Use your widget sidebars in the admin Design tab to change this little blurb here. Add the text widget to the Blurb Sidebar!

Latest News on Immigration Reform, From Across the Web

Posted: June 20th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Immigration Reform, National News, Sarasota Immigrants | Tags: , , | No Comments »

CBO: Senate immigration bill would cut deficits by $200 billion over decade. “The immigration bill under consideration in the Senate would reduce federal deficits by nearly $200 billion over the next decade, and continue generating savings in the years beyond, even after millions of new citizens became eligible for health-care and welfare benefits, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday. The long-awaited report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office marked a major victory for the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators who have spent months negotiating the details of the measure.” Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post.

Read: The CBO report.

…Here are the key numbers. “While the bill increases spending by $262 billion over 10 years, it increases revenue by $459 billion, for a deficit reduction of $197 billion in total. Additionally, it projects $690 billion in deficit reduction in the second decade of implementation, from 2024 to 2033. The reports predicts that the bill will add 10.4 million permanent U.S. residents and 1.6 million new temporary visa-holders, and reduce the undocumented immigrant population by 1.6 million.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.

@petersuderman: CBO estimates that the immigration bill will cut deficits by $197b over 10 years. Basically: More legal labor=more revenue=lower deficits.

…It’s a free lunch, the CBO is saying. “This isn’t just a good CBO report. It’s a wildly good CBO report. They’re basically saying immigration reform is a free lunch: It cuts the deficit by growing the economy. It makes Americans better off and it makes immigrants better off. At a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs a bit of help, this bill, according to the CBO, helps. And politically, it forces opponents of the bill onto the ground they’re least comfortable occupying: They have to argue that immigration reform is bad for cultural or ethical reasons rather than economic ones.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.

@reihan: CBO analysis accounts for population increase, but not potential productivity gains. It also doesn’t account for technological risk.

2 amendments to immigration bill passed, 2 defeated. “Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.): The senator has several proposals regarding non-native children adopted by American parents, a longtime interest of hers. Under a 2000 law, children lawfully adopted by American parents are automatically granted citizenship. Landrieu’s amendment would extend those rights to children who turned 18 before the law was passed.” Ed O’Keefe in The Washington Post.

House panel approves enforcement-based immigration bill. “The House Judiciary Committee late Tuesday approved its first immigration bill, advancing on a party-line vote a proposal to boost interior enforcement and border security. After a day-long mark-up, the Republican-led panel cleared the SAFE Act on a 20-15 vote shortly before 11 p.m. It is one of several bills that Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) says the committee plans to send to the House floor in the coming weeks.” Russell Berman in The Hill.

@dylanmatt: The CBO report is a good reminder that the case against expanded immigration isn’t economic, it’s sociological.

Reid: Bill could pass Senate right now. “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill can pass the Senate in its current form, although he’s open to border security changes that don’t destroy the bill’s pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants…As Reid spoke to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Republican senators like John Hoeven (N.D.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.) were working with some members of the Gang of Eight to craft a way to strengthen the bill’s border security measures while also not turning off Democrats.” Burgess Everett in Politico.

…And Reid is threatening to file cloture on immigration reform. “The Senate must speed ahead on its attempt to remake U.S. immigration policy, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday morning, threatening to file to cut off debate by Monday. Reid said the workload for the Senate will be heavier than usual and that if the Senate doesn’t get to work on agreement on tranches of amendment votes, it will find itself working on the weekend — a familiar threat from the Nevada Democrat. Reid hopes to finish the legislation before the July 4 recess.” Burgess Everett in Politico.

Boehner assures colleagues: No immigration bill without majority GOP support. “The fate of the sprawling immigration reform proposal winding its way through Congress may now be in the hands of some of the most conservative members of the Republican Party. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that he will not advance any bill that did not have the support of a majority of the House GOP, which will mean engaging some of the proposal’s biggest detractors and harshest critics.” Ed O’Keefe in The Washington Post.

…And he says he’s not in favor of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that he will adhere to the “Hastert Rule” on immigration reform and denied claims that he is for a “comprehensive” solution. Boehner’s remarks seek to appease conservatives who have grown increasingly restless about where House Republicans are headed on the thorny matter.” Molly K. Hooper in The Hill.

Keeping undocumented immigrants off the dole is easier said than done. “[T]he conflicts over eligibility for Obamacare subsidies and Social Security/Medicare could be more intractable. The question of whether unauthorized immigrants should be able to get public money for health care, or get retirement money based on work they did while in the country illegally, isn’t a technical one. It’s a moral and ethical one on which those concerned primarily with the welfare of poor immigrants and those concerned primarily with ensuring that legal processes are fair and don’t reward certain behavior, are bound to disagree.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.