Thread: Border crisis rocks U.S., Arizona immigration politics

Dan Nowicki, The Republic | azcentral.com 12:25 a.m. MST July 21, 2014

The humanitarian crisis at the border is playing out in U.S. and Arizona political campaigns. It could make it more difficult for Congress to find a solution

A Democratic congressman from an Arizona border district allies himself with conservatives seeking swift deportations for immigrant children.

Republican candidates for governor fill the airwaves with TV commercials touting sometimes far-fetched promises to secure the border.

Even down-ticket hopefuls for statewide offices such as secretary of state and treasurer advertise tough stances toward illegal immigration.

In rapid fashion, the ongoing crisis on the border involving tens of thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America has injected uncertainty and chaos into U.S. and Arizona politics. It has split immigration-reform supporters and reinvigorated border-security hawks in advance of this year's congressional midterm and gubernatorial elections, and it has complicated efforts by President Barack Obama and Congress to respond to the emergency in a serious way.

Squaring off, generally, are border-security hawks who characterize the crisis as an Obama administration failure and who want the children returned as soon as possible, and immigration advocates who want to ensure that the children keep their due-process rights and are allowed to plead their cases for asylum before a judge.

In the near term, the politicization of the crisis likely will intensify as Arizona's Aug. 26 primary and the Nov. 4 general election approach.

In Washington, U.S. House Republicans, whose relations with the president have long been icy, are expected to demand changes to a 2008 anti-trafficking law that prevents Central American children from being immediately deported. The change is sought before they agree to Obama's request for $3.7 billion that his administration says is needed to respond to the crisis, which already involves at least 57,000 children and is expected to grow to 90,000 by the end of September.


Potential 2016 presidential contenders of both parties, inside and outside Washington, are starting to stake out ground.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a "tea party" favorite and possible White House contender, has signaled he will make an issue of Obama's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which provides relief from deportation for young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children and who meet certain other conditions.

The current influx of Central American children would not be eligible for deferred action, but some Republicans argue that the Obama initiative sent the wrong message around the globe.

On the other end of the political spectrum, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a possible Democratic 2016 hopeful, has warned that turning back the Central American children would return them "to certain death."

Caught in the middle is Obama, who has said his administration needs more flexibility to deal with the surge of kids, who are guaranteed hearings to vet asylum claims under the 2008 law now targeted for an overhaul by lawmakers who want to expedite the return of the children to their home countries.

Obama's $3.7 billion spending request includes funding for immigration judges to reduce the lengthy wait times for hearings. It also includes $1.8 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, which takes care of the children in U.S. custody.

But Obama has come under pressure from his party's left flank to back off any attempt to roll back legal protections for the kids, who mostly are from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. This could open a rift in the president's party, which is trying to hold onto its majority in the Senate.

There also are potential longer-term political consequences.

Any lingering hopes that a compromise on immigration reform was still possible in 2014 has evaporated in the political heat over the border crisis, even though the situation exposes many of the problems reform backers hoped to solve with more visas and faster immigration hearings.

The Democrat-controlled Senate last year passed a sweeping bipartisan bill that sought to address immigration in a comprehensive way.

Among other elements, the legislation balanced a $40 billion investment in border security with a pathway to citizenship for most of the estimated 12 million people living illegally in the U.S. and a new system to regulate the future flow of foreign workers. The Republican-controlled House declined to act on the bill.

If Republicans win control of the Senate after their candidates took hard-line positions, Congress might not return to the topic for years.

"It's widening the divide on immigration, if that was possible," said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science and Chicano/Latino studies at the University of California-Irvine. "Where immigration up until now has divided the right — the business right, which supports a comprehensive bill, and the tea party right — this divides the left."

Epicenter of debate

As in 2010, when Gov. Jan Brewer signed the controversial immigration-enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070, Arizona is turning into the epicenter of the political debate.

According to a poll this month of 400 "high-efficacy Republican primary voters" conducted by HighGround Inc., 62.8 percent list immigration and border issues as the state's top concern, a figure 13 percentage points higher than the peak of the furor over SB 1070 in June 2010.

Even more — 66.3 percent — want the immediate return of the unaccompanied children to their home countries.

"People are outraged," said Doug Cole, HighGround's senior vice president and a veteran GOP political consultant. "The situation with the children walking into this country across our southern border has united the (Arizona GOP) electorate in a manner that is nearly unprecedented."

The poll numbers explain why immigration politics have suddenly taken root in the governor's race and other GOP primaries.

Republican gubernatorial candidates Ken Bennett, Doug Ducey, Christine Jones, Frank Riggs, Scott Smith and Andrew Thomas have spoken out against illegal immigration.

On Thursday, Bennett called for the creation of a "special strike force" to fight "illegal activity" at the border and throughout the state.

"Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems hell-bent on continuing its ill-advised immigration politics, fueling anger on an issue that should be marked by compassion and reason," Smith, a former Mesa mayor, said in a statement on the crisis.

Political pressures

Candidates in congressional races are also reacting to political pressures surrounding the crisis.

Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., who represents the 2nd Congressional District on the Arizona-Mexico border, is bracing for a tough re-election battle in November. He is supporting a bipartisan bill offered by Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would change the immigration-hearing process and expedite it.

Barber defended the legislation as a reasonable response to "a real crisis."

But members of his party, who criticize the legislation as eroding children's rights to due process and replacing it with a new sham hearing, are startled by Barber's support of the bill, seeing it as a purely political move.

"On this issue ... people either run away from it or they sit around and exploit the hell out of it," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz. "You have people like Ron running away from it, and you have other people running for office exploiting the hell out of it."

Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., the senior member of the state's House delegation who is retiring after this year, said he didn't think the political impact of the border crisis would hit as hard around the country as in Arizona, where immigration is an everyday issue.

"Obviously, it affected Barber in a way that he felt that he had to sign onto it," Pastor said. "He's right there on the border, and obviously he feels, and the people who are advising him feel, that this is what he has to do."

Not partisan

Republican Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake last week introduced legislation to address the crisis, criticized Obama for not reaching out to Congress in a constructive way.

In July 9 remarks, Obama bluntly asked if Congress was "more interested in politics" or interested in solving the problem by approving his emergency-spending request.

"I've dealt with five presidents: I've never seen one who is this combative about an issue of this gravity," McCain saidin an interview with The Arizona Republic. "Any other president I would have known would have called leaders together and said, 'Look, we've got to work this out together.' He's spent his time attacking Congress. I mean, why? What is the point?

"This is a humanitarian crisis. Children are being horribly mistreated by the worst low-life people in the world, these coyotes. We can, by the way, work together to get this issue addressed."

Flake suggested the reaction to the border crisis is not falling along traditional partisan lines.

"In terms of the politics, frankly, it depends on what the president and the Democrats do from here," Flake said. "If they are seen to be blocking reasonable efforts to stem this tide, then I think it will hurt them. Because this is not just a base issue for Republicans. People all over the country are saying to stem the tide, you've got to return people home."

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the administration is committed to enforcing the law and that if a judge determines a migrant doesn't qualify to stay, "that person will be repatriated and sent back to their home country."

Earnest also addressed the pressure coming from Grijalva and other Democrats: "I think that there is widespread recognition among members of both parties that we're dealing with a serious situation at the southwest border."

Others in the immigration-reform community are hoping that the political fever will subside once the facts of the crisis begin to settle.

"Some in the Republican Party are doing everything possible to use it to say the border is out of control and Obama is lax on enforcement and his previous executive action is the reason," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the liberal pro-reform organization America's Voice. "The truth of the matter is none of those are true, and I think as the debate is evolving, that's not holding. These kids aren't running away from the Border Patrol, they're running to them. And they're not coming across the whole border; it's just in one sector."

That message may struggle to get heard in a politically charged atmosphere where candidates are trying to one-up each other with border-security proposals.

At least one veteran of the 2010 election, dominated by SB 1070 and border-security talk, hopes 2012 doesn't turn into an echo of that year.

"This election, I hope, proves that that is not the determining factor of who gets elected governor and who doesn't," Grijalva said. "Because it scares the heck out of me that someone can ride into elective office in Arizona based on race-baiting and hate-mongering."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...zona/12930583/

Let's see if there is any common agreement over this/these issues. Charity, We receive requests here at home all year long for financial assistance from charities, some we are very sympathetic with. How do we arrive at a sensible common sense decision. How much money is available that is not immediately needed or will be needed in the near future? Can we do that without putting this donation on a credit card or necessitating using a credit card for our own needs? Principle one: If cash on hand is not available, we choose to pass on this charitable opportunity.

Now begs the question: How much CASH RESERVE MONEY does the U,S. have to even consider being charitable in this instance?

Since that answer is NO CASH AVAILABLE, and over extended on credit, we should spend no more than it costs to remove them (they are here illegally) from the necessity of providing for them on the credit card! Depriving Americans is not American governments rightful business!