Congress talks immigration
By holding a series of immigration hearings this week, Congress seems to be going beyond lapel pins and superdelegate-ship this election season. On Tuesday, the House Committee on Education and Labor considered whether U.S. businesses are hiring American workers before looking abroad for employees (something that they're concerned with across the pond as well). That same day, the House Way and Means Subcommittee on Social Security discussed the Employment Eligibility Verification Systems and agency backlog.
But in a year when comprehensive immigration reform is highly unlikely to happen -- and President Bush's recent mention of it is a case of too little, too late on a policy that might have been the rare jewel in his crown -- the hearings were primarily a chance for Democrats and Republicans to focus on small pieces of the immigration puzzle, and to unite disparate elements of their parties. As the Congressional Quarterly noted, the Democrats do have some internal divisions on this issue, even if they're not as problematic for the party as the split Republicans face.
But the hearings also highlighted another important November event -- that's when the voluntary E-Verify system is set to expire, meaning that the thousands of employers who use it to verify Social Security numbers will be out of luck. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) testified (pdf) in favor of extending the bill through the SAVE Act, which he co-sponsored with Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) If the Tancredo name alone doesn't set off alarms, reading the fine print of that bill should: it doesn't simply extend the program -- it makes it mandatory, despite the problems that could pose for businesses, employees legal and illegal, and government agencies. The bill would also encourage local law enforcement to act as immigration agents, which is opposed by quite a few law enforcement and elected officials. An alternate proposal by Texas Republican Rep. Sam Johnson uses a different verification system, supported by some who criticize E-Verify, but others say it would lead to similar complications for workers, even if they're citizens.
More hearings should follow throughout the week -- we'll keep updating. And though they may not bring about much in the way of results, they're at least more useful than the summer 2006 hearings organized purely as publicity stunts. Need to refresh your memory on those? Here's what the editorial board said about them....
[A]fter a summer filled with no fewer than 20 congressional immigration hearings, blustery news conferences on border enforcement and other election-year artifacts, the immigration reform process is likely to remain silly -- that is, effectively dormant -- until November....
[T]he House leadership scrapped plans to hash out a compromise in conference, opting instead for a series of field hearings showcasing, in the words of Immigration Reform Caucus member Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) at a Georgia hearing, "witnesses who agree with me, not disagree with me."
That wasn't the only low point. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) chaired a hearing called "Should Mexico Hold Veto Power Over U.S. Border Security Decisions?" even though the Senate provision in question only requires consultation and communication with, not direction from, our southern neighbor. And at last week's New Hampshire hearing Peter Gadiel, president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, performed the common political legerdemain of claiming that illegal immigration somehow led to 9/11, even though all the hijackers entered the country on legally issued visas.
*Photos of the U.S.-Mexico border and Shuler courtesy Associated Press.
SUPPORT THE SAVE ACT! Contact your representatives now!
CHUCK BALDWIN NOMINATED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY 2008!
Website up soon: www.baldwin2008.com/
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin445.htm
"We will close our borders and ports. Illegal immigration STOPS the day we take the White House!
We will not provide amnesty to anyone. There will be no welfare for illegal immigrants! We will end birthright citizenship! There will be no more anchor babies!"
"It is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail."
Posted by: DinTN | May 08, 2008 at 04:02 AM
Have they deported Tancredo back to Nazi Germany yet? Are the racists not aware that the GOP will get humiliated in November and that a comprehensive immigration reform with path to citizenship is a matter of when, not if?
Billy Bob is on the wrong side of both history and demographics!
Posted by: ivan | May 08, 2008 at 08:27 AM
I was particularly impressed by the comments of Representative Giffords given in testimony before the House Way and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. She illustrated the dramatic and negative effects of the E-verify system and the consequences that has had for her district. Her remarks as well as those of Representative Johnson and others served to demonstrate the necessity of implementing changes as soon as possible so that these current problems can be remedied and future crises avoided.
Posted by: Heidi Oliver | May 08, 2008 at 09:00 AM
Something has to be done and if the Federal Government refuses to act because its not politically correct then the states should and if they don't cities should and if they don't individual citizens should rid us of this terrible immigration tide. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com
Posted by: peter | May 08, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Tancredo and Romney both losers. Mccain who supported the immigration reform is the republican nominee. When are these anti immigration groups going to notice the majority does not give a crap about their cause.
Like the other guy said above "a comprehensive immigration reform with path to citizenship is a matter of when, not if?"
Posted by: Joseph Goldman | May 08, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Ugh, falling of the wagon but this is just too good.
Reading one of the links so generously supplied one comes across this:
Huh? You mean we've had a data base and eletronic verification of employees all along. I mean, after all the sobbing over people getting 'false positives' on the e-Verify system, over the increasing 'burden on business', over worries of discrimination, over the dreaded coming of a 'national ID card' ad infinitum , you mean, there is already a national system which employers use to pry into the background of employees-- admittedly at the behest/command of the Feds -- by means of Social Security Numbers. And in pursuit of a task which would seem to be more of a technical challenge. Child support payments etc a matter of county or state rulings, right? How is this info linked with the SSN database?
More questions spring to mind. Have any 'dead beat dads' been denied employment, or even been 'humiliated' by false positives? Have any been wrongly accused or suffered from a misunderstanding of obligations of child support and thus been caught up in this vast federal employment drag net? If so -- and with any program this big (90% of employers!) there has to have been some errors,-- why don't we hear about it? Why is employment eligibility verification so tough, but we can track down guys (and it is guys for the most part) who may or may not owe some money to ex-significant others? I guess our little morality tantrums depend on whose employment prospects are hurt, eh?
And as always, where are the Libertarians? I guess 'trippin'.
Seriously, this verges on journalistic malpractice, to run story upon story about the potential for false positives on e-Verify and yet fail to mention that their is an existing and infinitely larger program running, checking on 90% (give or take) of us.
Anyway, this proposal sounds good ... system's in place, shouldn't take much effort to convert it to employment verification purposes. I don't trust Giffords, but Johnson has a very good immigration record according to numbersusa.org.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | May 08, 2008 at 11:58 AM
As a white, educated foreigner who overstayed a visa (now facing a 10 year bar), I am trapped in the USA. When the tech industry melted down, so did my employer. I naively remained here complacent in the hope that another company would grab me and put me to work. Before I knew better, I had “crossed the line” and was subject to a border ban, and would not be able to leave, apply for a new visa, and return to be with my friends and business contacts. Not even to visit. Oh, to change the past…
But here I am! And I’m trying to make the best of it. Believe me, it really stinks to be in this situation. And I really feel for the millions of others that face the same circumstances.
I pay close attention to the immigration debate. Since I became "illegal," I have heard lots of frightening language used to describe my violation and that of millions of other foreigners. But as a “lawbreaker,” am I really that much of a threat to Americans? Since I became “illegal,” I started a successful multimillion dollar company that now employs a lot of US citizens. I’m working on my second right now, and it needs me, as do the people who are working alongside me to make the fledgling business successful.
Tancredo, Dobbs and other “anti-illegals” (like “peter” above) declare a state of emergency and proclaim I should just get out of the country. Yet, most of my friends (American) will be choked to see me go, and I can’t bear the thought of losing their presence in my life. And my company and colleagues need me here.
I have often suspected that the “anti-illegals” aren’t REALLY talking about me. But they typically defend the dignity of their position by saying that it is NOT about race, or language, or educational background. THAT would pit them against many US citizens or legal immigrants! No, they say it’s about THE LAW. But if is the case, why aren’t these same people out scouring parties and bars for lawbreakers who drink an extra glass of wine before driving, or if even totally sober, callously break the speed limit, putting law-abiding drivers in mortal danger. This failure in vigilance costs thousands of lives on US freeways each year!
My point - I smell a deception, and sure hope that voters and legislators get very honest about what’s behind all this “anti-illegal-immigrant” alarmism – it only hurts the children.
Posted by: Steve Smith | May 08, 2008 at 06:23 PM
My thoughts exactly Steve Smith you the man!! I for one am sick and tired of people crying "invasion" when a lot of immigrants are here working hard. I am sick and tired of people making an issue when somebody is killed by an immigrant. Most of these people that hate are in the minority
On a small note I just bought Grand theft Auto 4 for my xbox 360 and it trashes the right wing neo nazi conservatives. Its all suttle racism, demagoguery, and ethnocentrism. In the end they will lose as the KKK and good ole boy establishment lost in the civil rights era
Posted by: david smith | May 08, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Ditto: a comrehensive immigration reform with path to citizenship is INEVITABLE. I hope that KKK organizations such as FAIR and NumbersUSA will realize that blaming the foreigner argument isn't helping anybody and it is a loser. Like blacks, Irish, jews before, now it's the big brown Latino who is allegedly screwing America. How sad.
Thank God racism always loses in this great country of ours. If they work hard, have no criminal record, and speak English, they must be legalized. No human being is illegal.
Posted by: Cohen Jonathan | May 12, 2008 at 08:17 AM
I read the pros and cons of the immigration debate and find it " so interesting " that the con people, the politicians, and "some" legitimate business who honestly need these illegal workers that if they are given a kind of path to citizen ship it must be done with " serious " efforcement of the new laws and this path and you must comply or face the consequences and this must be done towards " all illegals citizens ". All people who come here illegall make this is a burden for its rightful citizens, it is not " Racial Driscrimanation", it is what it is and thats " illegal immigration " for any people of any nation to have to deal with this regardless of your countrys own problems should not mean automatic amnesty in another if that were the case no one would be living in there own country anymore ! And amnesty was granted before and only a handful of people came out. Every country has some sort of " border order " respectively, MEXICO, and they enforce it ! So we have a right to enforce our, the problem is " It Should Have Been Happening A Long Time Ago " .
Posted by: Sylvester Suggs | July 12, 2008 at 12:08 PM
For anyone to speak on behalf of our family by saying they are going to stop birthright citizenship or immigration completely? Who is Chuck Baldwin anyway? The Republican party of today are so out of touch with reality it's disgusting. They just keep digging deeper and deeper! We do need reform,but all of the hate these people are sowing is unconscionable. Speak for yourself Chuck.Your thinking "IS" Un-American! Chuck's new web-site will be haters club in America! S A D.
Posted by: Mike O'brien | March 06, 2009 at 03:35 PM