatida bizga qo'shilishga taklif qilamiz.
Ikkinchi raqam: Biz milliy xavfsizlik va jamoat xavfsizligini buzolmaymiz.
Har bir millat xalqaro va ichki qonunlar tomonidan tan olingan, o'z chegaralarini va kirish portlarini qo'riqlash va o'z mamlakatiga nima va kim kirib kelayotganini nazorat qilish huquqiga ega. Uyushmagan va tartibsiz immigratsion tizim odamlarni qonunni o'rganishga undaydi va bu bizning ochiqligimizdan foydalanib, millatga zarar etkazmoqchi bo'lganlarga aniq taklifdir. Xavfsiz chegaralar, ayniqsa terroristik tahdid paytida, Amerika milliy xavfsizligi uchun hal qiluvchi ahamiyatga ega.
Uchinchi raqam: Fuqaro bo'lish amerikalik bo'lishni anglatadi. Biz vatanparvarlik assimilyatsiyasini saqlashimiz kerak. Bu millatning asosi tamoyillari har qanday etnik meros yoki irqqa mansub shaxs amerikalik bo'lishi mumkinligini bildiradi. Shuning uchun biz har doim Amerika orzusining va'dalari va imkoniyatlarini qidirayotgan muhojirlarni kutib olganmiz. Vatanparvarlik assimilyatsiyasi - bu Amerikaga muhojirlar millati bo'lishga imkon beruvchi rishtadir. Busiz, biz o'zgacha xarakterga ega bo'lgan mamlakat bo'lishni to'xtatamiz, aksincha, har xil guruhlarning xodimi bo'lamiz. Agar biz birlashgan millat bo'lishni istasak, biz ko'pchilik orasidan "pluribus unum" shioriga amal qilamiz ... hammamiz umumiy tilni, tarixni va fuqarolik madaniyatini tushunishimiz va qabul qilishimiz kerak. Va bu nafaqat Amerikaga, balki bu erda farovonlikka intilgan muhojirlar va ularning oilalariga ham foyda keltiradi.
To'rtinchi raqam: Bizning qonunchilar qonun ustuvorligini hurmat qilishlari kerak va immigratsiya ham bundan mustasno emas. Immigratsion qonunlarimizni bajarmaslik, qonunga bo'ysungan va qonuniy ravishda mamlakatga kirganlar uchun adolatsizlikdir. Noqonuniy ravishda mamlakatga kirganlar va qolganlar yuridik maqom yoki boshqa imtiyozlar bilan taqdirlanmasligi kerak. Siyosatchilar bunday xatti -harakatlarni ma'qullashganda, ular faqat noqonuniy xatti -harakatlarni rag'batlantiradilar.
Bu tamoyillarga asoslanib, immigratsiya islohoti o'z xizmatlariga asoslangan tizimga o'tishni o'z ichiga olishi kerak. Biz zanjir migratsiyasi, tug'ilish huquqi fuqaroligi, viza lotereyasi, o'zboshimchalik bilan immigratsion cheklovlar va noqonuniy yo'l bilan bu erda bo'lganlarga amnistiya berish kabi amaliyotlarga chek qo'yishimiz kerak. Biz qonunlarimizning bajarilishiga to'sqinlik qiladigan va noqonuniy boshpana talabchilari va boshqa qonunbuzarlarning AQShda abadiy qolishiga yo'l qo'yib, immigratsiya sudlarini bosib o'tgan bo'shliqlarni yopishimiz kerak.
Va biz bu masalalarni birma -bir ko'rib chiqishimiz kerak. Keng qamrovli "bitim" siyosat taqdirini eng munozarali mavzular taqdiriga universal murojaat bilan bog'liq. Asosiysi, amerikaliklarning ko'pchiligi rozi bo'lgan echimlar ustida ishlashdan boshlash.
Biz bu masalani adolatli, mas'uliyatli, insonparvar va oqilona hal qilishimiz kerak va qila olamiz. Bu juda muhim masala, chunki u to'g'ri yo'lga tushmaydi va juda muhim masala, partiyaviy kun tartibiga asoslanadi. Keling, hamma amerikaliklar farovonligi uchun eng yaxshisi haqida o'ylaylik, ham bugungi, ham kelajak.
Ulashing Barcha almashish variantlari: Senatning kelgusi haftadan boshlanadigan immigratsion munozarasi, aslida, kamida 7 xil bahs
Mitch Makkonnell senatdagi immigratsion munozarani allaqachon sirli va murakkab qilib qo'ydi, Vashingtonda hamma boshini o'rab olishga qiynaladi.
He’s giving the Senate a week of floor debate to address any immigration issue that members wish: addressing the fate of the 690,000 unauthorized immigrants facing the loss of their protections from deportation and work permits under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, as well as the fate of the other “DREAMers” who came to the US as children and didn’t or couldn’t apply for DACA Trump’s border “wall” policy toward asylum seekers and unaccompanied children at the border the future of legal immigration to the US and anything else that senators think is particularly important.
Instead of focusing the debate by introducing a bill and using amendments to push it to the right or left, McConnell is starting the debate with nothing. One of two things will happen from there: Either he’ll have each side introduce amendments to build an immigration bill from scratch or he’ll reveal an amendment of his own that represents a compromise as Mitch McConnell defines it.
That raises the question of what represents a compromise on immigration to Mitch McConnell. He’s not tipping his hand in the slightest. And in the meantime, he’s essentially saying, “Immigration: talk amongst yourselves.”
McConnell is starting the debate a week before the Senate’s February recess — meaning that he’s either asking senators to solve America’s most contentious policy issue in five days or telling them to pause in the middle of a floor debate, spend a week being yelled at by constituents, and come back to take some very difficult votes.
The Senate can’t agree on a starting point, so McConnell is opening the debate up even wider
Because immigration is such a broad and complicated issue, and it’s not clear what McConnell’s priorities are in narrowing it, it’s hard to predict what amendments will be offered. But various divides have already erupted among senators — and it’s not clear whether, in any of these debates, one side or the other has the 60 votes necessary to pass.
- Who is getting legalized and how? Legalization proposals from Democrats and immigration-dove Republicans, as well as the White House’s one-page immigration framework, have proposed allowing both DACA recipients and other DREAMers to apply for legal status and eventually become eligible for citizenship. Proposals from immigration hawks in Congress, meanwhile, have offered legalization only to current DACA recipients, and haven’t included any way for them to apply for citizenship after getting legalized. It’s not clear whether there’s a 60-vote consensus for how many immigrants a legalization deal should cover, or for whether they should get a path to citizenship. And while Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) plans to offer a proposal to simply extend the temporary protections DACA recipients currently have for another three years (something that sounds easier in theory than it would be in practice), it’s not clear that there are 60 votes for that either.
- What about the parents of DREAMers? Immigration hawks are particularly concerned that allowing DREAMers to become citizens will allow them to sponsor their parents for citizenship. The Senate will have to decide if parents of DREAMers should be specifically barred from becoming citizens through their children. If so, the Senate will have to decide whether to offer some form of temporary legal status to parents instead (as the compromise bill proposed by Sens. Graham and Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed) or simply keep them in the shadows.
- How much money does the wall get? The White House wants $25 billion. The Graham-Durbin bill offered $1.6 billion. Another bill offered by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chris Coons (D-DE) offers , instead proposing a study of border needs. Is there a number between and $25 billion that 60 senators can agree is worth spending on a wall? Maybe! But we have no idea what that is yet.
- Can closing “loopholes” stop gang members from entering the US without hurting children fleeing persecution? Trump’s Department of Homeland Security — and, increasingly, Trump himself — is less concerned about money for the border than with changing the law to make it easier to turn away unaccompanied children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and easier to deport them after they have been allowed to enter the US. The White House considers this an important tool to fight the revival of MS-13 activity on the East Coast. Democrats consider it a recipe for disaster that will result in would-be refugees being sent back to their deaths.
- Does the Senate care about abolishing the “visa lottery”?Andif it does,what does it want instead? Eliminating the diversity visa, or at least eliminating the lottery used to select who gets to apply for a visa, has become a priority for Republicans because it’s a priority for Trump. It’s not clear whether it’s a priority for 60 senators. Even if it is, they might not agree on whether to cut the 45,000 slots currently allocated to the diversity visa or just reallocate them. Even if they agree to reallocate them, they might not agree on whether to make sure they keep going to people from countries that don’t send many immigrants to the US.
- Should legal immigration be cut, shifted, or neither? The only Senate immigration bill the White House has actually endorsed isn’t about any of these issues. It’s the RAISE Act, sponsored by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA), which would slash legal immigration to the US by as much as 50 percent over the next decade by making huge cuts to family-based immigration without expanding employment-based immigration to match it. Nothing is stopping Cotton from introducing the RAISE Act as an amendment next week — except the prospect of getting 60 votes for it. Instead, immigration hawks might decide to propose more modest cuts to family-based immigration. Or they might decide to propose keeping overall immigration levels similar but shifting some slots away from family-based immigrants so that more employment-based immigrants can come into the US instead.
- What about interior enforcement? The White House’s attention toward cutting legal immigration has kind of crowded out immigration hawks’ requests for a crackdown on immigration in the interior of the US — including everything from defunding “sanctuary cities” to expanding mandatory use of the E-Verify system to check the legal status of employees. But some immigration hawks, including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the head of the Judiciary Committee, are still concerned about the interior. And they might be concerned enough to wedge it into the floor debate.
It’s possible that several of these issues will get rolled into a single amendment in the hopes that that amendment can get 60 votes. But then whichever party is willing to propose such an amendment has to hope that 20 of those senators don’t vote for any other amendment the other 40 senators consider a poison pill.
There are more than enough proposals — but McConnell wants to start from scratch
Various groups of legislators have already introduced bills that include some form of legal status for DACA recipients (or DREAMers more broadly) alongside whatever immigration enforcement provisions or cuts to future legal immigration they think are appropriate trade-offs.
The authors of each of those bills hoped that their bill would be selected as the starting point for the floor debate. But there wasn’t anywhere near a consensus on which bill to pick — or even what issues the bill should address (whether it should include cuts to future legal immigration and/or increased immigration enforcement in the interior the extent of money it gave for border security and how many DREAMers it would legalize, and how).
McConnell’s solution to this problem is to choose hech kim of those bills as a starting point.
This actually gives the Senate an even wider menu of options than they already had. Almost all the bills that have been introduced were intended to be, to some extent, compromises — and they were almost all intended to address multiple issues at once.
And this whole floor debate could be a sideshow while real negotiations are happening in private.
Several groups of legislators are theoretically working on new immigration compromises, and none of them have figured one out yet — probably because the biggest splits among legislators aren’t even on policy, but on the question of how important it actually is to pass a bill in the coming weeks. But if they do make a breakthrough, or if McConnell works something out himself, that compromise would be introduced as the new starting point.
But envisioning a compromise bill requires knowing which immigration proposals can get 60 votes in the Senate, which is exactly the problem.
It would be very easy for the open debate next week to result in a bill whose ultimate support is less than the sum of its parts. It could be just as easy for every amendment to fail. The Senate has to thread a very narrow needle — in very little time.
Millions turn to Vox to understand what’s happening in the news. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today from as little as $3.
Australian government gags debate to ram environmental law changes through lower house
Legislation to change Australia’s environmental laws has been rammed through the lower house by the Morrison government prompting outrage from Labor, the Greens and the crossbench.
The government’s bill would amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, clearing the way for the transfer of development approval powers to state and territory governments.
The proposed changes passed the lower house on Thursday night after the government used its numbers to gag debate on the bill and amendments proposed by Labor and the crossbench.
No member of the government spoke on the bill, which still has to pass the Senate and will now likely be debated during the October budget sittings.
“To just gag that debate, to prevent people from having their say, I think is a real disgrace,” Labor’s environment spokeswoman, Terri Butler, said.
“This isn’t minor legislation, this is significant legislation that affects what happens to our natural environment, what happens with jobs and what happens with investment.”
Butler said the government was trying to rush changes to the laws through parliament under the cover of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“Now is a time for more scrutiny. Now is not the time for us to be putting up with the government rushing things through in the dead of night in a situation when there’s not that attention focused on them,” she said.
The independent MP, Zali Steggall, had proposed an amendment that would have added a reference in the bill to promised national standards recommended by the interim report of the review of the EPBC Act.
“This is appalling conduct by government minister [Sussan] Ley, the prime minister and every coalition MP that is supporting this,” Steggall said.
“The conduct of the government today in parliament had nothing to do with this pandemic. It had nothing to do with measures around the welfare or the health or the long-term benefit of Australians. This was about abrogating your rights, all of you, in having a voice in this parliament and knowing that you will actually have an environment that is going to be protected.”
The Greens MP, Adam Bandt, said the government was “trashing the environment and trashing democracy”.
“No government MP wanted to front up and defend the indefensible, but the rest of the country is entitled to have its say on such a crucial bill,” he said.
Andrew Wilkie, another independent MP, called the bill “environmental vandalism in the extreme”. He said it ignored the recommendations of the interim report handed down by the former competition watchdog chair Prof Graeme Samuel.
By blocking debate the government had shown “complete contempt for democracy”, Wilkie said.
The government introduced its bill, a near replica of Tony Abbott’s failed 2014 one-stop-shop policy, last week. It has argued deregulation of its decision-making powers under the EPBC Act is necessary to aid Australia’s economic response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The bill had been criticised by conservationists, Labor and the Greens for weakening environmental protections and failing to include promised national environmental standards, which were the key recommendation of the interim report.
Labor also wanted the government to commit to another of the review’s recommendations – an independent regulator that would enforce the law if approval powers are devolved to state and territory governments.
In a statement on Thursday night, the environment minister said moving to a “single touch” approval system would “reduce regulatory burden, promote economic activity and create certainty around environmental protections”.
“The Labor party, which turned its back on environmental reform after its own review of the EPBC Act a decade ago, today attempted a day of cynical misrepresentation in the House,” Ley said. The minister said there would be more reforms to follow.
Veteran Senator Emerges as Player on Immigration Overhaul
WASHINGTON — As proponents of a new immigration overhaul cast about for a Republican ally to help give their bill an extra boost, they have focused on a 79-year-old lawmaker with new hipster glasses (from Costco), black Nike sneakers (for his bad arches) and, perhaps most important, a deep and complicated relationship with immigration policy: Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.
Members of the bipartisan group of eight senators who drafted an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws see Mr. Hatch as a potentially influential partner. He was an original co-sponsor of the Dream Act for younger immigrants and has shown a willingness to embrace other immigration legislation as well. Though he ran to the right during a primary challenge in the 2012 election, they believe he might be brought back into the fold now that he is safely ensconced in his seventh Senate term.
“Senator Hatch is somebody who understands these issues well, has a long history, and it would very valuable to have him support our bill, both in committee and on the floor,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee with Mr. Hatch.
In an effort to increase Mr. Hatch’s investment in the legislation, Mr. Schumer and other members of the bipartisan group on Monday threw their support behind a Hatch initiative to begin collecting biometric information like fingerprints at airports to register immigrants when they leave the country.
With the exception of two Republican members of the bipartisan group who also sit on the Judiciary Committee — Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — Mr. Hatch is considered the other Republican member most likely to support the bill, which would give it some conservative gravitas as it heads to the Senate floor.
The bipartisan group is hoping for a large Senate vote in support of the bill — some members have suggested as many as 70 votes — to place pressure on House Republicans to also get behind the legislation. And Mr. Hatch’s “yes” vote is seen as a driver for what they hope will be a groundswell of support. Mr. Hatch, who hails from a state with a dynamic immigration culture, meanwhile finds himself with a final chance to help pass a broad immigration overhaul, something in which he has both publicly and privately expressed a genuine interest.
But Mr. Hatch’s “yes” vote in committee comes with a major caveat — the acceptance of provisions of his that would, among other things, help technology companies by increasing the number of temporary visas available for high-skilled workers (known as H-1B visas) and ease restrictions around the hiring and firing of workers. He also is offering some provisions on the finance side, including one that would require immigrants to show they have paid back taxes and are staying current with them as they proceed toward legal status.
“I personally believe we need immigration reform,” said Mr. Hatch, adding that his tweaks to the bill are “amendments that clean it up and make it a better bill, and may even be able to get it more votes.” The provisions are also, he explained, an all-but-ironclad requirement for earning his vote: “They know my point is I’ve got to have those,” he said, referring to the message he has communicated to the group.
And so last week, as the committee met twice to discuss the bill publicly, the behind-the-scenes negotiating and arm-twisting picked up in earnest, with Mr. Schumer’s office taking the lead in trying to work out an agreement with Mr. Hatch.
“He’s made it clear that having his support will be dependent on the committee accepting his proposals to improve the bill,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, one of the Republican authors. “We think accepting his improvements and having his support is critical to getting the broad Republican support we want.”
A particular source of tension is Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat and another member of the bipartisan group, who opposes many of Mr. Hatch’s amendments because he thinks they would hurt American workers.
“Some of them are absolutely unacceptable,” Mr. Durbin said. “What he wants to do is make it easier for firms seeking H-1B visas not to hire Americans.”
Still, Mr. Durbin acknowledged the delicate political realities: “We want all the support we can get, but if the price of support of any Republican member is for us to turn this carefully crafted, politically balanced deal on its head, it’s not worth it.”
If Mr. Hatch succeeds in getting what he wants, it would be a coup both for the senator and the technology industry. Mr. Hatch can fall back on the high-tech community to strengthen his hand, as he did in a committee meeting last week when he warned, “There’s a whole tech world that’s getting up in arms if we don’t do this right, and they alone can make this bill very difficult to pass.” And the tech industry will have found a strong advocate in Mr. Hatch to further push their cause in Congress.
By late Monday night, Senate aides said, Mr. Hatch was closing in on a deal with the bipartisan group, and was expected to offer his high-tech amendments on Tuesday.
“Senator Hatch has a long history of leadership on high-tech issues,” said Dan Turrentine, the vice president of government relations and business development at TechNet, a trade group that advocates for a range of Silicon Valley companies. “His interest in immigration and efforts to ensure the workability of well-intentioned high-skilled reforms proposed by the Gang of Eight makes him a natural to be at the center of negotiations as he seeks to strengthen the bill and broaden support.”
Utah has been nicknamed the “Silicon Slopes” for the more than 5,000 high-tech companies that populate the state, and in some ways, Utah itself is as diverse on the topic of immigration as its two senators. In contrast to Mr. Hatch, Senator Mike Lee, a Republican who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, has advocated breaking up the legislation into smaller pieces and does not necessarily support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country.
In 2010, the state’s business, political, religious and law-enforcement leaders got behind the Utah Compact, a document intended to offer an open-minded and holistic approach to immigration. The Mormon Church, of which Mr. Hatch is a member, also endorsed the compact and has offered a similarly broad view toward immigration.
In addition to being one of the original co-sponsors of the Dream Act, a bill that surfaced more than a decade ago and would create a formal path to citizenship for young people brought to the United States illegally as children, Mr. Hatch has worked on other components of the immigration debate. He helped draft the agricultural workers program that is part of the Senate bill.
Though he backed away from immigration reform when he faced a tough primary challenge in 2012, many immigration advocates believe he is now ready to come around to their side.
“I think there is the political space now for Senator Hatch to talk about these issues that he has a track record of being supportive of,” said Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Council.
Bipartisan House Agriculture Bill Is a Win for Both Farmers and Immigrants
A bipartisan bill that would provide a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who work in agriculture passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, providing a glimmer of stability to America's farmers in the midst of an ongoing trade war and an immigrant labor crackdown.
The Farm Workforce Modernization Act passed the House in a vote of 260-165, with 34 Republicans voting in favor. In its current form, the bill would permit undocumented aliens to obtain permanent residence if they have worked in domestic agriculture for at least 10 years and are willing to continue working in the industry for an additional four years. After that period, they would be eligible for a green card and could seek employment in another industry. Immigrants with less than 10 years of experience would need to commit to working in agriculture for an additional 8 years to be eligible for permanent residence.
The bill would also expand the H-2A visa program, which allows farmers to legally hire foreign guest workers. Farmers could employ guest workers year-round, rather than just seasonally. Although the former would be subject to an initial 20,000 visa cap per year for the first three years, it could expand after that period. The reform provides for 40,000 additional green cards for those working in agricultural, allows H-2A recipients to be sponsored for a green card, and permits them to apply for that legal status directly, all of which encourage them not to overstay their visas in violation of immigration law. It also cuts some of the red tape and bureaucratic overview processes that slow down such applications, decreasing time in processing and cutting the associated costs. A pilot program would increase flexibility to a small degree, allowing H-2A recipients to switch jobs if they are able to secure employment in their first two months in the U.S., provided that they continue to work in the agricultural sector.
"I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally," said President Donald Trump during his 2019 State of the Union address. But migrants need a way to do that. At present, those opportunities are few and far between: A low-skilled immigrant from Mexico would have to wait an average of 131 years to successfully immigrate to the U.S.
"If we want illegal immigration to end, Congress has to guarantee farmers a better way to follow the law," writes David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
While some worry that these visas displace American workers, U.S. farmers are required by law to offer H-2A positions first to people who can already legally work in the U.S. They seldom find enough takers. The Cornell Farmworker Program found that dairy farmers rely on undocumented workers because they cannot identify a sufficient amount of U.S.-born employees to fill the positions. This might explain why approximately 50 percent of all farmworkers are undocumented immigrants, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Immigration enforcement against agricultural businesses has thrown the industry into disarray. Farmers have seen large portions of their workforce deported unexpectedly . When farmers can find American-born workers to replace immigrant labor, they face serious retention problems. These staffing problems have been made exponentially worse by the agricultural tariffs China imposed on U.S. products in response to Trump's trade war, which resulted in a bailout of $10 billion for just this year.
Unfortunately, the House bill also includes an E-Verify requirement, which raises serious civil liberties issues. But the permanent residency opportunity is a welcome reprieve for American farmers and immigrant laborers alike.
Various groups, including the Immigration Restriction League had supported literacy as a prerequisite for immigration from its formation in 1894. In 1895, Henry Cabot Lodge had introduced a bill to the United States Senate to impose a mandate for literacy for immigrants, using a test requiring them to read five lines from the Constitution. Though the bill passed, it was vetoed by President Grover Cleveland in 1897. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt lent support for the idea in his first address  but the resulting proposal was defeated in 1903. A literacy test was included in a US Senate immigration bill of 1906, but the House of Representatives did not agree to this, and the test was dropped in the conference committee finalizing what became the Immigration Act of 1907.  Literacy was introduced again in 1912 and though it passed, it was vetoed by President William Howard Taft.  By 1915, yet another bill with a literacy requirement was passed. It was vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson because he felt that literacy tests denied equal opportunity to those who had not been educated. 
As early as 1882, previous immigration acts had levied head taxes on aliens entering the country to offset the cost of their care if they became indigent. These acts excluded immigrants from Canada or Mexico,  as did subsequent amendments to the amount of the head tax.  The Immigration Act of 1882 prohibited entry to the U.S. for convicts, indigent people who could not provide for their own care, prostitutes, and lunatics or idiots.  The Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 prohibited employers from contracting with foreign laborers and bringing them into the U.S.,  though U.S. employers continued to recruit Mexican contract laborers assuming they would just return home.  After the assassination of President William McKinley by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz on September 6, 1901, several immigration Acts were passed which broadened the defined categories of "undesireables." The Immigration Act of 1903 expanded barred categories to include anarchists, epileptics and those who had had episodes of insanity.  Those who had infectious diseases and those who had physical or mental disabilities which would hamper their ability to work were added to the list of excluded immigrants in the Immigration Act of 1907. 
Anxiety over the fragmentation of American cultural identity led to many laws aimed at stemming the "Yellow Peril," the perceived threat of Asian societies replacing the American identity.  Laws restricting Asian immigration to the United States had first appeared in California as state laws.  With the enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1870, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants and forbade all Chinese women,  exclusionary policies moved into the federal sphere. Exclusion of women aimed to cement a bachelor society, making Chinese men unable to form families and thus, transient, temporary immigrants.  Barred categories expanded with the Page Act of 1875, which established that Chinese, Japanese and Oriental bonded labor, convicts, and prostitutes were forbidden entry to the U.S.  The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese people from entering the U.S. and the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 was made with Japan to cease Japanese immigration to the US. 
On February 5, 1917, the Immigration Act of 1917 was passed by the 64th United States Congress with an overwhelming majority, overriding President Woodrow Wilson's December 14, 1916, veto.  This act added to and consolidated the list of undesirables banned from entering the country, including: alcoholics, anarchists, contract laborers, criminals, convicts, epileptics, "feebleminded persons," "idiots," "illiterates," "imbeciles," "insane persons," "paupers," "persons afflicted with contagious disease," "persons being mentally or physically defective," "persons with constitutional psychopathic inferiority," "political radicals," polygamists, prostitutes, and vagrants. 
For the first time, an immigration law of the U.S. affected European immigration, with the provision barring all immigrants over the age of sixteen who were illiterate. Literacy was defined as the ability to read 30–40 words of their own language from an ordinary text.  The act reaffirmed the ban on contracted labor, but made a provision for temporary labor. This allowed laborers to obtain temporary permits because they were inadmissible as immigrants. The waiver program allowed continued recruitment of Mexican agricultural and railroad workers.  Legal interpretation on the terms "mentally defective" and "persons with constitutional psychopathic inferiority" effectively included a ban on homosexual immigrants who admitted their sexual orientation. 
One section of the law designated an "Asiatic barred zone" from which people could not immigrate, including much of Asia and the Pacific Islands. The zone, defined through longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates,  excluded immigrants from China, British India, Afghanistan, Arabia, Burma (Myanmar), Siam (Thailand), the Malay States, the Dutch East Indies, the Soviet Union east of the Ural Mountains, and most Polynesian islands.   Neither the Philippines nor Japan was included in the banned zone.  The description of the zone is as follows:
. unless otherwise provided for by existing treaties, persons who are natives of islands not possessed by the United States adjacent to the continent of Asia, situated south of the twentieth parallel latitude north, west of the one hundred and sixtieth meridian of longitude east from Greenwich, and north of the tenth parallel of latitude south, or who are natives of any country, province, or dependency situated on the continent of Asia west of the one hundred and tenth meridian of longitude east from Greenwich and east of the fiftieth meridian of longitude east from Greenwich and south of the fiftieth parallel of latitude north, except that portion of said territory situate between the fiftieth and the sixth-fourth meridians of longitude east from Greenwich and the twenty-fourth and thirty-eight parallels of latitude north, and no alien now in any way excluded from, or prevented from entering, the United States shall be admitted to the United States. [ citation needed ]
The 1917 Asian exclusions did not apply to those working in certain professional occupations and their immediate families: "(1) Government officers, (2) ministers or religious teachers, (3) missionaries, (4) lawyers, (5) physicians, (6) chemists, (7) civil engineers, (8) teachers, (9) students, (10) authors, (11) artists, (12) merchants, and (13) travelers for curiosity or pleasure". 
The law also increased the head tax to $8 per person, and ended the exclusion of Mexican workers from the head tax. 
Almost immediately, the provisions of the law were challenged by southwestern businesses. U.S. entry into World War I, a few months after the law's passage, prompted a waiver of the Act's provisions on Mexican agricultural workers. It was soon extended to include Mexicans working in the mining and railroad industries these exemptions continued through 1921.  The act was modified by the Immigration Act of 1924, which imposed general quotas on the Eastern Hemisphere and extended the Asiatic barred zone to Japan. During World War II, the U.S. modified the immigration acts with quotas for their allies in China and the Philippines.  The Luce–Celler Act of 1946 ended discrimination against Asian Indians and Filipinos, who were accorded the right to naturalization, and allowed a quota of 100 immigrants per year.
The Immigration Act of 1917 was later altered formally by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, known as the McCarran-Walter Act. McCarren-Walter extended the privilege of naturalization to Japanese, Koreans, and other Asians,  revised all previous laws and regulations regarding immigration, naturalization, and nationality, and collected them into one comprehensive statute.  Legislation barring homosexuals as immigrants remained part of the immigration code until passage of the Immigration Act of 1990.