Sometimes it's hard to tell whether Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is chair of the House Judiciary Committee or the head of the "Just Say No To Any Immigration Solution" crowd.
As if on cue, Smith criticized a processing tweak -- proposed Friday by the Obama administration -- which will allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. while the Department of Homeland Security determines whether or not denial of their green card would cause extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen spouse or parent. Smith's predictable knee-jerk reaction included the same old tired claim that the administration was trying to pull an "end around" the immigration law. I expect Smith's restrictionist friends will soon chime in with a hearty chorus of "backdoor amnesty".
Smith should have read the proposed rule change before he opened his mouth. Under the law -- which, contrary to what Smith claims, would not change one bit under the administration's proposal -- undocumented husbands, wives, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens cannot apply for a green card in the U.S. Yet, when they leave the U.S. to get right with the immigration law, they are barred by statute from returning for up to 10 years -- kind of a legal "Catch-22".
Immigrants who face the unlawful presence bar can ask the government for a waiver if they can prove their U.S. citizen spouse or parent will suffer extreme hardship -- a very difficult standard to meet. Unfortunately, due to backlogs, the overseas waiver process takes months, sometimes even years. In the meantime immigrants remain stuck abroad, separated from their loved ones in the U.S. Over the years immigrants have been seriously injured, even murdered, while waiting in dangerous cities like Ciudad Juarez.
Lost in Smith's reflexive denunciation is that the rule change would do little more than allow an immigrant to file a waiver application in the U.S. before going abroad to apply for an immigrant visa. The rigors of the law have not been altered one bit: the applicant still must meet the exacting legal standard of proving his spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship and, if the waiver is granted, the applicant still must leave the U.S. to apply for the immigrant visa abroad. Smith also fails to note that the administrative change will reduce backlogs at U.S. embassies, leading to more efficient government and smarter enforcement.
If Lamar Smith were truly interested in making the immigration system work for American families he would wholeheartedly support the administration's stateside waiver proposal. The proposal is far from perfect and needs several key adjustments, but it is a welcome step in the right direction. If implemented, it will keep American families safe and together, make visa processing more efficient and secure, and guard the rule of law. The nation deserves Congressional leaders who are committed to fixing America's broken immigration system, not politicians who offer little more than hot air.
Follow David Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidLeopold
Rep. Luis Gutierrez: The Stolen Dreams Act
If he could fill us in on some of that (now or over time), it would give his readers a better idea of where he's coming from. Thank you.
As for "rigorous enforcement", what I mean by that term is that the law be enforced correctly and with common sense. By common sense I mean that the government prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals and national security risks. That doesn't mean others in violation of the civil immigration law be given a pass, it means we devote limited resources to keeping our communities secure. I also strongly believe that we need common sense immigration reform, which includes a pathway to lawful compliance for the undocumented and a well designated temporary worker program which takes into consideration future flow.
I favor shifting from a deportation-based enforcement system (slow, expensive, removed aliens can come back repeatedly) toward a deterrent-based prevention system. The cornerstone of the system would be housing verification (which is broader than employment verification because not every alien is a worker and not every worker is hired). Since such a significant percentage of those present without authorization did not illegally enter, it is irrational to overemphasize high failure rate "border security" as the last line rather than just first line of enforcement.
I question temporary guest worker programs because history shows that the temporary turns into permanent. Interesting proposals to ensure workers return home exist but how realistic is, e.g., extremely high withholding? No technological barrier exists to prevent the domestic labor market from self-adjusting. Barriers to enter particular professions can be eliminated. If demand exceeds overall domestic labor supply, that's OK from an ecological economic perspective when the country's already in overshoot. Guestworker abuse is also a problem.
The Bush administration did it for one of my clients. See: http://fxn.ws/HGHKPr
H.R. 2164 introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Lamar Smith ~ Federally Mandatory E-Verify
Short on Solutions? Where's the pro-illegal legislation, i.e. the Comprehensive Immigration Reform drafted, introduced & passed by the professional lawmakers making up the 28-member Congressional Hispanic/Latino Caucus? = none in the past 4.5 years, with 95% of their 50.5 million Hispanic/Latino Constituents supportive of CIR are waiting & waiting & waiting & waiting.
Waiting on the second coming of (R) Ronald Reagan to grant is second Amnesty, this time to 11.2 million illegals?
Mr Obama is you want to do the right thing and wanting to help these USC families, please do not exclude those who were deported and people that are tyring to do the right thing.
Don't be surprised to see Rep. Smith and other immigration opponents in Congress change their tune once the economy picks up and the different business interests start calling for more cheap, exploitable labor. The real question is, are we willing to tolerate an ever expanding underclass of workers and mixed status families in the meantime?
Then the U.S. Economy changed ~ last 8 months of GWB's Adm the U.S. Employment Rate went from 4.5% to 7.8% = 4.3 million U.S. Citizens lost their jobs, in just 8 months.
Since GWB, Obama's Economy has taken the U.S. Unemployment Rate of 7.8% to 8.3% = an additional 770,000 U.S. Citizens have lost the jobs.
For the past 39 consecutive months, over 13 million U.S. Citizens have been out of work, trying nto provide food, clothing, shelter & education to Their Children, with NO JOBS in their own Homeland.
Can No Longer support 11.2 million illegals in the USA, unauthorized to work in the USA ~ but, ARE and sending $30 billion USD a year out of the U.S. Economy to the countries of their citizenship.
TAKE CARE OF U.S. Citizens ~ FIRST
I also wonder about the sanity of Texas Democrats who did not capitalize on this hypocrisy. The fact is the GOP wants more illegals and to keep them here. They also want them to stay illegal so they can be exploited more easily. At least Democrats are more honest in saying that if the GOP will not secure the border and deport the illegals then they should open a path for them to become legal.
Thank you.
You know very well that many illegals have entered illegally at least twice...and that is a serious criminal violation.
Then we have the stupid idea that only rightwing people are against illegals. I supported Obama, gave money, worked for him and was a delegate to the last three Texas State Democratic Party conventions. The only rightwingers are those who join the Chamber of Commerce, NAM, and other apologists for unfettered free market capitalism who want a massive reserve pool of labor to drive down American wages. In FACT, given the historical record of progressive and the labor movement, the defenders of labor and of working people have been against ALL immigration. During the Depression, FDR banned all immigration, and one of the results was the massive rise of the US labor movement. Go to the stats on union membersip vs immigration and you will see the inverse relationship.
Perhaps you don't remember the Amnesty of 1986? It was rife with fraud and a total failure (unless you were an illegal alien or Latin American drug cartel). The Amnesty was sold with the promise of aggressive enforcement, which ended before it got started.
All amnesties do is encourage more illegal migration--which is why we went from 3-6 million illegals then to the likely 20 million today. Pass another Amnesty we will have 50 million illegals by 2020.
I've been studying this for 10 years. I don't have time to respond to all your points but trust me that you've been obviously a victim of open-border propaganda. Your beliefs are not reality.
By the way, Arizona's 1070 significantly reduced the population of illegal aliens without government expense since the illegals "left" on their own. That's the "attrition by enforcement" strategy that has demonstrated to work in Arizona and elsewhere. Opponents don't like it because it undermines there argument that, like you, say enforcement costs too much.
The real cost is illegal immigration---just look at California's budget problems.
You say you have been "studying' this issue for ten years, but it seems to me that it is you that are a victim of right wing propaganda. I believe the vast majority of illegal aliens are hard working people paying into the tax system with false SSNs, and will have no chance of receiving any benefits that they have contributed to. I've worked in the restaurant business for 35 years and would gladly work side by side (and have) with an illegal that 95% of the time is willing to work two to three times harder than 95% of the trashy, lazy, legal citizens that feel they are owed something for the mere fact of just showing up (which is rarely on time!) that I have worked amongst (and I'm talking about high end fine dining establishments, not diners)!
I also don't buy into the idea that they would just leave on their own (more propaganda!).