Hearings deepen divide
By DANIEL GILBERT
dgilbert@potomacnews.com
Wednesday, July 19, 2006


A controversially titled House hearing Tuesday stoked fierce debate over immigration reform between lawmakers, as chances of achieving a bicameral consensus by November continued to dwindle.

Billed rhetorically as "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?" the hearing got under way after a barrage of criticism from House members accusing the GOP leadership of deliberately delaying progress on immigration reform.

Representatives from both parties disparaged the hearings as "mock hearings," "a con job" and "a sham," while GOP opponents of the Senate bill retaliated by branding that legislation as amnesty.

Tuesday's hearing continued a round of field hearings on immigration announced by the House GOP leadership last month before the two chambers go to conference on widely divergent bills.

Before a bill can be sent to President Bush, lawmakers will have to reconcile the wide-ranging Senate bill with the enforcement-only House approach.

House hardliners on immigration have strenuously objected to the Senate's offer of an eventual path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants, and a guest worker program they believe will fuel more illegal immigration.

"Congress and the administration have no credibility with the American people," said Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, to begin the hearing. "The administration will probably implement amnesty for millions of illegal aliens quite quickly, and enforcement will lag behind."

Proponents of the Senate plan shot back.

"These hearings are about one thing: running out the clock," said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., calling the hearings a "well-orchestrated effort to have this conference recess before the [November] election."

Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., accused the GOP leadership of "trying to beat up on the Senate bill," and berated his Republican colleagues for not moving ahead to conference.

Three of the four panelists testifying Tuesday vigorously objected to the Senate bill.

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the conservative Eagle Forum, railed against the government's limp enforcement of immigration law and a provision of the Senate bill providing illegal immigrants with an eventual path to legalization.

"The American people feel lied to," Schlafly testified. "Legalization plans or earned citizenship are euphemisms for amnesty."

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, said the central problem of the Senate bill was that by increasing legal immigration, it would further stimulate illegal immigration.

"Legal immigrants provide information [to illegal immigrants] about jobs and housing," said Camarota, whose organization advocates stricter limits on immigration.

James Edwards, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, compared the Senate bill to the now infamous Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that gave amnesty to three million illegal immigrants. "Long on promises, full of policy booby traps to ensure its failure," is how Edwards described the Senate plan.

Only Silvestre Reyes, a House Democrat from Texas, testified in support of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.

Reyes, a witness called by the Democrats, lamented the delay the hearings have imposed on immigration reform.

"I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see us talking and talking, when we're in danger because we haven't done the things we promised to do in securing our border," Reyes, who served in the U.S. Border Patrol for over 26 years, told his colleagues.

"We ought to be in conference. We are wasting our time with hearings like this," he said.

The House will hold two more hearings on immigration this week, discussing the impact of guest worker programs and the implications of expanding a fence along the border.
http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Sate ... 9372&path=