|
miércoles, mayo 16, 2007 Escrito PorAdam J. Segala las07:01 PM | Comentar | Imprimir | Enviar a Correo Much of the MATT Foundation team from across the nation spent today in San Antonio preparing for the roll-out of a series of immigration policy proposals and practical solutions.
As we emerged from our meeting it was clear the U.S. Senate is closer to announcing a new package of immigration proposals that would become the central focus of a looming floor debate. Yet some of the latest reports indicate that many Members of Congress and powerful interest groups are raising concerns about the compromise plan that is taking shape. Wall Street Journal congressional staff writer David Rogers reports tonight on significant progress among Senate negotiators on immigration reform: "The White House and Senate negotiators have narrowed their differences on immigration overhaul to a point where they hope to announce a final deal Thursday on legislation that can be brought to the Senate floor next week." And The Washington Post’s Jonathan Weisman reports tonight that the National Council of La Raza is "wildly uncomfortable" with the reported compromise. Weisman has many of the details: "Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement yesterday on a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that would offer virtually all of the nation’s 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status while shifting migration preferences away from the extended families of citizens toward more skilled and educated workers. "Under the tentative deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit, while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee." The New York Times has a similar report.
|
