Democrats Begin New Legalization Push: Unfortunately They Will Once Again Doom Chances for Meaningful Immigration Reform

Building Bi-Partisan Support, Allowing House and Senate Debate, and Trying ‘Smaller Bite at the Apple’ Bills Would Be More Effective in Getting Positive and Meaningful Immigration Reform

Democrats on Tuesday began 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 in 2007 the last time Congress tried to act.

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.

More astute political observers have already voiced concern that the Obama administration has too much on its plate with the economy and health care reform issues.  “They can introduce the bill, but it’s going to have a very difficult time with all of the other agenda items,” said James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “We have lots of Democratic seats in trouble in the House, and this particular issue is an issue that doesn’t play very well in some of those Blue Dog districts. I think the leadership will be very careful about pushing it, and the president will also.”

So far, however, Democrat leaders Pelosi and Reid have not been too interested in building bi-partisan support for the Obama legislative agenda, which many feel has already damaged Obama’s approval ratings and portends damage to the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

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.

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.  The comprehensive immigration reform failed in 2007 because Senate Majority leader Harry Reid insisted on holding immigration reform hostage to partisan politics.

Reid insisted, in 2007, that there could be no debate on his bill which was brought forth by a gang of 10 with a “take our bill or too bad” attitude.  The only vote in 2007 was to cut off debate on the take it or leave it bill.  The majority of the Senate voted to allow debate.  When the Senate voted for debate on the bill Reid pulled the bill off the table and shut off the chance for any immigration reform.

I was in the senate gallery for the debate and vote.  It was clear many Republican Senators favored some form of immigration reform, and voted for debate.  Reid’s action was despicable.

The Democrats insist on immigration reform being a “one bite at the apple”, all or nothing, my way or the highway bill, ostensibly because they want the Republicans to have to take any heat of a “no” vote.

In fact, the Democrats do the country and millions of undocumented’s a terrible injustice. The fact is there are many, many immigration reforms that the American public would support and smaller bites at the apple, through multiple, more specific bills would probably pass.

For example, why remove hundreds of thousands of undocumented parents of United States citizen children and spouses of U.S. citizens?  What purpose does it serve to remove family income earners from families of U.S. citizens?  These are not criminals; these are parents of citizen children and spouses of citizens.  These are sponsored immigrants.  These are family providers. These are not criminals. The American public “gets this”.  Taxpayers don’t want to have to support U.S. citizens after forcing good parents, father, mothers, husbands and wives to depart the U.S.

Congress could also change the outrageously high standard of proof an undocumented spouse or parent of a U.S. citizen has to establish to be eligible for the discretionary grant of waiver of inadmissibility after having been unlawfully present in the U.S.  Presently the standard of proof is “extreme and unusual hardship” to the qualifying citizen spouse or child.  A lower hardship standard would serve the same purpose and enable more waivers and permanent residence for these families.

The public outcry appears based on concerns for continued illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.  The American public was hood winked in the 1986 immigration reform “amnesty” because the border was not made less porous. 

It strikes me that it would be common sense politics to build bi-partisan support by providing guaranteed funding for the southern border “fence” which would cost less than $14 billion.  Funding a southern border fence would satisfy the vast majority of public opposition to immigration reform.

Gerald Goulder is a North Carolina immigration lawyer who practices exclusively immigration law for North Carolina clients and for clients throughout the United States, and the world.  Immigration law is a federal law practice not limited attorneys in a particular state. Contact Gerald Goulder through his authoritative website www.gouldervisa.com or by calling toll free 1-866-US VISAS.