Do Democrats Have an Incentive to Sabotage Immigration Reform?

In the wake of the November presidential election, there has been much discussion of whether it is time for the Republican party to embrace immigration reform.  The conventional wisdom has been that since President Obama won over 70% of the Latino vote, the GOP has to make some changes in its platform and image in order to attract Latino voters.

This conversation, however, is built on the assumption that both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, approach comprehensive immigration reform in good faith.  In this article, Ruben Navarette, Jr. argues that the Democrats have every incentive to sabotage the move to adopt comprehensive immigration reform.

Navarette's argues that the Democrats really do not want to be known as the part of amnesty or open borders in later elections.  In particular, he notes that this would not enhance the party's stance with Caucasians and African Americans.

So long as immigration reform is not passed, the Democrats will continue to have an issue to use against the Republicans.  Thus, there is no incentive to actually settle the issue.  Rather, by sabotaging the issue, the Democrats can continue to make Republicans look like the bad guys to the Latino voters.

One main constituency of the Democrats is the labor movement.  Labor unions do not want the added competition of a guest worker program.  Therefore, passing immigration reform runs the risk of alienating a key constituency.

Having worked in the Federal Government myself, I must admit to a certain degree of cynicism when it comes to national politics.  There is merit, particularly in Navarette's argument that reaching a compromise would rob the Democrats of an issue to use against the Republicans.  Also, it is a mistake to think of the Democrats as a single party joined together by a unified ideology.  Quite the contrary, the modern Democratic Party is more of a collection of minority interests who find it mutually convenient to ally themselves in pursuit of their own agendas.  Thus, there is a precarious balancing act among the party leaders to try to keep such diverse constituencies as labor unions and liberal activists satisfied.  In this regard, if labor unions were to find their members' jobs threatened by a guest worker program, then it would make sense that the party leaders would develop a strategy to make it appear as though they are serious about immigration reform, but never agree to a compromise, instead blaming Republicans as obstructionists, in order to keep some of their constituents happy while having a bad guy to campaign against.

This, and the fact that the Republicans are not themselves unified on the issue of immigration reform, must be taken into consideration in analyzing whether immigration reform will indeed pass the next Congress.  Those expecting fast movement may find themselves disappointed.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Dream to Achieve: Comparison of Proposals to Address Young Undocumented Aliens

In the wake of the presidential elections, many in the Republican Party have shown a greater willingness to consider comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, many have seen a softening of the GOP's stance on immigration reform necessary in light of the overwhelming majority of Latino voters who supported President Obama.

Nonetheless, the Republicans may not be in complete uniformity on what shape comprehensive immigration reform should take.  One issue that may prove to be the most difficult to address could be what to do about the many undocumented aliens already in the country.  The issue of creating a guest worker program, with some pathway to citizenship, may complicate the drive for comprehensive reform.

In the meantime, there appears to be some agreement that young people, brought to this country as children and who have grown up as if they were Americans, deserve some form of relief.  This is on the heals of the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which could grant a promise not to deport such young people who meet certain qualifications.  The program has its roots in the DREAM Act, which failed in 2010 when a Senate filibuster prevented the bill from coming up for a vote.

At least two Republicans have been working on a similar bill over the past year.  Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Jon Kyl, both of whom will retire in January, have been working on the Achieve Act as an alternative to the DREAM Act.  There appears to be a movement to try to bring the Achieve Act up for a vote before January.

The Achieve Act, however, has some major differences in qualifications when compared to the President's deferred action program.  If the Achieve Act were to pass, it could cause a number of people, who have applied for and already received deferred action, out in the cold as far as permanent relief is concerned.

The requirements for relief under the Achieve Act are:  (1) the applicant must have completed high-school and be admitted to college or earned a college degree, or completed high school and be enlisted in or have completed four years of military service; (2) the applicant must have entered the country before the age of 14; (3) the applicant must have lived in the U.S. continuously for five years; (4) the applicant must have not committed a felony, two misdemeanors with a jail term of over 30 days, or a crime of moral turpitude; (5) the applicant must not be subject to a final order of removal; (6) the applicant must pay a $525 fee; and (7) the applicant must be under the age of 28 (or 32 if they have a bachelor's degree from a U.S. university).

The major differences are:  (1) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant be enrolled in a U.S school, have a high school diploma, have a GED or be enrolled in classes to work toward a GED; (2) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant enter the United State before age 16; and (3) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant be under age 31 as of June 15, 2012.

With these key differences, there are several young people who would qualify under the deferred action program,  who would not qualify under the Achieve Act.  People who entered the United States after age 14, but before age 16, for example, would be out of luck under the Achieve Act.  Likewise, people who have a high school diploma, but who chose not to go on to higher education would be left out.  Finally, the cut-off age is lower for the Achieve Act.

It is unclear why the Republican proposal has stricter qualification requirements than the current deferred action program.  It may be explained by the fact that the bill was drafted before the President announced the program.  Nonetheless, equity would argue that the bill be modified to cover all of those covered by the deferred action program.  Whether that will happen, or the Republicans stick to their guns remains to be seen.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/republicans-mull-own-version-dream-act-vote-on-achieve-act-by-january/#ixzz2Cte3l3Wt

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/republicans-mull-own-version-dream-act-vote-on-achieve-act-by-january/#ixzz2Cte3l3Wt

President Promises to Press for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

In his first press conference since the November 6th election, President Obama promised to press for comprehensive immigration reform in early 2013.  According to the President, immigration reform will include strengthening the borders, greater penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens, and a pathway to citizenship for those already present in the United States illegally.

The last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform took place during the Bush Administration.  The Bush proposal also included a pathway to citizenship.  However, the legislative package failed to pass Congress.

In 2010, Congress came close to passing the DREAM Act, which would have given legal status to young people who were brought the United States as children and who have attended school in the United States or were honorably discharged from the U.S. military.  The DREAM Act died in a Senate filibuster.  However, the President announced a program to grant some form of relief to those who would have qualified for benefits under the DREAM Act through his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.  The deferred action program, however, does not lead to permanent residency.

Click here to read more on the President's statements concerning immigration reform.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com