[Peace-discuss] more on bad immigration bill

[Ricky Baldwin]

Published on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 by
CommonDreams.org 
Give Us Your Huddled Masses - Or Not 
by William Fisher 
  
There are some 10 million undocumented immigrants in
the U.S. today, and there is no sign that the flow is
going to decrease any time soon. 
They pick and pack our agricultural produce, serve
patrons at our hotels and restaurants and resorts, and
help build our new houses. Most of them come from the
southern border with Mexico. Many of them have been
here for years and have children who were born in the
U.S. 
So serious is the problem of illegal immigration that
Governors of some of the states on the U.S.-Mexican
border – Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California --
have actually declared “states of emergency” in an
effort to get the attention of Federal officials and
lawmakers. Many raise the specter of Al Qaida allies
sneaking in to commit acts of terrorism. 
The Department of Homeland Security, which governs
border control, appears incapable of dealing with the
problem. That has led to the formation of citizens’
vigilante groups patrolling the border to “help”
Border Patrol agents to identify and capture
lawbreakers. 
Meanwhile, skilled hi-tech workers, prospective
university enrollees, and even State
Department-sponsored exchange students, can’t get
visas to come here. And those who come seeking asylum
from political persecution or domestic abuse face an
increasingly impossible task of convincing immigration
judges of the validity of their claims. 
Given these facts, the mantra of just about everyone
who speaks on this subject has become “America’s
immigration system is broken and must be fixed." But
that’s about where the agreement ends. As to what do
about the problem, there are almost as many
"solutions” as there are immigrants. 
This was to be the year of comprehensive immigration
reform legislation. President Bush spent a good deal
of his once-hefty "political capital” to advocate for
a “guest worker” program. But so polarized are the
views of state officials, legislators and advocacy
groups representing all points on the political
spectrum that Congress-watchers are expressing serious
doubt that 2006 will see any meaningful progress
toward such reform. 
Tom Barry, Policy Director for the International
Relations Center (IRC), predicted flatly, “There will
be no comprehensive reform proposal approved by the
U.S. Congress during this session or any session in
the near future because the immigration
restrictionists have seized control of the debate.” 
What is likely, experts agree, is a battle royal
between two critical GOP constituencies: the
“law-and-order conservatives” and business interests
that rely on immigrant labor. One camp wants to
tighten borders and deport people who are here
illegally; the other seeks to bring illegal workers
out of the shadows and acknowledge their growing
economic importance. 
The issue is complicated by the competing -- and
sometimes counter-intuitive – demands of a wide range
of groups and coalitions. Usually conservative
business interests, particularly in the fields of
agriculture, construction, and hospitality, want to
open American borders to avail themselves of cheaper
labor. 
Groups representing states on the U.S.-Mexican border
propose adopting draconian measures – including
construction of a “security fence” -- to stem the tide
of illegal immigrants. Others are advocating
legislation that would tighten U.S. border security
but give some legal status to newcomers. Still others
are focusing on providing “a path to citizenship” for
the more than 10 million undocumented immigrants
already in the U.S. 
Legislation reflecting the varied panoply of solutions
has already been introduced. Led by conservative
Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of
Wisconsin, chairman of the House Committee on the
Judiciary, the House passed a bill in January that
would create a giant fence along the Mexican border,
and increase criminal penalties for immigration
violations -- including some mandatory minimum
sentences -- for people who encourage illegal
immigration and for immigrants who return to the
United States after being deported. It would also
broaden the range of deportable aliens so that, for
example, repeat drunk drivers can be kicked out of the
country. 
The House bill would also force employers to verify
employees' Social Security numbers against a national
database, reimburse sheriffs in the counties that
border Mexico for the costs of holding illegal
immigrants, and make both detention and deportation of
illegal immigrants easier. The Bush administration,
which earlier had proposed a “guest worker” program,
supported the House the bill, which was passed 239 to
182. 
Critics of the House restrictions, including many
Senate Republicans, say the curbs would trample
states' rights and lead to more unlicensed drivers
while ignoring what they believe to be the crux of the
problem: the millions of undocumented people already
entrenched in the workforce. 
In the Senate, two pieces of major legislation were
introduced last year. One bill, sponsored by Senator
John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Senator Edward
M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, calls for
increased border security but also creates a guest
worker program. It would require illegal aliens to pay
all regular fees as well as a $1,000 fine to join the
program and, after six years, another $1,000 fine to
obtain a green card signifying legal permanent
residence. Green card holders eventually can apply for
citizenship. 
Another bill was introduced last year by two
border-state Republicans, Senator John Cornyn of
Texas, and Senator John Kyl of Arizona. It proposes a
“work-and-return” rationale rather than the
McCain-Kennedy “work-and-stay” approach. 
Currently at the center of the task of attempting to
craft passable Senate legislation is Senator Arlen
Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who heads the
powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. His
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," would
allow new immigrants to work in the country for up to
six years without applying for citizenship. It would
create a temporary status for the estimated 11 million
to 20 million illegal aliens already here, provided
they pay their taxes, remain employed, and pass
background checks. The Specter bill does not limit the
amount of time those workers may remain in that
status. 
Specter's proposal is likely to meet stiff opposition
from champions of the much tougher immigration bill
passed by the House. Some observers believe the
differences in approach between House and Senate are
irreconcilable. 
One of the principal supporters of the House approach,
Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and one of
the shrillest voices in the immigration debate, said
of the Specter proposal, "Words almost fail to
describe the threat this bill poses to our national
and economic security." 
While most civil liberties and immigration experts
favor any of the Senate proposals over the
“enforcement only” bill passed by the House, they
nonetheless express reservations about such issues as
privacy, asylum, and due process protections for
immigrants. 
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls
attention to what it calls the lack of privacy
protections in the Specter proposal. It says that
under the bill’s “Employment Verification System”, all
workers would be required to obtain a federal agency’s
permission to work. All employers would be required to
participate in a national employment eligibility
verification program. 
But, the ACLU says, “Legislators have not mandated
that the private information flowing to and from the
government be encrypted or that the databases be
secured. Thus, the data provides a ripe target for
identity thieves.” 
“Even assuming a near-perfect accuracy rate in the
program, millions of legal, eligible American workers
could still have their right to work seriously delayed
or denied -- while they fight bureaucratic red tape to
resolve errors,” the ACLU charges. 
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents
millions of employers, has also expressed strong
objections to the employment verification provisions. 
The ACLU says the government also would be given
“extraordinary powers to detain non-citizens
indefinitely without meaningful review.” This move, it
claims, “would potentially place many non-citizens in
a legal ‘black hole’ that subjects them to a life
sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or,
in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a
crime.” 
Another immigration authority, Karen Musalo, Director
of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the
University of California's Hastings College of the Law
of the University of California, told us, “The central
goal of any comprehensive immigration legislation
should be to build and maintain an immigration and
judicial system based on core American values like
fairness, family, and recognition for one's work; one
that recognizes that the consequences of removal for
most immigrants and their families are severe. Such
legislation must contain safeguards and ensure due
process for vulnerable groups seeking protection in
the U.S., including refugees, children and victims of
trafficking.” 
She criticized Senator Specter's legislation for
imposing “harsh criminal penalties on undocumented
workers and other immigrants for even minor or
technical infractions that cause them to lose their
legal status, creates a permanent sub-class of
immigrant workers with no real protections and no
provisions for acquiring long-term legal status, and
strips immigrants of judicial review.” 
The IRC’s Barry told us, “The battle within the
Republican party has been instigated by largely by
social conservatives, and it is likely that their
positions on enforcement will be adopted by the
Republican party leadership, leaving the Democrats
looking in the public mind as if that they are the
ones without a clear stance against illegal
immigration.” 
He says the Kennedy-McCain bill is the “most
comprehensive” legislation being considered, but adds,
“This is a nonstarter in Congress and in U.S. society
because of the fierce restrictionist sentiment that
now frames the political debate over immigration in
the United States.” 
Apparently drowned out by the shrill charges and
counter-charges in the immigration debate is a simple
truth articulated by George Hunsinger, McCord
professor of theology at Princeton Theological
Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better
America. He told us, “No human being -- whether
citizen or non-citizen -- should be placed outside the
protections of the law. No one who performs needed
work should be denied fair wages and decent
conditions. A society that exploits immigrants for
their labor while declaring them illegal is caught in
a tangle of contradictions.” 
But this is an election year for the U.S. Congress. So
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that simple
truth to sink in. 
For more information on William Fisher, go to
www.billfisher.blogspot.com. Feedback to
wfisher206 at aol.com. 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com