Re: The big, simple reason why the Immigration Bill should be rejected

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Ian Hopper <imhopper () gmail com>
Date: May 27, 2007 2:21:07 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] The big, simple reason why the Immigration Bill  
should be rejected

Lauren,

It is a big, huge bill, but it's not a secret by any means. The entire
text is on Thomas, anyone can read it.  It's complicated, yes, but so
is the problem. You can't fix one thing alone -- another instant
legalization or a big wall by itself isn't the answer.

It's not a perfect bill at all, you're right. But reading through it,
I haven't seen one much better. The merit-based approach is virtually
the same as run by Canada, the UK and Australia. It makes a lot more
sense -- especially when compared to having no more qualifications
than being a sibling of a U.S. citizen (F4 visas, which would go
away), or having won a computerized lottery and holding a West African
baccalaureate degree without any requirement of significant job
skills, an actual employer or knowledge of any modern language, much
less English. (Diversity visas, which would also go away.)

Every member of Congress has their own 'perfect' bill, and they're all
diametrically opposed to another 'perfect' bill.  Apart from the Iraq
war reference as a rather transparent straw man, are hearings really
necessary? Who _hasn't_ had the chance to speak out on what they'd
like immigration to be?

This is a huge bill, you're right. It would be the single largest
change in immigration policy since the nation's founding.  Apart from
tossing jus soli, the act of gaining citizenship merely by where
you're born, it would change everything about American immigration
policy. But just because it's big and important, it should be tossed?
Is Congress not worthy of deciding anything larger than naming a Post
Office?  Nothing in this bill is new -- all of it has been in pieces
of legislation before.

But even assuming you're right, it's still not worth panicking.
Passing the Senate, which it hasn't done, isn't even the hard part. It
still has to get through the House, and conferencing.  It's speedy by
Congressional standards, but that's not saying much.

- Ian.

On 5/27/07, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> Date: May 27, 2007 12:39:55 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: lauren () vortex com
> Subject: The big, simple reason why the Immigration Bill should be
> rejected
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I don't claim to be an expert on immigration policy.  I'm not
> schooled in the intricacies of the different visa types and their
> ramifications.  Personally, having lived here in Los Angeles my
> entire life, I don't have problems with a multicultural environment,
> and I can't help but suspect that a large part of the organized
> opposition to the Immigration Bill is driven by racism, even if
> below the conscious level in many people.
>
> But from a technical and privacy standpoint, there are aspects of the
> bill that seem potentially problematic in their current form,
> particularly mandated data sharing of Social Security Administration
> data with the Department of Homeland Security, and the ordered use
> of the significantly error-prone employee verification database to
> verify the status of all future and even current employees.  The
> latter is likely to *falsely* indicate that millions of persons
> don't have legal employment status.
>
> But there's a much bigger, fundamental reason why the bill should be
> rejected, that overrides any and all positive and negative details.
>
> The Immigration Bill is enormous, and if enacted would trigger
> immense changes throughout the U.S., and by extension around the
> world.  It is inexcusable beyond words that such a massive
> undertaking be foisted on the public as a result of secret, backroom
> negotiations, with nary a meaningful public hearing to openly
> discuss the issues and ramifications.
>
> An exercise of such scope demands a major series of hearings and
> comment periods, not a "grand compromise" by the same sort of
> politicians who have "compromised" us either directly or indirectly
> in the past into other bad legislation, not to mention the Iraq war
> and similar travesties.
>
> Immigration reform is a highly emotional topic, but it's also an
> extremely technical one, with complex impacts throughout the economy
> and people's lives.  It is not an appropriate subject for wink and
> handshake legislation, and the legislators involved -- in both
> parties -- should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> The only reasonable approach now is to deep-six the current
> Immigration Bill and start from scratch with due process.  A bad
> bill is most decidedly worse than no bill, especially with ad hoc
> changes in the legislation now taking place that appear to make
> matters even worse than the existing status quo.
>
> The people of this country should demand no less.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>     - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, IOIC
>     - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
> Founder, CIFIP
>     - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http:// 
> www.cifip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com