The Senate Must Vote on Judge Garland's Nomination

While pursuing Facebook yesterday, I came across a post from Michelle Malkin on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The post was a link to an article in the Conservative Review simply entitled, "What Conservatives Need to Know About Merrick Garland."  When I clicked the link, I was shocked to find a one word answer as the first paragraph of the article. It simply said, "Nothing."

Author Brian Darling's analysis didn't get much more informative. The crux of his argument was that because Judge Garland was nominated by President Obama, he is a liberal and will tip the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of the liberals. 

I was shocked because even though I consider myself a Republican with conservative leanings, my reaction to President Obama's pick was far different. I was surprised by how non-controversial the appointment would be. 

Judge Garland has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit since 1997.  He is currently the Chief Judge.  Because of the location of the DC Circuit, it is the court that tends to hear cases involving Federal policy most often. The court is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. 

In addition, Judge Garland is a former prosecutor who is 63 years old. Not only has he worked in law enforcement, he is not likely to stick around the Supreme Court for a very long time. 

At this point, conservatives point to two cases in which he was involved to ring the alarm bells that he will rob us all of our gun rights. The first is the case that overturned the District of Columbia's gun control law. The case was decided by a three judge panel, and Judge Garland voted for the case to be reheard en banc, which means in front of all of the judges of the DC Circuit. 

The second was a case where Judge Garland agreed that the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a computerized background check was working. 

Neither case hardly says anything about the Judge's views on the Second Amendment. Yet it is enough that Judge Garland acted in a way displeasing to the NRA for conservatives to mobilize opposition by engaging in the Second Amendment fear mongering. 

Conservatives are mourning the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. The prospect that his seat on the Supreme Court could be filled by an Obama appointee is just devastating to them. Thus, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of announcing that there would be no hearings on any Obama nomination. Instead, the choice would be left to the new president. President Obama has countered with the nomination of a highly respected jurist, who is not likely to stay around for a very long time. The result is that Senate Republicans look far worse than just merely obstructionists. They look like whiny, petulant children. 

One of the most frightening characteristics of the Tea Party movement, and its influence on the Republican Party, has been the uncompromising willingness to shut down normal government functions in the name of promoting conservatism. Faced with very little on the record to challenge a nominee who appears to be eminently qualified, the conservatives resort to fear mongering. Senate leaders should not play this game. Rather, they should do their constitutional duty of allowing the full Senate to give advice and consent by holding hearings on Judge Garland, and sending his nomination to the floor for a vote. 

GOP Proposes Immigration Reform; Now What?

Last week, Republican leaders from the House of Representatives circulated a one page set of principles on immigration reform among rank and file members at a retreat in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  According to Time Magazine, the proposal included a pathway to legalization for undocumented aliens already present in the United States, provided border protection measures are taken and the undocumented meet certain criteria.

Time quotes that GOP leaders proposed that undocumented aliens "could live here legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families."  The Republicans principles did not include a pathway to citizenship, which the Washington Post reports may be an area where immigration reform advocates are willing to compromise.

Despite the support from Republican House leaders, whether immigration reform will even happen is "in doubt," according to Representative Paul Ryan.  Ryan has been the target of the ire of conservative talk show hosts for his support of immigration reform.  Ryan appeared on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, stating, "Security first, no amnesty, then we might be able to get somewhere."  When asked specifically if Congress would pass an immigration reform bill this year, Ryan responded, "I really don't know the answer to that question. That's clearly in doubt."

After Mitt Romney's loss in the 2012 Presidential elections, the conventional wisdom was that the Republicans had to support some degree of immigration reform that included the granting of legal status to the undocumented aliens already present in the country if they were to remain competitive in national elections.  This was due to the overwhelming majorities that Latino and Asian voters gave the President.  What happened since then?

In truth, House Republicans are focused on the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections.  Most House Republicans come from "safe" districts, where the election of a Republican is almost certain.  Support for any immigration reform that can be seen as amnesty would more likely result in a credible challenge in the primaries, and not in the election of a Democrat.

Add to this situation the President's recent troubles with the cornerstone of his Administration: Obamacare.  With the program becoming increasingly unpopular, there is a real possibility that the Republicans may be able to take the Senate in the mid-term elections too.

Last week, talk show host Rush Limbaugh questioned why the Republicans would push for any immigration reform that includes so-called "amnesty."  Citing an article from the Politico, Limbaugh noted that Democrat may even be conceding control of the House to the Republicans in order to concentrate electoral resources on saving the Senate.  Limbaugh speculated that if the Republicans were poised to have such electoral success in 2014, the only way to derail that success now is if the party pushed for immigration reform.  Specifically, Limbaugh claimed that if Republicans supported "amnesty," that would likely cause faithful Republican voters to stay home on election day.

With this political climate, then, the passage of immigration reform, which seemed to be a sure thing in late 2012, early 2013, is not a sure thing.  Those who may have been waiting to see if reform would pass instead of acting on legal possibilities now may be well advised to re-think that strategy.

To discuss what possibilities may be available under the law, call now for an appointment.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

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

No Republican Uniformity on Immigration Reform

After Romney's presidential election defeat last week, many prominent Republicans began advocating for a change in the party's stand on immigration reform.  Pointing to the overwhelming majority of Latino voters who sided with President Obama, these Republicans saw a softening on the party's stance on immigration as one way that the party could appeal to this demographic group.

However, there does not appear to be uniformity within the Republican ranks on this issue.  Some have argued that changing the party's stance on immigration would amount to nothing more than pandering, and would not guarantee that Latinos would be more attracted to Republican candidates.

A strategy that hoisted all hope on immigration reform may not work to attract more Latino voters to the Republican party.  Such a strategy assumes that Latinos are single-issue voters, leaning heavily on immigration policy to guide their choice.  This, however, appears to be a false assumption.  Indeed, to consider the Latino vote to be a homogenous group itself is something of a fallacy.  Cuban Americans living in Florida, for example, are not the same as Mexican Americans living in California.

 The argument has been made that changing the party's stand on immigration reform could be the first step to changing the GOP's image on diversity in general. Business Insider has pointed out that Romney lost among Asian voters in a slightly larger margin than he did among Latino voters.  This is despite the fact that Romney generally won the vote among Americans with incomes of greater than $100,000 per year, and that on average Asians earn more than caucasians.  The argument here is that the Republicans' stand on immigration issues gives the appearance that the party is not so very tolerant of ethnic minorities.  But, immigration reform alone would not be enough to sway minority voters.

Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg argues that Republicans place too much emphasis on Christian values, which can alienate Buddhists and Hindus.  Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post wrote that among the thing Republicans need to consider is running ads in languages other than English, and Democrats do.  A similar thing can be said about campaigns aimed at legislating English as the official language, either of the federal or state governments.  Such actions are insensitive to the diverse population of the United States, and communicate a lack of tolerance to minority groups.

Immigration reform itself may not be a panacea for the Republican party.  But, it can be the first step to changing the party's image provided that harsh-toned rhetoric that appears intolerant of anyone who isn't an English-speaker of European descent is also eliminated.

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

Romney Pledges Not to Deport Those Granted Deferred Action

In a somewhat confusing turn of events, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated that he would not deport those who received deferred action under the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers) program.  But, he would not continue with the program.

The waters of exactly where the candidate and his party stand on immigration issues were somewhat muddied further when U.S. Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, stated that Romney wanted to find a more permanent solution for the young people who would qualify for deferred action under the program.

Both Romney and Rubio emphasized that it would not be fair to yank deferred action away from those who had already paid the filing fee and received the benefit.

Many who would otherwise benefit from the deferred action program have been reluctant to apply, citing the uncertainty involved.  Deferred action is a promise from the Government that it would not seek to deport an undocumented immigrant.  But, it does not lead to permanent residency or citizenship.  Moreover, it is not based on any new law, but on the discretion of the President to decide which cases get brought to Immigration Court.  If Romney were to beat Obama, then there would be no guarantee that the grants of deferred action would continue.

Romney's statements on the issue do create something of an incentive to apply for deferred action now, and not wait until after the election.  With Romney pledging not to deport those who received the benefit, but then saying that he would not continue with the program, those undocumented aliens looking for legal work authorization may be wise to submit their applications now, before a Romney Administration has a chance to terminate the program.

On the other hand, Romney's statements could be seen nothing more as a campaign promise.

Articles on Romeny's and Rubio's statements can be found here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-immigrant-deportations-ban-20121002,0,5777536.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rubio-dream-act-romney-20121002,0,2181168.story

http://www.boston.com/travel/destinations/2012/10/03/romney-would-end-obama-immigration-policy/8u4PI6NaVX75xTGlVNeEIN/story.html

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832