Various other countries have begun to realize that immigration reform is significant in shaping the sort of country you want. So it's a mystery why the new Senate proposal recommends clearing family reunification immigration backlogs or facilitating an unskilled worker program when it should be focused on building America's competitive advantage.
In this highly competitive economic climate, why would America want to import immigrants whose sole qualification is being related to other people already in America? Why focus on filling low-skill jobs that teenagers could be doing to pay for their college education instead of tweeting and Facebooking all day?
Here's another idea the Senate committee might want to consider before foisting another masterpiece of uselessness on the American people:
Countries such as Canada, Russia and France require language testing for immigrants. Canada requires it for both skilled and unskilled immigrant workers. France demands that immigrating foreign spouses learn French before even arriving, and that immigrant professionals and skilled workers take French language and culture classes for up to 400 hours upon arrival. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's government proposed a new bill earlier this month mandating that all migrants with the exception of highly skilled professionals be required to pass basic Russian language, civics and history tests. Medvedev's rationale is that not being properly integrated "leads to conflicts and crimes."
I don't know why requiring these basic standards should be so controversial or outrageous. How arrogant or oblivious would you have to be to wash up on the shores of a country in which you can't communicate and have nothing significant to contribute and not expect to become a burden on those around you?
According to Russia's RT News, Medvedev went further in saying that the focus needs to be on luring skilled professionals and building a "civil workforce." He responded to accusations of "discrimination" by saying that "it's absolutely normal. Such a practice exists in the majority of foreign countries. At least in countries that care about their future."
Can the practitioners of aggressive compromise in this bipartisan committee honestly say that their limp offering is in their nation's best interests?