Amnesty bill backers to try again despite jobless rate

[peejay 327]

The Washington Times

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Immigration bill backers try again despite jobless rate

Stephen Dinan

Democrats on Tuesday begin their new push for an immigration bill, hamstrung by the image of legalizing millions of illegal immigrant workers at a time when the unemployment rate stands at 10 percent -- more than twice what it was the last time Congress tried to act.

"It certainly will confuse the debate a lot more, but at the end of the day what we have to understand is fixing this system will be good for American workers," said Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which is one of the major advocates for legalizing illegal immigrant workers.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, the Illinois Democrat who has taken over leadership on the issue after the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce an immigration legalization bill Tuesday, and backers are planning a strategy to avoid repeats of the failed attempts of 2006 and 2007.

In a letter to members of Congress last week seeking support for the bill, Mr. Gutierrez and Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, New York Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said their legislation will end the off-the-books economy of illegal immigrant workers and protect American workers by raising labor standards.

"In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that everyone contributes toward the recovery and prosperity of our nation," they wrote. "To this end, it is imperative that all individuals and employers pay their fair share in taxes."

A draft overview of the bill, circulated with the letter, ends some enforcement tools such as the 287(g) local police cooperation program, calls for an electronic verification system to replace the voluntary E-verify program, argues that there's no need for more U.S. Border Patrol agents or fencing, and establishes a long-term path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

That path would require illegal immigrants to pay a $500 fine, pass a background check and learn English and civics to gain legal status. After six years, they could apply for legal permanent residence, or a green card, which is the interim step to citizenship. There is no "touchback" provision requiring them to return to their home countries at some point in the process.

Republicans are sharpening their attacks and going straight for the jobs argument.

"With 15 million Americans out of work, it's hard to believe that anyone would give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. "Even the open-borders crowd agrees that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers, particularly poor and disadvantaged citizens and legal immigrants. This is exactly why we need to oppose amnesty."

His office has calculated that there are 19 states where the number of illegal immigrants in the work force is at least 50 percent of the number of unemployed workers.

Arizona tops the list, with unemployment at 293,000 as of October and with 300,000 illegal immigrants either working or seeking work as of 2008, according to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center report. New Jersey, Nevada, Maryland and Texas round out the top five states.

The Immigration Policy Center says employment is "not a zero-sum game" and that a legalization program would increase tax revenues and consumer spending.

Supporters of legalization acknowledge the tough sell on jobs but say the math is more complex than stacking unemployment and immigration numbers against each other.

"Of course it complicates it. Of course the public's first reaction is understandable, it's why do we need more workers when upwards of 15 million Americans are out of work," said Tamar Jacoby, president and chief executive officer of ImmigrationWorks USA, a coalition of businesses pushing for immigration reform.

But she said history has shown that there are some jobs that American workers won't take and immigrant workers will.

She pointed to resort communities in Michigan that struggled to find workers this summer even though they were just a couple of counties away from Detroit, which has been devastated by layoffs.

"Laid-off autoworkers in Detroit don't want to travel across the state, let alone across the country, to pick pears, pick apples," she said.

"In 1986, the last time we tried immigration reform, Congress told itself that American employers could be weaned from their need for workers. That was just unrealistic because Americans do not want to work in meat-processing plants, they do not want to clean rooms in hotels, they do not want to work as dishwashers."

The 1986 amnesty legalized millions of illegal immigrants but did not stop more from coming.

In 2006, at President Bush's urging, the Senate passed a bill to legalize most illegal immigrants and to boost security. That bill stalled when the House insisted on an enforcement-only approach.

In 2007, with Democrats in control of Congress, the Senate tried again -- but the bill failed after a public outcry shut down the Senate phone system and a bipartisan majority of senators joined a filibuster. Lawmakers said voters didn't think the government would follow through on enforcement.

The unemployment rate averaged 4.6 percent in 2006 and 2007, or less than half of the current 10 percent rate.

President Obama has said he wants Congress to act next year on immigration, and has tapped Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to begin organizing the administration's effort.

Ms. Napolitano, in a speech last month, said enough progress has been made on border security, and that she's trying to refocus interior enforcement on dangerous illegal immigrants and unscrupulous employers rather than workers. Part of that refocused effort involves audits of I-9 forms, the work authorization documents all workers must file when they take a job.

But Ms. Napolitano has taken fire from both sides. Those who want a crackdown say she's letting illegal immigrant workers off the hook by not deporting them when they're caught, while immigrant-rights advocates say the I-9 audit focuses on the wrong employers.

Mr. Medina, in a call with reporters Monday, said employers who fill out I-9 forms are at least employing workers on the books and paying taxes on their income. He said Ms. Napolitano instead should go after businesses that ignore the I-9 requirements and hire workers off the books, which he said makes those workers more open to exploitation.

"They are trying to look tough in enforcing the law. But this is not about looking tough; this is about solving problems," he said.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/1..._top5_commented

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, the Illinois Democrat who has taken over leadership on the issue after the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce an immigration legalization bill Tuesday, and backers are planning a strategy to avoid repeats of the failed attempts of 2006 and 2007.

i guess this means they still haven't bought a clue, that the american public does not want amnesty.

In a letter to members of Congress last week seeking support for the bill, Mr. Gutierrez and Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, New York Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said their legislation will end the off-the-books economy of illegal immigrant workers and protect American workers by raising labor standards.

oh yeah i believe them this time. they are gonna get it right for a change!

"In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that everyone contributes toward the recovery and prosperity of our nation," they wrote. "To this end, it is imperative that all individuals and employers pay their fair share in taxes."

here we go with that "fair share" nonsense again.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Let the illegals stay. Deport all legal immigrants and citizens.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In a letter to members of Congress last week seeking support for the bill, Mr. Gutierrez and Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, New York Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said their legislation will end the off-the-books economy of illegal immigrant workers and protect American workers by raising labor standards.

oh yeah i believe them this time. they are gonna get it right for a change!

Ain't that the truth. Nothing prevents Congress from strictly requiring adherence to labor laws today - i.e. make e-verify mandatory for any and all hiring and require that existing staff is checked within a reasonable time frame. There's no amnesty needed to get that done.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[The_Dude 1,142]

I do not really like the idea of amnesty, especially in light of the fact that I am in the process of LEGAL immigration for my wife, but lets be honest here, what sort of plan do the Republicans have? Build a wall? Deport them all? Yeah, lets build a wall that won't even conver the entire length of the border, or really even close to it. We simply do not have the resources to deport all illegal immigrants as you would like. It's not like these illegal immigrants are going to suddenly be given citizenship and take your job. Our citizens already pay for the services and resources that they consume. So again, I ask, what is your plan? What is right isn't always what is popular, this is civil rights we are talking about, not electing a prom queen.

[Danno 1,228]

I do not really like the idea of amnesty, especially in light of the fact that I am in the process of LEGAL immigration for my wife, but lets be honest here, what sort of plan do the Republicans have? Build a wall? Deport them all? Yeah, lets build a wall that won't even conver the entire length of the border, or really even close to it. We simply do not have the resources to deport all illegal immigrants as you would like. It's not like these illegal immigrants are going to suddenly be given citizenship and take your job. Our citizens already pay for the services and resources that they consume. So again, I ask, what is your plan? What is right isn't always what is popular, this is civil rights we are talking about, not electing a prom queen.

On the whole you make some valid points but I tend to think: because we can't send them "all" back doesn't mean we cannot and should not do things to discourage them from coming or staying.....if we limit the doors of opportunity for illegal persons, this alone will not only slow the incoming, it will create a climate where many will return on their own accord.

I have noticed a serious drop in Latinos in my city in the last few years just due to the drying up of jobs, I imagine most were Illegal.

It is a regretful situation anyway we go, the vast majority seem to be decent people willing to work and I have never had so much as one bad encounter with them so I have no reason not to like them as individuals but the truth is, they put a lot of people out of work.... in fact, whole sectors were wiped out right in front of my eyes

Even now it is difficult to see them framing a house when I know there are Americans looking for this very job.

We know what Amnesty achieves for the typical Illegal but how does it help the typical American?

Why at this place and time are we focusing on this now?

[SMR 368]

In order for any argument for amnesty to be just and consistent, a logical pre-requisite would have to be opening the borders. Why should we condone all the people who are spitting on the law and abusing America while at the same time denying access to millions who try to do things the right way? Seems like we're encouraging bad behavior.

What's my plan for dealing with illegal immigrants? Ignore them. Just require proof that you are here legally as a prerequisite to any benefit, program, or job. If you don't have documents, you don't exist. They'll either starve in the streets, which would certainly discourage illegal immigration, or be supported by friends and family who are here legally, which although not ideal, would get them off the back of the taxpayers at large.

Once the burden caused by illegal immigrants was decreased, the number of legal immigrants could be increased. That's what has to be done.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

I do not really like the idea of amnesty, especially in light of the fact that I am in the process of LEGAL immigration for my wife, but lets be honest here, what sort of plan do the Republicans have? Build a wall? Deport them all? Yeah, lets build a wall that won't even conver the entire length of the border, or really even close to it. We simply do not have the resources to deport all illegal immigrants as you would like. It's not like these illegal immigrants are going to suddenly be given citizenship and take your job. Our citizens already pay for the services and resources that they consume. So again, I ask, what is your plan? What is right isn't always what is popular, this is civil rights we are talking about, not electing a prom queen.

might i suggest funding e-verify? making e-verify mandatory? instituting very steep fines for businesses that hire illegal individuals even after e-verify indicates there is an issue? and how about 10k fines for individuals knowingly hiring illegals to work around their property?

poof - you'll see a lot of self deportation.

oh and get rid of that silly law that requires hospitals to treat anyone and everyone that shows up at their door without concern for their immigration status.

Edited December 16, 2009 by charles!