Yes. this bill does make a distinction between those who have been in the country 5 years or longer and those who have been in the country less than 5 years. and some other distinctions. 2 years and between 2 and 5 years. But again. the devil is in the details. How does an illegal immigrant prove that he has been in the country over 5 years? You would assume the proof required is specific documentation which has been verified by the Government or other authentication sources. Those documents are certainly accepted. but they are not required. because if an illegal immigrant doesnt have those sources of documentsobjective evidencehe or she can do something else. He or she can get a piece of paper. declare that he or she has been in the country over 5 years. sign his or her name to it. and that is it. That is all that is required. Well. if the Presidents argument that this is not amnesty in large part hinges on this big distinction that we are not giving a path to citizenship for those who have been in the country a shorter period of time. should it not matter what documentary evidence is required? Doesnt it make a farce of the whole distinction if that immigrant can simply sign a piece of paper declaring otherwise? That obliterates the entire distinction. That means. in fact. that we are making available this fairly automatic path to citizenship to virtually everyone in the country illegally. The President also points to four requirements: This is not amnesty because there is a penalty the immigrant has to pay because they have to pay their taxes. because they have to learn English. and because they have to be in a job for a number of years. Again. I say to my fellow Senators and everyone watching this debate. the devil is in the details.
Keywords matched
immigrant illegal immigrant