Bipartisan immigration plan seen as good start

They spoke in favor of provisions that would tighten border security and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but said some of the plan’s other tenets are unworkable.

Specifically, they objected to portions of the measure that would require certain illegal immigrants to return to their home countries before applying for permanent residency and would shift to a skills-based instead of family-based immigration policy.

“How is a family going to sustain itself while the head of household is away, not knowing when he will be coming back?” Hispanics in Politics President Fernando Romero said about the proposal’s requirement that heads of households return to their home countries for a chance to apply for permanent residency for household members.

Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said it makes no sense to send someone back to their country of origin first.

“What is the point of sending someone back who’s been here 15 years, bought a house, is paying taxes and has kids in school who are American citizens?” he said. “It wreaks havoc on their lives.”

Improvements should be made in how the proposal impacts families, said A.J. McClure, Southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

“The whole immigration process in this country was founded on being able to reunite families,” he said.

Nevada lawmakers who have proposed restrictions on benefits that are available to illegal immigrants or other legislation that punishes businesses that hire illegal workers did not return phone calls seeking comment.

McClure and others criticized a proposed immigration point system that would make employability more important than family ties in deciding who can come into the United States. The proposal would make it more difficult for immigrants to bring extended family members to the U.S.

“What about people who want to bring over their parents or siblings?” McClure said.

Peck said the point system could turn into “a scheme where only people who are relatively privileged to begin with are going to be permitted” into the country.

“We have always allowed people from all strata of their societies of origin to come to the U.S.,” he said. “That’s part of the dream and the miracle of America.”

McClure said the point system is impractical because it doesn’t address the country’s demand for low-skilled workers.

“We still need a labor force of people who are going to work in restaurants, hotels, wash dishes, make our beds,” he said. “That’s a huge workforce that (the plan) doesn’t really address.”

Assemblyman Mo Denis, D-Las Vegas, who is of Cuban descent, said taking away a person’s ability to bring certain family members into the U.S. would discourage immigrants from assimilating and becoming productive members of society.

“When a person has their family with them, they are going to be better citizens and better workers, which is what we are looking for. They are more likely to give back to the community and become a citizen.”

The plan’s provision to grant 400,000 two-year visas for temporary workers as long as they leave the country between renewals stinks for employers and should also be revised, said Robert Gomez, Chairman of the Latin Chamber of Commerce.

“I’m going to turn my staff over every two years,” Gomez said. “That’s going to create some big problems.”

Romero objected to the idea that the proposal essentially grants amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

“When you have to abandon your family and wait in a foreign country where there’s no employment, it’s not amnesty,” Romero said.

Most said that the proposal is a good start toward comprehensive immigration reform.

“I think legislators have finally gotten to a point where they know that something needs to be done now,” McClure said. “Whether it’s going to be realistic, feasible and fair is another story.”