Washington (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other leading Democratic senators will formally unveil the outlines of legislation for comprehensive immigration reform late Thursday, CNN has learned.
Two senior Democratic sources say the Senate Democrats will discuss a proposal drafted by Reid, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez. "This is a draft that reflects months of bipartisan work. It is intended to serve as an invitation to Republicans to look at it and sit down to solve problems with us," one of the sources said. The 26-page draft obtained by CNN attempts to woo GOP senators in part by calling for "concrete benchmarks" to secure the border before granting illegal immigrants the opportunity to gain legal status. Those benchmarks include: increasing the number of border patrol officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, increasing the number of personnel available to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improving technology used to assist ICE agents. At the same time, "high-tech ground sensors" would be installed across the Mexican border. Officers would be equipped with the "technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling," according to the draft. Fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant biometric Social Security cards would be issued to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. Fines for knowingly hiring someone not eligible for employment would be increased by 300 percent. Repeat offenders would face time in prison. The draft proposal includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It states that all illegal immigrants living in the United States would be required to "come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes." Illegal immigrants cleared by federal authorities would be eligible to petition for permanent resident status eight years after current visa backlogs have cleared. Reid, Schumer, Menendez and three other Democratic senators met Wednesday evening with immigration reform advocates and agreed to hold a news conference Thursday to unveil the draft, CNN has learned. Other leaders on the issue have been trying to secure elusive GOP support for the push, which is one of President Obama's top domestic priorities. Schumer said Thursday that he is continuing to meet with Republicans on the issue. But New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, one the Republicans who spoke to Schumer on Thursday, said he "won't do anything on immigration until the administration shows some willingness to address the border issue, and I think so far they have not fulfilled their responsibilities on the border." Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she told Schumer on Wednesday that before moving ahead with other elements of immigration reform, a "real effort must be made first to secure the border and do all we can there." Both Gregg and Murkowski said they do not consider themselves "in play" to potentially back the Democratic plan. Meanwhile, the top Republican in the House dismissed the plan as a political ploy with little chance of passage. "There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress," said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "I've been around here for a little while and know that in the middle of an election year, after we've had bills like health care shoved down our throats ... you cannot do a serious piece of legislation of this size." The proposal "is nothing more than a cynical ploy to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November's elections." Boehner said that although Congress needs to take up the issue of immigration reform, "you can't do it without serious bipartisan conversations and bipartisan discussions." In arguing that immigration reform cannot pass Congress this year, Boehner referenced Obama's comments on Air Force One on Tuesday night, when the president said "there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue" on Capitol Hill. "It's a matter of political will," Obama said. "We've gone through a very tough year, and I've been working Congress pretty hard." Several sources involved in the Democratic effort noted that Reid promised Hispanics in Nevada, a key voting bloc for the majority leader, that he would bring up immigration reform. If the Republicans immediately reject the proposal, they indicated, Reid may have sufficient political cover to not bring the divisive issue to the Senate floor. A spokesman for Reid took issue Thursday with the assertion that the Senate majority leader is pushing the bill for political reasons. "Reid's commitment to this issue is genuine and long-standing," Jim Manley said. "Even though people think he's doing this for political reasons, he wants to do this because he believes it is the right thing to do." On May 1, 2:35 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote: > the USA does not belong the rest of the planet - we are a sovereign > nation > we are not a charity organization > we are not responsible for the health or safety of other nations > (including Israel) > we will enforce our immigration laws > entering the USA illegally is a punishable crime > Let The Trail Of Tears II begin!!! > > we do welcome legal immigrants who renounce their old government, > pledge an oath of loyalty to the USA, learn english, and pay their > taxes without whining > > On May 1, 9:29 am, "M. Johnson" <micha...@america.net> wrote: > > > Arizona Immigrant Law Heads to Court“The first legal challenges to > > Arizona’s stringent new anti-illegal-immigration law were filed Thursday in > > federal court in Phoenix and Tucson, heralding a legal battle that could > > take months, if not years, to resolve. Major civil rights and legal groups > > announced separately that they would soon be taking legal action to block > > the law, part of a flurry of maneuvers intended to prevent it from taking > > effect.” (New York Times, Friday)A clash of the Tenth and 14th > > Amendments?Borders and LibertybyAndrew P. Morriss > > July 2004 • Volume: 54 • Issue: 7 •Andrew Morrissis Galen J. Roush > > Professor of Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve > > University, Cleveland, Ohio, and senior associate at PERC, the Property and > > Environment Research Center, Bozeman, Montana.Borders play a critical role > > in our lives. Some of the borders that matter to us are ones we establish > > ourselves: this ismyhouse and property; that isyourhouse and property. By > > choosing what is mine and using the legal system to mark it off from what > > is yours, I create a border. While not quite as invulnerable as suggested > > by the maxim “A man’s home is his castle,” my property gives me a firm > > border against you. Borders come from property rights and are essential to > > a free society. > > At the macro level we have political bordersunrelated to property rights, > > more permeable than personal-level borders, but just as important to > > ensuring liberty. When I drive from my home to my office, I cross the > > borders of multiple political subdivisions of the state of Ohio, moving > > from Columbia Township to Cleveland, from Lorain County to Cuyahoga County. > > Those borders are invisible but important. Cleveland confiscates 2 percent > > of my salary because my work lies within its borders (Ohio cities can levy > > local income taxes). Columbia Township taxes my home. Columbia does not tax > > my income, and so income I earn at home is worth 2 percent more to me than > > wages at work. Cleveland cannot tax my home, freeing me from the concern > > that people I cannot vote for could tax property as well as income. (Of > > course I also worry about people Icanvote for taxing my income and assets, > > but at least there is a theoretical possibility of throwing the rascals out > > when I vote.) > > These borders are all permeable: I do not need to show identification to > > pass across any of them and do not need to justify my purpose in moving > > among the various cities and towns along my drive to and from work. > > Other macro-level borders are less permeable. When I walk across the > > U.S.-Mexican border near my parents’ home in Yuma, Arizona, in one > > direction I must satisfy Mexican authorities that my purpose is legitimate. > > In the other, I must satisfy U.S. authorities that my return is legitimate. > > In both directions, people with guns are standing by, ready to keep me out > > should I fail to satisfy them about the legitimacy of my purpose. Only the > > Americans with guns seem worried about who is entering the United States. > > They look at my identification, ask what I was doing in Mexico, and, > > sometimes, have dogs sniff my vehicle and belongings. > > In many respects, these macro-level borders are wonderful things. Lorain > > and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio must compete for my family’s residence. > > Choosing to live where we do is related to the taxes charged by the > > communities where we might have lived. Investors make similar choices. > > The choices by families about where to live and invest their money > > influence communities’ public policies. Choosing bad policies produces an > > exodus; choosing good policies leads to immigration of both capital and > > people. For example, Cleveland is trying to reverse its post-World War II > > decline in population by offering to exempt new construction from > > real-estate taxes for 15 years. Such competition isn’t perfect, of course, > > and only operates on the margin. Desirable locations such as New York City > > will be able to impose higher taxes than less-desirable locations such as > > Cleveland. Nonetheless, the competition offered on local taxation policy > > and other regulatory issues is important in restraining governments from > > infringing liberty. > > Macro borders with competition enhance liberty. At the state and local > > level the only way politicians can prevent such competition is by > > eliminating borders. In Cleveland, “regional leaders” are pushing > > consolidation of local governments into one big entity as the solution to > > the exodus of population and investment to lower-tax jurisdictions. > > Fortunately, politicians’ self-interest also cuts against consolidation > > since it would mean fewer positions for them.National BordersNational > > borders are also important sources of liberty. The Mexican border, for > > example, offers a choice between a drug-regulatory regime that requires a > > doctor’s prescription for most pharmaceuticals and one that does not. The > > streams of visitors to towns such as Algodones, Baja California, are not > > merely seeking lower prices. Some are seeking medicines unapproved in the > > United States; others are looking for medications for which they have no > > U.S. prescription, whether for recreational (such as Viagra) or medical > > (antibiotics) use. Mexico does not offer the pro-plaintiff tort doctrines > > of U.S. product-liability law, has lower barriers to entry for pharmacists, > > and a wide-open market for pharmaceuticals that includes openly advertised > > price competition. U.S. residents near the Mexican border thus have a > > choice of regulatory regimes for their medicine that those of us who live > > farther away do not. Border-region residents can buy medicines either with > > the U.S. bundle of qualities, restrictions, and rights, or the Mexican > > bundle. From the level of traffic of elderly visitors I’ve seen at the > > border crossing, it appears the Mexican bundle is more attractive for many. > > Borders are thus friends of liberty in two important ways. First, without > > borders we would not have the competition among jurisdictions that > > restricts attempts to abridge liberty. The impact of borders goes beyond > > those who live near them. Pharmacists try to prevent the free sale of > > prescription drugs, but they would be much more successful if Mexico did > > not offer an alternative for at least some consumers. It is the margin that > > matters, and so free availability of pharmaceuticals in Mexico benefits > > even those of us who live in Ohio. > > Jurisdictions thus compete to attract people and capital. This competition > > motivates governments to act to preserve liberty. Famously, for example, > > states compete for corporations, with Delaware the current market leader. > > Delaware corporate law offers companies the combination of a mostly > > voluntary set of default rules and an expert decision-making body (the > > Court of Chancery). As a result, many corporations, large and small, choose > > to incorporate in Delaware, making it their legal residence. (Their actual > > headquarters need not be physically located there.) Corporations get a body > > of liberty-enhancing rules; Delaware gets tax revenue and employment in the > > corporate services and legal fields. > > That state’s position is no accident. At the beginning of the twentieth > > century, New Jersey was the market leader in corporate law. When New > > Jersey’s legislature made ill-advised changes to its corporations statute > > that reduced shareholder value, Delaware seized the opportunity and offered > > essentially the older version of New Jersey’s law. Within a few years, the > > vast majority of New Jersey corporations became Delaware corporations. > > The second way that borders further liberty is that they allow diversity in > > law and other community norms, letting each individual find the setting > > that most resembles the type of society he or she desires. Everyone in Ohio > > need not agree on how to organize town activities: I can live in a township > > with few taxes and few services, and my more left-wing colleagues at the > > university who prefer a more interventionist society can live in Cleveland > > Heights, a suburb with an aggressive central-planning mentality and high > > taxes. > > Borders prompt concerns among many people, however. Statists often worry > > about precisely the competition described above. In the European Union, for > > example, high-tax jurisdictions like France and Germany worry (correctly) > > that low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland will attract capital and jobs and > > thus create pressure to reduce taxes. In the United States, statists worry > > that cross-border competition will produce a “race to the bottom” in areas > > such as environmental protection.Competition and CostsStatists are correct > > that competition among jurisdictions will make clear the costs of the > > policies they promote. They are wrong when they suggest that cross-border > > competition is destructive of the quality of life, however. The former > > divide between East and West Berlin is a fine example of the impact of > > cross-border comparisons. East Germans could see the difference in outcomes > > between the two societies, and East Germany had to resort to increasingly > > costly and desperate measures to prevent its citizens from voting against > > communism with their feet. The example of West Germany did not erode the > > socialist regime by “unfairly” competing against it. West Germans had a > > higher standard of living and more freedom. Competition between the two > > Germanys exposed the cost of East German policies. > > To prevent cross-border competition from exposing the > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
