In Congress, a harder line on illegal immigrants

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

In Congress, a harder line on illegal immigrants
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101226/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_what_next

WASHINGTON â€" The end of the year means a turnover of House control from Democratic to Republican and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.

In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship.

Such a hardened approach â€" and the rhetoric certain to accompany it â€" should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012.

Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to force employers to use a still-developing web system, dubbed E-Verify, to check that all of their employees are in the U.S. legally.

There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and attempts to reduce the numbers of legal immigrants. Democrats ended the year failing for a second time to win passage of the Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a chance at legal status.

House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S.

Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against harsh immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.

[Rewind: 25 states consider Arizona-style immigration laws]

President Barack Obama could be a wild card.

He'll have at his disposal his veto power should a bill denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants make it to his desk. But Obama also has made cracking down on employers a key part of his administration's immigration enforcement tactics.

Hispanic voters and their allies will look for Obama to broker a deal on immigration as he did on tax cuts and health care. After the Dream Act failed in the Senate this month, Obama said his administration would not give up on the measure. "At a minimum we should be able to get Dream done. So I'm going to go back at it," he said.

The president has taken heavy hits in Spanish-language and ethnic media for failing to keep his promise to address immigration promptly and taking it off the agenda last summer. His administration's continued deportations of immigrants â€" a record 393,000 in the 2010 fiscal year â€" have also made tenuous his relationship with Hispanic voters.

John Morton, who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a recent conference call that there are no plans to change the agency's enforcement tactics, which are focused on immigrants who commit crimes but also have led to detaining and deporting many immigrants who have not committed crimes.

The agency also will continue to expand Secure Communities, the program that allows immigration officials to check fingerprints of all people booked into jail to see if they are in the country illegally. Both illegal immigrants and residents can end up being deported under the program, which the Homeland Security Department hopes to expand nationwide by 2013.

Many of those attending a recent gathering of conservative Hispanics in Washington warned that another round of tough laws surrounded by ugly anti-immigrant discussions could doom the GOP's 2012 chances.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible 2012 candidate, cited Meg Whitman's failed gubernatorial bid in California despite her high spending. When 22 percent of the electorate is Latino, candidates can't win without a vigorous presence in the Hispanic community and a "message that is understandable and involves respect," Gingrich said. Even so, Gingrich was unwilling to call on his fellow Republican senators to drop their opposition to the Dream Act, saying the legislation should not have been considered without giving lawmakers a chance to amend it.

The next Congress will be populated with many newcomers elected on a platform of tougher immigration enforcement. They'll have ready ears in Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who will chair the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who is expected to chair the committee's immigration subcommittee.

That's a recipe for more measures aimed at immigration enforcement, including requiring businesses to use E-Verify rather than eyeballing paper documents to check workers' citizenship and legal residency status.

"I've already told the business community it's going to happen," said Beto Cardenas, executive counsel to Americans for Immigration Reform, a coalition of business leaders who support overhauling immigration laws. Changes to immigration law contained in appropriations and authorization bills, where immigration enforcement hawks are likely to tuck some measures, would also be tough to reject.

But more controversial measures such as attempts to deny citizenship to children of people who are in the U.S. without permission could be tempered by GOP leaders aware of the need to curry more favor with Hispanic voters.

[JeffreyS]

It is just rhetoric the GOP like the status quo on this issue but so do the Dems. Talking about the leadership of both most Americans currently support stronger border controls especially trade unions.

[BridgeTroll]

The "Dream Act" may have had a chance of passing had it been a part of comprehensive reform... Beginning with securing the border.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Just due to a lack of in-depth study on the 14th amendment this may seem a little callous, but don't you think that the original intent of the meaning was for slaves and indians that were born in the states to be allowed automatic citizenship and didn't account for the  mass exodus of Mexico that we're seeing now? 

And the other thing that bothers me is that the article keeps emphasizing 'anti-immigration' when in fact, securing the borders, fingerprinting, etc. is to prevent "illegal" immigration.  They're two distictly different things that keep getting lumped together as one.

[BridgeTroll]

Unless convinced otherwise... I am not in favor of repealing that amendment.  I think it actually weakens the "secure the border argument".

[JeffreyS]

The "Dream Act" may have had a chance of passing had it been a part of comprehensive reform... Beginning with securing the border.

Agreed first the border then integrate the people who are here. 

[Ocklawaha]

As a dual national, and sometime expatriate the biggest injustice is our policy of rewarding illegal immigration with instant "residency," and issuing of green cards through amnesty. 

American citizens complain that we can't control the flood, and have no choice but we CAN stop those who file to immigrate.

WRONG!

All we are doing is rewarding breaking the law and screwing the pooch on people, many of them professionals, that have waited for 5-12 YEARS to get their interview. An interview that guarantees NOTHING but a slim chance of getting approval to make the move.  God help you if you have had a baby during that wait, because "THAT child hasn't waited his/her 12 years, so you can go... but baby can't.  Don't think for a second that EVERYONE in LATIN AMERICA doesn't already know all you have to do is hop the fence and lay low for a few years.

Try and reverse this trend and hop the fence into Mexico and see what happens. You can't work, you can't actually own property, you can't own a business, you can't practice medicine or law or... and THAT'S if you do it legally!

The Mexican blade cuts in either direction too, a DOCTOR friend from COLOMBIA who married a Mexican woman was absolutely barred from working in Mexico. The rental property they own must be in her name, and since regular rental payments were being sent to Colombia, the Mexican government put a stop to that too. Now a relative must collect the monies and they travel north a couple of times a year to transfer it physically.

This instant resident crap is one of the worst things to ever come out of Washington and it is hated from Point Barrow to Tierra Del Fuego.

OCKLAWAHA

[BridgeTroll]

This is why the dream act and other "amnesty programs" are destined for failure.  They are a waste of time until the border is controlled and secured, a guest worker program is implemented, and employers are severely punished for hiring and exploiting illegals.  Comprehensive reform would take all of these issues into account.

[Ocklawaha]

As a dual national, and sometime expatriate the biggest injustice is our policy of rewarding illegal immigration with instant "residency," and issuing of green cards through amnesty.  

American citizens complain that we can't control the flood, and have no choice but we CAN stop those who file to immigrate.

WRONG!

All we are doing is rewarding breaking the law and screwing the pooch on people, many of them professionals, that have waited for 5-12 YEARS to get their interview. An interview that guarantees NOTHING but a slim chance of getting approval to make the move.  God help you if you have had a baby during that wait, because "THAT child hasn't waited his/her 12 years, so you can go... but baby can't.  Don't think for a second that EVERYONE in LATIN AMERICA doesn't already know all you have to do is hop the fence and lay low for a few years.

Try and reverse this trend and hop the fence into Mexico and see what happens. You can't work, you can't actually own property, you can't own a business, you can't practice medicine or law or... and THAT'S if you do it legally!

The Mexican blade cuts in either direction too, a DOCTOR friend from COLOMBIA who married a Mexican woman was absolutely barred from working in Mexico. The rental property they own must be in her name, and since regular rental payments were being sent to Colombia, the Mexican government put a stop to that too. Now a relative must collect the monies and they travel north a couple of times a year to transfer it physically.

This instant resident crap is one of the worst things to ever come out of Washington and it is hated from Point Barrow to Tierra Del Fuego.

OCKLAWAHA

[JeffreyS]

We go beyond rewarding illegals in every way that matters (before the last two years) we have solicited them to come. I mean it government and business have recruited them in a way to come. Every speech we heard from either party before the last two years was disingenuous.  Now that we have seriously curtailed illegal immigration everyone is ready to get tough.

[cityimrov]

I'd hate to say this, but middle and lower class America survives on low income foreign wages.  Right now, inflation has been killing everything and the only thing so far that has kept us from lowering our standards of living is outsourcing our stuff to low waged foreign workers who live in sub-par conditions (notice how your salary can stay the same over the years while you somehow gain the ability to buy more stuff?  it's not magic, there is no money tree out there!).

Our clothes are made in factories in 3rd world countries like Vietnam by low wage workers.  Our crops are picked by low waged illegal immigrants who live in shanty houses.  

The issue of illegal immigration is much more complicated then anyone wants to admit.  The economic effect of getting rid of them would be disastrous for the middle and lower class.  

Either way, if we keep them or get rid of them, it really doesn't matter to most politicians.  They are rich!   They can afford either choice but prefer to keep them for the greater good of everyone and as well as their pocketbooks.  They can afford $10 oranges.  Most of us can't so we're stuck with this problem. 

So in the end, the choice is up to us - the normal citizens.  How do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot?  I'd prefer a light scratch vs something more deep.  Either way, it's going to hurt no matter what we do.  

[uptowngirl]

There are ways to address that issue, there should be valid ways for non-professional workers to be here for the season and it should not cost a fortune for them toget the paper work. If they choose to stay, they follow the legal  path to citizenship.

I would like to add, there are plenty of poor Americans living off of our handouts or the governments (still ours) hand outs that COULD be doing this work. In our country, this workis considered"below" our poor. And why not? Why should they work so hard when they can stay at home all day in a subsidized house with cable and free food? I would suggest the impact of "booting out the illegals" would havemore impact to the rich and poor than the middle class.

[BridgeTroll]

How about securing the border, giving legal status to migrant workers by way of papers and ID.  Requiring employers who hire migrants to document that they are only hiring guest workers that are documented.  Illegal aliens would find no work and would encourage those who wish to work here to be documented and there employment status monitored.

[JeffreyS]

Cityimrov I agree strong tariffs thrust upon us too quickly would be too inflationary but slowly raising them would create jobs here and raise wages. 
BT I agree with comprehensive reform. 

We have to consider the "war on drugs" as part of the profit center that provides much of the money needed to skirt our border security (tunnels, smugglers ect..).

[BridgeTroll]

A side benefit of securing the border would be curtailing the huge amount of weapons being smuggled south.