NAPOLITANO'S STRONG STATEMENT

On Friday November 13th, Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered an important address on Immigration Reform http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1258123461050.shtm. It's worth reading the entire text. In it, she reiterated the Administration’s commitment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “So even as we press to end this recession and get America back to work, we are determined to deal with long lingering problems that cloud our future. And another problem that has been punted from year to year, from Congress to Congress, from Administration to Administration, is the clear need for immigration reform.”

The Secretary went on to explain, “Over the past ten months, we’ve worked to improve immigration enforcement and border security within the current legal framework. But the more work we do, the more it becomes clear that the laws themselves need to be reformed.” Napolitano's approach to ‘immigration reform’ includes a “three-legged stool”:

• a serious commitment to effective enforcement,
• improved legal flows for families and workers,
• and a "firm but fair" way to deal with those who are already here.

Napolitano's speech notwithstanding, any attempt to put her ideas into law is certain to face a political firestorm. Walter Shapiro, of the New York Times, describes the political climate in Washington D.C. in his November 17th article, Immigration, Yet Another Issue: How Many Hard Votes Can Congress Take?
As Shapiro observes, “The President may be ‘fully committed,’ but so is Congress, which is already up to its neck with health care and climate change legislation, financial regulation and a stomach-wrenching recession.” Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN, a D.C. think tank, stated that “Unlike health-care, this will be more of a political debate than a legislative debate, since we know the contours legislatively.”

The fact remains that Comprehensive Immigration Reform will be won or lost outside the confines of Washington D.C. It will be won or lost in congregations, neighborhoods, businesses and labor unions. That is why it is our responsibility to become as informed as possible on this issue and engage others. Our call is to continue to move the debate forward.

WORKERS' RIGHTS & IMMIGRATION REFORM

An important new study powerfully demonstrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform from the perspective of the rights of workers and their families as well as service to the common good.


The report entitled “Iced Out: How Immigration Enforcement has Interfered with Workers’ Rights” was written by the AFL-CIO. It establishes the fact that despite United States Supreme Court protection of undocumented immigrants under the National Labor Relations Act, (See Sure-Tran, Inc v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, at 892 (1984)), immigration enforcement without due consideration of workplace law violations allows employers to violate the rights of workers without fear of prosecution. In fact, attempts by workers to secure their rights often have been and continue to be met with deportation or the threat thereof. Examinations of substandard wages and other workplace abuses under existing labor laws are buried by the deportation of the workers involved.

One consequence of this practice is that business owners trying to do the right thing often end up resorting to slashing the wages of their own workers in order to remain competitive with the bad actors.

This perverse, not to mention immoral, race to the bottom will cease only when comprehensive reform becomes a reality and laws pertaining to employers and employees alike are fairly enforced. Arizonans for Immigration Reform encourages conversations about these morally and economically challenging realities.

POLITICAL IMPACT ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

Internal divisions within the Republican Party will have major impact on the coming Congressional debate over comprehensive immigration reform.  The New York Times has recently published two articles describing this shifting ground.

On November 3rd, in the article entitled, Conservative Loses Upstate House Race in Blow to Right, New York’s northernmost district is featured.   The 23rd District had been a Republican stronghold and has been represented by a Republican candidate since the 19th century.  When President Obama appointed long serving Republican Congressman, John M. McHugh, as Secretary of the Army, the seat became vacant and a special election was called.  Eleven leaders of the county committees that encompass the vast congressional district nominated Dede Scozzafava to be the Republican candidate.  This drew the ire of “conservative” members of the party such as Sarah Palin, Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.  A Conservative Party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman, was supported by most of Washington’s “conservative establishment” and the result was a Democrat winning the seat after over a century of Republican control.

On November 11th, the New York Times also reported S.C. Senator Gets Slammed Back Home. Senator Lindsey Graham was rebuked by a unanimous Charleston County Republican vote “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as:  passing a ‘cap and trade’ energy bill, bailing out banks and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.”  A spokesman for Sen. Graham responded, “Like former President Reagan, he strongly believes elected officials need to find common ground and work together to solve difficult problems…Working to solve problems and being conservative are not mutually exclusive.”

Voters in the moderate middle of hotly contested congressional races will hold the key to what, if anything, happens with comprehensive immigration reform in 2010.  We have our work cut out for us!

EMPLOYER SANCTIONS LEGAL BATTLE

The United States Supreme Court has recently requested that the Obama administration declare its position on Arizona’s employer-sanctions law.  The law, passed in 2007, “punishes companies for hiring illegal immigrants and requires all Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system (E-verify) to verify the work status of employees.” (See Justices may hear disputed Arizona law)

The Arizona Republic believes that the Supreme Court may be interested in hearing the case.  According to the Republic, “A coalition of business groups, immigrant-rights advocates and civil-liberties groups maintains that the 2007 law is unconstitutional because it infringes on the federal government’s authority over immigration laws and mandates the use of the federal government’s electronic-verification system…even though it is a voluntary program.”

Recently, we wrote a post concerning State’s rights and the Supremacy Clause. This case may help define the limits of a states authority when it comes to legislating Immigration.

“At the end of the day, we still feel that immigration lies at the federal level,” said Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  “We have this crazy quilt of state and local laws, and we believe this is better left to the federal government, and we certainly see this as an encouraging sign that the Supreme Court will consider the case and make it clear that immigration is a federal matter.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling that upheld the law, “(The law) reflects rising frustration with the United States Congress’ failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform.”  Last year, during his campaign, President Obama declared that the proliferation of state immigration laws “underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands.”

Two conclusions may be drawn from this article. 

• The growing discontent with the consequences of a broken federal immigration policy is leading many to call for the U.S. government to enact comprehensive immigration reform. 
• A widening array of unlikely allies is emerging in response to the local legal chaos engendered by federal inaction.

How or if President Obama makes good on his campaign promise remains to be seen.