The new immigration bill is so complicated that I'm hesitant to say anything one way or the other, because I simply don't know if I'm understanding it correctly. While I agree in principle that securing our borders is important, I also get very uncomfortable with the underlying 'fear of brown people' that seems to inform the rhetoric of the right. And further, I don't know that any immigration reform can truly be successful without looking at some larger issues--namely the issue of free trade and dealing with the ramifications of pulling out the rug of our economy that depends--like it or not--on the under-the-table pay to illegal immigrants.
Luckily, people much more adept at me ARE looking at the new bill. Pach at FDL:
The bill as is shifts the balance against the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and makes the American Dream a Corporate American Dream, a society based on one's worth to the National Association of Manufacturers and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. This is, in my view, a continuation in our drift away from the Bill of Rights, away from our roots as a society whose social compact was founded on a view of human rights we took as self evident. The current structure of the bill should be opposed, as it has not undergone sufficient review and public discussion.
Of course, creating a new work visa classification (in this case a "Z visa") does nothing but add another layer into an already complicated immigration system. Why not build on already existing visa categories and better separate those seeking to immigrate (the "amnesty" option), from those seeking to work here for short periods of time in the "service" or "seasonal laborer" area of the economy (assuming the latter category would most likely affect/be more effective for first-time applicants from outside the US)? I'm unclear how, in the current form of the bill, one issue has been separated from the other.