Impatient Advocates for Immigration Reform Will Even Take It Piece by Piece From House

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 23, 2013, while testifying before the House Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security hearing: "Addressing the Immigration Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United States as Children". (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
National Journal
Fawn Johnson and Elahe Izadi
Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson Elahe Izadi
Sept. 18, 2013, 3:36 p.m.

The specter of a gov­ern­ment shut­down, the loom­ing debt ceil­ing, and po­ten­tial mil­it­ary strikes in Syr­ia have all dis­trac­ted Con­gress from mov­ing on im­mig­ra­tion re­form. But law­makers and ad­voc­ates have grown weary in wait­ing for the pro­cess to re­start.

In a tele­vised in­ter­view with Telemundo on Tues­day, Pres­id­ent Obama ap­peared to sig­nal that, des­pite his de­sire for the House to pass a com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion re­form bill, he would be open to a piece­meal ap­proach.

“If in fact Speak­er [John] Boehner thinks that pro­ced­ur­ally he has to jump through a series of hoops — you know, I’m happy to let the House work its will as long as the bill that ends up on my desk speaks to the cent­ral is­sues that have to be re­solved,” Obama said. Those cent­ral is­sues, he said, in­clude se­cur­ing the bor­der, pen­al­iz­ing em­ploy­ers tak­ing ad­vant­age of un­doc­u­mented work­ers, im­prov­ing the leg­al im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem, and cre­at­ing a path­way to cit­izen­ship.

“If those ele­ments are con­tained in a bill—wheth­er they come through the House a little bit at a time or they come in one fell swoop — I’m less con­cerned about pro­cess; I’m more in­ter­ested in mak­ing sure it gets done,” Obama ad­ded.

The step-by-step ap­proach has been the one favored by House lead­er­ship, which wel­comed Obama’s com­ments.

“If im­mig­ra­tion re­form is go­ing to work, it is es­sen­tial that we have the con­fid­ence of the Amer­ic­an people that it’s done the right way,” said Boehner spokes­man Brendan Buck. “That means a de­lib­er­ate, step-by-step ap­proach, not an­oth­er massive Obama­care-style bill that people don’t un­der­stand.”

Demo­crats and re­form ad­voc­ates have long bristled at the idea of passing im­mig­ra­tion re­form in pieces, in part out of a fear that it was an ef­fort to slow re­form or gut a path­way to cit­izen­ship, a cent­ral com­pon­ent ad­voc­ates have been push­ing.

Now that the polit­ic­al dust has settled in the months after the Sen­ate passed its com­pre­hens­ive bill, the de­sire for a com­pre­hens­ive bill in the House is ec­lipsed by the real­ity that one won’t hit the floor.

“Look, you got cof­fee, toast, and later on in the day, you’re go­ing to bring me the eggs and ba­con and juice, I’m good with that — as long as at the end of the day, I get a full meal,” said Rep. Lu­is Gu­ti­er­rez, D-Ill., a lead­er on im­mig­ra­tion re­form. “The Re­pub­lic­ans are in the ma­jor­ity, and we should all come to that un­der­stand­ing: They’re in the ma­jor­ity and they get to dic­tate. But what the Re­pub­lic­ans also to have to un­der­stand is a ma­jor­ity of mem­bers of Con­gress are ready to vote for com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion re­form and it’s not a secret.”

Boehner has said he won’t put re­form on the floor without a ma­jor­ity of House Re­pub­lic­ans back­ing it.

Rep. Raul Gri­jalva, D-Ar­iz., took Obama’s com­ments to mean that passing im­mig­ra­tion bills one at a time or even passing a single im­mig­ra­tion-re­lated bill in the House may be enough of a hook to move in­to con­fer­ence with the Sen­ate.

“It makes some sense. But I think the de­sire, at least from con­stitu­ents and the pub­lic, is for something com­pre­hens­ive. As long as Boehner hides be­hind the ma­jor­ity of the ma­jor­ity, it looks like we’re go­ing to see piece­meals,” Gri­jalva said.

There have also been many dis­cus­sions in the caucus of a Demo­crat­ic place­hold­er bill, al­though those con­ver­sa­tions have not yet co­alesced in­to a plan, ac­cord­ing to some con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats.

The bor­der-se­cur­ity por­tion of the whole de­bate ap­pears to be the one that will have the easi­est time in the House. A bill by House Home­land Se­cur­ity Com­mit­tee Chair­man Mi­chael Mc­Caul, R-Texas, passed un­an­im­ously out of com­mit­tee, with a num­ber of Demo­crats sig­nal­ing they prefer it to the $46 bil­lion Sen­ate se­cur­ity pro­vi­sions. Un­der the House meas­ure, the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment first would have to de­vel­op a bor­der-se­cur­ity plan — sub­ject to con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al — that would elim­in­ate 90 per­cent of il­leg­al bor­der cross­ings with­in five years.

Mc­Caul called the Sen­ate ap­proach to bor­der se­cur­ity “a little mis­guided be­cause you just threw a bunch of money at the prob­lem without any strategy or plan, so it was an ir­re­spons­ible bill.” Mc­Caul said he an­ti­cip­ated a vote on his bill as early as Oc­to­ber, but that it would likely be timed with oth­er im­mig­ra­tion-re­lated bills.

Those oth­er bills are mainly com­ing from the House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, which has passed le­gis­la­tion re­lated to high-skilled and ag­ri­cul­tur­al work­ers and in­teri­or en­force­ment. But the thorn­i­est of is­sues in the House — a path­way to cit­izen­ship — hasn’t been touched.

The think­ing pri­or to Septem­ber had been that the so-called Kids Act, from Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor and House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bob Good­latte, both R-Va., could per­haps start the pro­cess to ad­dress what to do with those un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants already in the U.S.

The in­tent of the le­gis­la­tion is to provide a leg­al­iz­a­tion mech­an­ism for chil­dren brought to the U.S. il­leg­ally. But a House Ju­di­ciary aide says that the bill is still be­ing draf­ted and lacks a chief spon­sor, so no date has been set for its in­tro­duc­tion.

“We still need to find the ap­pro­pri­ate leg­al status for those who are not law­fully present and those who, through no fault of their own, were brought in­to the U.S. by their par­ents at a young age, but we must have en­force­ment as a pre­requis­ite,” Good­latte said in a state­ment.

Mean­while, im­mig­ra­tion-re­form ad­voc­ates on Wed­nes­day showed no sign of back­ing off their de­mands that Obama change de­port­a­tion policies on his own, des­pite his ex­pressed con­cern that he doesn’t have the leg­al au­thor­ity. Sev­en un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants chained them­selves to the fence in front of the White House shout­ing “Not one more!” in both Span­ish and Eng­lish. They were ar­res­ted with­in an hour.

Obama said dur­ing the Tues­day in­ter­view on Telemundo that halt­ing all de­port­a­tions is “not an op­tion” and “would be very dif­fi­cult to de­fend leg­ally.” His words ef­fect­ively ruled out a White-House-only al­tern­at­ive to im­mig­ra­tion re­form in Con­gress — some­times called Plan B — that ad­voc­ates have said would be their fo­cus if a bill doesn’t pass this year.

“He no want to, but yeah, he can,” said His­pan­ic act­iv­ist Ben­jamin Hehua in broken Eng­lish, as his com­pan­ions were be­ing ar­res­ted.

The ad­voc­ates’ in­sist­ence that Obama has the power to change de­port­a­tion policies without Con­gress il­lus­trates the strik­ing dif­fer­ence between their point of view and that of con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans, who be­lieve Obama ex­ceeded his au­thor­ity in de­fer­ring de­port­a­tions for un­doc­u­mented youth last year. Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla., has warned Re­pub­lic­ans that Obama could con­tin­ue such a power grab if law­makers don’t act on im­mig­ra­tion this year.

Yet ad­voc­ates brush off the leg­al hes­it­a­tion from Obama, not­ing that he made the same ar­gu­ment about the de­ferred ac­tion pro­gram for so-called “Dream­ers,” un­doc­u­mented young adults who were brought to the United States as chil­dren. “Be­fore de­ferred ac­tion, the same ar­gu­ment was giv­en,” said Jacinta Gonza­lez, a lead or­gan­izer for the Con­gress of Day Laborers. “When Con­gress doesn’t act and he wants to be on the side of justice, he can do it.”

As move­ment on im­mig­ra­tion re­mains stalled in the House, some con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats still think Obama should use Plan B as lever­age.

“If the pat­tern here con­tin­ues, for act­iv­ists, ad­voc­ates, and a lot of Demo­crat­ic mem­bers of this House, the pres­sure will be on the White House to do Plan B,” Gri­jalva said.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×