Opinion: Congress talks immigration
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
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.