Thread: Arizona immigration law debate triggers shockwaves

Arizona immigration law debate triggers shockwaves
Fight emboldens sides; reform not likely soon
by Dan Nowicki - Aug. 1, 2010 12:00 AM

The federal court ruling blocking parts of Arizona's immigration law may have eased some of the anxiety felt by immigrants and others in the Hispanic community, but it has revved up the political battle in advance of congressional midterm elections.

Both sides in the contentious and already polarized debate are energized and hardening their positions even more as illegal immigration and border security solidify as centerpiece issues of this year's campaigns.


And comprehensive immigration reform? Forget about it, at least until after Election Day, Nov. 2. Because even though President Barack Obama's Justice Department won a preliminary injunction stopping key provisions of Senate Bill 1070, few seriously expect Congress to act amid election-year pressures.

"The bigger problem is that Democrats and Republicans under this administration, in this Congress, haven't figured out a way to work together," said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national organization that supports immigration reform from a pro-business perspective. "And if they're not working together on anything else, immigration is not going to be the one thing that they can work together on. Immigration is one that you get to after you have built up some trust on other issues. We haven't even gotten past that threshold yet."

While U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision Wednesday to prevent SB 1070's most controversial parts from going into effect may dissuade other states from enacting an Arizona-style enforcement law, some observers suggest that the ongoing immigration stalemate at the federal level will only prompt state legislatures to continue to experiment with different approaches and strategies to address illegal immigration.

With public emotions running high, Democratic and Republican strategists are debating which side gains a partisan advantage from the Arizona legal case. Illegal-immigration critics are angry and motivated, as is the Hispanic community. In Arizona, the immigration issue has not only revitalized Gov. Jan Brewer's candidacy in this year's Republican primary and dominated the state's U.S. Senate and House races, but it also has seeped into Republican primaries for state attorney general, state superintendent of public instruction and other races.

It's not likely that Brewer will stop shaking her fist at the Obama administration anytime soon.

"It's been working for her so far - why would she change?" said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races for the nonpartisan, Washington-based Cook Political Report. "I don't think I had much appreciation for the play it (the immigration issue) is getting in places where I wouldn't expect it, like Wisconsin. I was home in Rhode Island for the Fourth of July and had a congressional candidate tell me that it is one of the top three or four issues that they hear about."

Such a hostile landscape won't make it easy to launch bipartisan negotiations on the touchy topic. Congress tried and failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform under less severe conditions in 2006 and 2007, and the outlook for a legislative immigration breakthrough remains bleak even after the Justice Department's preliminary triumph against Arizona in court.

"This ruling on SB 1070 should have provided Washington the opportunity to fix this," said U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz. "There's no excuse for not securing the borders and fixing the broken immigration system - there's no excuse whatsoever. But it's an election year, and politicians are motivated to grandstand and to score political points instead of trying to help fix the problem. There's more rhetoric now, and people are more polarized now, unfortunately. This doesn't help."


At loggerheads

In a major July 1 speech, Obama called on Congress to take up comprehensive immigration reform. But U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Thursday told reporters that he didn't believe the current Congress can address immigration this year because of the volatile political atmosphere. He said House leaders have given up on the hope that the Senate will take the lead on the issue as had been anticipated.

"We agreed early on in this Congress that ... the Senate would act," Hoyer was quoted as saying by Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill. "And the Senate has not acted."

Further exacerbating political tensions was the revelation last week of an internal draft memorandum from the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes immigration benefits. The memo outlines "administrative alternatives to comprehensive immigration reform," or actions that could be taken without Congress' approval. One option that immediately drew fire from reform foes is the possible use of widespread "deferred action," or prosecutorial discretion, to essentially provide what the memo described as "a non-legislative version of 'amnesty' " to many illegal immigrants in the country. The document's authors, however, warn that granting deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals "would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive."

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has likened the suggestion to "a large-scale, de facto amnesty program" that would undercut Congress, but an administration official stressed Friday to The Arizona Republic that the idea discussed in the memo is neither official policy nor under active consideration.

Meanwhile, Arizona's U.S. senators, Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl, both former champions of bipartisan immigration reform, are standing firm in their push for additional border-security improvements before considering other reforms such as a guest-worker program or a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants. In separate interviews, both reiterated the need to implement their 10-point border plan that they unveiled this year amid debate over Arizona's immigration legislation.

The McCain-Kyl plan would deploy 3,000 National Guard troops to the state's border. Obama is sending 1,200 troops, of which 524 will come to Arizona.

"As we've said many times, until the border is substantially more secure than it is today, there's not going to be a consensus to move forward on immigration legislation," Kyl said.

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who now is running for re-election for a fifth Senate term, welcomed border security's emergence as a top campaign issue and said a GOP tidal wave in November would smash the partisan gridlock on border enforcement.

"Perhaps, with sufficient American public attention on this, we can get the administration to fulfill Kyl's and my 10-point plan to get the border secured," McCain said. "Then we can look at the other aspects of it (reform). But Americans are cynical, and understandably so. They want the border secured first."


Reform's chances

U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., who cheered Bolton's decision to prevent much of SB 1070 from going into effect, said a chance remains that Congress will return after the elections and push through comprehensive immigration reform. If that's not politically possible - no bill has been introduced in the Senate - lawmakers could try to do a piece of it, such as the DREAM Act, he said. That proposal, which has attracted bipartisan support in past years, would grant legal status to undocumented-immigrant children who have lived here most of their lives if they attend college or serve in the military.

"In the lame-duck Congress, you have people who are not returning, you have people who are defeated, you have people who no longer are under the threat of an election who may look at the subject matter more on what's good public policy rather than how it could hurt their campaigns," said Pastor, the most senior member of Arizona's U.S. House delegation.

An upside to the Justice Department's intervention in Arizona, Pastor said, is that it likely will discourage other states from enacting a patchwork of immigration laws that will undermine U.S. immigration policy. "I think people will say, 'Why do we want to go down that path? Let's wait and see where the Supreme Court is going to be,' " he said.

But U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., doubted that Bolton's SB 1070 ruling would stop other states from trying to pass their own immigration-related laws. She predicted only Congress' "getting the job done" will do that. As of earlier this year, 45 states had introduced 1,180 immigration-related bills and resolutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. As of March 31, 34 state legislatures had passed 71 laws and adopted 87 resolutions, according to the organization's tally. Brewer signed SB 1070 on April 23, and since then more than a dozen states have started to take serious looks at enacting their own versions, said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.

"This challenge to states' rights and states' sovereignty is in-your-face from the Obama administration and is just as likely to prompt states to pass it," said Kavanagh, one of the highest-profile supporters of SB 1070 at the state Capitol. "If nothing, this empowers us more so. We're now seeing that there is tremendous public support for this, and we see a great need since Washington, obviously, continues to try to handcuff us from protecting ourselves."

Kirkpatrick, a former state lawmaker, said both the Arizona immigration law and the federal lawsuit distract from the need for border security and a national immigration strategy.

"I think it energizes both sides, frankly, but I don't think that's a good way to use our energy," Kirkpatrick said of the political impact of Bolton's ruling. "I think it may take us farther away from, not closer to, a solution."

www.azcentral.com

The poor Liberal Left just doesn't know what to do when the Conservative Rigth tells them NO and means it.

Dixie

I'm shocked, shocked to find that anger about illegals is going on here!

ROFL

"In the lame-duck Congress, you have people who are not returning, you have people who are defeated, you have people who no longer are under the threat of an election who may look at the subject matter more on what's good public policy rather than how it could hurt their campaigns," said Pastor, the most senior member of Arizona's U.S. House delegation.

That will be the time period that "Tells the Tale." IMO

Originally Posted by jean

Arizona immigration law debate triggers shockwaves
Fight emboldens sides; reform not likely soon
by Dan Nowicki - Aug. 1, 2010 12:00 AM

The federal court ruling blocking parts of Arizona's immigration law may have eased some of the anxiety felt by immigrants and others in the Hispanic community, but it has revved up the political battle in advance of congressional midterm elections.

Both sides in the contentious and already polarized debate are energized and hardening their positions even more as illegal immigration and border security solidify as centerpiece issues of this year's campaigns.


And comprehensive immigration reform? Forget about it, at least until after Election Day, Nov. 2. Because even though President Barack Obama's Justice Department won a preliminary injunction stopping key provisions of Senate Bill 1070, few seriously expect Congress to act amid election-year pressures.

"The bigger problem is that Democrats and Republicans under this administration, in this Congress, haven't figured out a way to work together," said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national organization that supports immigration reform from a pro-business perspective. "And if they're not working together on anything else, immigration is not going to be the one thing that they can work together on. Immigration is one that you get to after you have built up some trust on other issues. We haven't even gotten past that threshold yet."

While U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision Wednesday to prevent SB 1070's most controversial parts from going into effect may dissuade other states from enacting an Arizona-style enforcement law, some observers suggest that the ongoing immigration stalemate at the federal level will only prompt state legislatures to continue to experiment with different approaches and strategies to address illegal immigration.

With public emotions running high, Democratic and Republican strategists are debating which side gains a partisan advantage from the Arizona legal case. Illegal-immigration critics are angry and motivated, as is the Hispanic community. In Arizona, the immigration issue has not only revitalized Gov. Jan Brewer's candidacy in this year's Republican primary and dominated the state's U.S. Senate and House races, but it also has seeped into Republican primaries for state attorney general, state superintendent of public instruction and other races.

It's not likely that Brewer will stop shaking her fist at the Obama administration anytime soon.

"It's been working for her so far - why would she change?" said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races for the nonpartisan, Washington-based Cook Political Report. "I don't think I had much appreciation for the play it (the immigration issue) is getting in places where I wouldn't expect it, like Wisconsin. I was home in Rhode Island for the Fourth of July and had a congressional candidate tell me that it is one of the top three or four issues that they hear about."

Such a hostile landscape won't make it easy to launch bipartisan negotiations on the touchy topic. Congress tried and failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform under less severe conditions in 2006 and 2007, and the outlook for a legislative immigration breakthrough remains bleak even after the Justice Department's preliminary triumph against Arizona in court.

"This ruling on SB 1070 should have provided Washington the opportunity to fix this," said U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz. "There's no excuse for not securing the borders and fixing the broken immigration system - there's no excuse whatsoever. But it's an election year, and politicians are motivated to grandstand and to score political points instead of trying to help fix the problem. There's more rhetoric now, and people are more polarized now, unfortunately. This doesn't help."


At loggerheads

In a major July 1 speech, Obama called on Congress to take up comprehensive immigration reform. But U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Thursday told reporters that he didn't believe the current Congress can address immigration this year because of the volatile political atmosphere. He said House leaders have given up on the hope that the Senate will take the lead on the issue as had been anticipated.

"We agreed early on in this Congress that ... the Senate would act," Hoyer was quoted as saying by Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill. "And the Senate has not acted."

Further exacerbating political tensions was the revelation last week of an internal draft memorandum from the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes immigration benefits. The memo outlines "administrative alternatives to comprehensive immigration reform," or actions that could be taken without Congress' approval. One option that immediately drew fire from reform foes is the possible use of widespread "deferred action," or prosecutorial discretion, to essentially provide what the memo described as "a non-legislative version of 'amnesty' " to many illegal immigrants in the country. The document's authors, however, warn that granting deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals "would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive."

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has likened the suggestion to "a large-scale, de facto amnesty program" that would undercut Congress, but an administration official stressed Friday to The Arizona Republic that the idea discussed in the memo is neither official policy nor under active consideration.

Meanwhile, Arizona's U.S. senators, Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl, both former champions of bipartisan immigration reform, are standing firm in their push for additional border-security improvements before considering other reforms such as a guest-worker program or a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants. In separate interviews, both reiterated the need to implement their 10-point border plan that they unveiled this year amid debate over Arizona's immigration legislation.

The McCain-Kyl plan would deploy 3,000 National Guard troops to the state's border. Obama is sending 1,200 troops, of which 524 will come to Arizona.

"As we've said many times, until the border is substantially more secure than it is today, there's not going to be a consensus to move forward on immigration legislation," Kyl said.

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who now is running for re-election for a fifth Senate term, welcomed border security's emergence as a top campaign issue and said a GOP tidal wave in November would smash the partisan gridlock on border enforcement.

"Perhaps, with sufficient American public attention on this, we can get the administration to fulfill Kyl's and my 10-point plan to get the border secured," McCain said. "Then we can look at the other aspects of it (reform). But Americans are cynical, and understandably so. They want the border secured first."


Reform's chances

U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., who cheered Bolton's decision to prevent much of SB 1070 from going into effect, said a chance remains that Congress will return after the elections and push through comprehensive immigration reform. If that's not politically possible - no bill has been introduced in the Senate - lawmakers could try to do a piece of it, such as the DREAM Act, he said. That proposal, which has attracted bipartisan support in past years, would grant legal status to undocumented-immigrant children who have lived here most of their lives if they attend college or serve in the military.

"In the lame-duck Congress, you have people who are not returning, you have people who are defeated, you have people who no longer are under the threat of an election who may look at the subject matter more on what's good public policy rather than how it could hurt their campaigns," said Pastor, the most senior member of Arizona's U.S. House delegation.

An upside to the Justice Department's intervention in Arizona, Pastor said, is that it likely will discourage other states from enacting a patchwork of immigration laws that will undermine U.S. immigration policy. "I think people will say, 'Why do we want to go down that path? Let's wait and see where the Supreme Court is going to be,' " he said.

But U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., doubted that Bolton's SB 1070 ruling would stop other states from trying to pass their own immigration-related laws. She predicted only Congress' "getting the job done" will do that. As of earlier this year, 45 states had introduced 1,180 immigration-related bills and resolutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. As of March 31, 34 state legislatures had passed 71 laws and adopted 87 resolutions, according to the organization's tally. Brewer signed SB 1070 on April 23, and since then more than a dozen states have started to take serious looks at enacting their own versions, said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.

"This challenge to states' rights and states' sovereignty is in-your-face from the Obama administration and is just as likely to prompt states to pass it," said Kavanagh, one of the highest-profile supporters of SB 1070 at the state Capitol. "If nothing, this empowers us more so. We're now seeing that there is tremendous public support for this, and we see a great need since Washington, obviously, continues to try to handcuff us from protecting ourselves."

Kirkpatrick, a former state lawmaker, said both the Arizona immigration law and the federal lawsuit distract from the need for border security and a national immigration strategy.

"I think it energizes both sides, frankly, but I don't think that's a good way to use our energy," Kirkpatrick said of the political impact of Bolton's ruling. "I think it may take us farther away from, not closer to, a solution."

www.azcentral.com

The statement that Is underlined explains exactly why Congress Is not looking out for the best Interests of AMERICA,and Instead Is looking out for the best Interests of their respective political parties to the detriment of ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS

[quote]

"I don't think I had much appreciation for the play it (the immigration issue) is getting in places where I wouldn't expect it, like Wisconsin. I was home in Rhode Island for the Fourth of July and had a congressional candidate tell me that it is one of the top three or four issues that they hear about."

[quote]

Guess we still don't have the attention of many "Beltway Bandits", or in this case traitors.