2010 ELECTIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
NOVEMBER 3, 2010
by Jason Marczak
With control of the U.S. House of Representatives switching to the
Republican Party, the future of a comprehensive approach to
immigration reform is now in greater doubt. And Democrats—unable to
put forward a proposal that could muster the necessary support to
right our broken immigration system—will take a back seat to the
immigration plans of the new House leadership.
One of the first orders of business when the new Congress convenes in
January will be the designation of new committee chairpersons. Rep.
Zoe Lofgren (CA) is out as the House immigration subcommittee
chairperson, and Rep. Steve King (IA) will likely take the gavel. As
for the full Judiciary Committee, it will likely be led by Rep. Lamar
Smith (TX). This means a new approach for immigration-related issues.
And in essence, going back to the drawing board on many of the core
concerns.
The Democrats had been working on comprehensive immigration reform
that revolved around four pillars originally put forward by Senators
Schumer and Graham in March. (That is before Sen. Graham withdrew his
support a few months later.) The approach included: requiring
biometric Social Security cards; beefing up border security; creating
a system for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a path for
the legalization of certain undocumented immigrants. And President
Obama asserted that the chance for reform was close, noting last week:
“Right now on immigration reform, we’re eight votes short or 10 votes
short.”
But if the Pledge to America—the Republicans’ legislative agenda
unveiled in September—is any indication, the new House leadership’s
immigration focus will be on issues of border enforcement, immigration
law enforcement and strengthening visa security. Plans do not include
any focus on creating a path toward legalization of the 11 million
undocumented immigrants currently living in the shadows. Instead, the
21-page pledge indirectly calls for supporting legislation such as
Arizona’s SB 1070 with its call to “reaffirm the authority of state
and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal
immigration laws.”
(On a side, this is welcome news to the Secretary of State-elect of
Kansas, Kris Kobach, who has made a name for himself by drafting anti-
immigrant laws around the country including SB 1070, and is now moving
from law professor to elected office.)
As chairperson, Mr. King favors a piecemeal approach to reforming
immigration, with as similar to the Pledge to America, an initial
focus on strictly border security. He also recently called for re-
interpreting the 14th Amendment—the amendment that gave all African-
Americans citizenship in 1868—in order to end what he termed the
“‘anchor baby’ industry” where undocumented immigrants have children
“so that they can have uninhibited access to taxpayer funded benefits
and to citizenship for as many family members as possible.” The
problem here: there is no such industry and this type of rhetoric only
serves to spark further divisions in a society that is desperately
looking for common ground.
Rep. Lamar Smith (TX), the likely new chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, has also said that he wants to first focus on border
security. But with immigration being a caucus-wide issue, there is no
doubt that Rep. John Boehner, as the soon-to-be Speaker of the House,
will also play a large role in shaping the House’s direction on the
issue.
Either way, after picking up at least 61 seats, the Republican Party
will take control of the House with a focus on putting forward
legislation that focuses on the economy and job creation. Immigration
will not be one of the immediate top priorities. And with the Senate
still controlled by the Democratic Party, finding compromise in the
next two years will be that much more difficult especially as the
presidential jockeying will begin even earlier than in previous races.
Unfortunately, in this political environment, working together and
compromising on issues like immigration reform do not bode well for
each party’s desire to grandstand on core electoral concerns.
The best short-term chance for fixing elements of our immigration
system is likely to come in the next month. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (re-elected by 5 percentage points) has pledged to bring up
the Dream Act in the lame-duck session of Congress before it adjourns
for the year. Yes, his statement may have been part of his bid to
rally Latino support for his tight re-election race, but he has now
committed to the issue. The Dream Act should be passed and hopefully
Senators from both parties are willing to support it now that the
campaign is over. If passed, the conditional legal status would be
granted to undocumented immigrant students who arrived before age 16,
have been in the U.S. for at least five years, graduate from a U.S.
high school, and complete two years of college or military service.
In our bid to compete for global jobs, the Dream Act would do the
right thing in allowing motivated children to contribute as much as
possible to the U.S. economy and not be punished for a situation that
they didn’t create.
Now, let’s only hope that a possible rational approach to the Dream
Act is carried forward in how our new Congress addresses broader
immigration issues.
*Jason Marczak is a contributing blogger to AmericasQuarterly.org. He
is senior editor of Americas Quarterly, managing editor of
AmericasQuarterly.org and director of policy at the Americas Society
and Council of the Americas.
Tags:: Immigration Reform, U.S. Congress