House immigration hearing blasts Senate measure

House immigration hearing blasts Senate measure

Republican, Democratic ire, and actions at local levels indicate foes' rising tide
- Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, July 19, 2006


(07-19) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A House hearing called "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?" produced vivid warnings Tuesday about the Senate's version of a comprehensive immigration bill.

Republicans on the House immigration subcommittee showed no hesitation in slamming the Bush administration and their Senate colleagues for departing from the House's enforcement-only approach. Even Democrats complained that the hearings -- part of a summer-long series -- had the country "up in arms about the fact that there's an amnesty bill out there," said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles.

Another sign that anti-illegal immigration forces may be gathering steam is the number of measures by state and local officials to deny public services to illegal immigrants and crack down on landlords and employers who shelter and hire them. Colorado recently enacted a law restricting benefits and employment for illegal immigrants; Georgia took such action in April; and the Pennsylvania Legislature is considering similar bills as are several small towns in that state.

Democrats, joined by one Republican, criticized the hearings as a way for Republicans who control both houses of Congress to run out the clock, having done nothing on immigration before they adjourn this fall to campaign for re-election.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood (Los Angeles County), said Republicans were vying to "see how many times they can use the word amnesty in one sentence," while doing nothing to work out their differences with the Senate.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., agreed that holding "faux hearings" months after the House passed its enforcement-only bill in December -- a four-day process without any hearings or amendments -- was a backward approach.

The Senate this spring approved a bill that would provide a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country and a guest worker program for new arrivals, as well as pay for tougher border enforcement. The House bill would greatly increase fines on employers, build a 700-mile fence on the Mexico border and make it a felony to live in the country without proper immigration documents or to help those living here illegally.

Flake sponsored a House bill similar to the Senate's version, but it did not come to a vote.

House Republican leaders contend the Senate bill repeats the mistakes of the 1986 immigration legislation, but Flake argued the 1986 bill failed because it was not comprehensive enough: He said its employer sanctions were never enforced, tougher border enforcement was never funded and no provision was made for new unskilled workers to enter legally through a guest worker program, ensuring that illegal immigration would continue.

Democrats also complained -- and Republicans agreed -- that enforcement of the 1986 employer sanctions dropped sharply under the Bush administration, with notices of intent to fine employers falling from 417 in 1999 to just three in 2004.

Ardent foes of expanded legal immigration -- the crux of the Senate bill -- who were called as witnesses argued that legal and illegal immigration are linked, because legal immigrants "provide information about jobs and housing to their relatives and friends back home," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

Newly legalized migrants, especially those who eventually gain citizenship, would be allowed to bring in family members legally, causing large chain migrations, he warned.

Rep. Sylvester Reyes, a Democrat and former Border Patrol sector chief in Texas who was called by Democrats to testify, said illegal immigration actually fell sharply right after the 1986 act -- as much as 80 percent in some areas -- as workers considering entering illegally worried that they would not be able to get jobs. But crossings rose again sharply as word spread that the employer sanctions were not being enforced because of widespread document fraud.

Berman said business groups came to lawmakers after the 1986 act and insisted they not be held responsible for validating documents -- and Congress let them off the hook.

Several witnesses, including Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum, a conservative, pro-family group that she founded, assailed a compromise guest worker bill by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, that would create private overseas offices called Ellis Island Centers where businesses could recruit foreign workers.

"Private industry would no doubt be happy to set up Ellis Island Centers in India, Pakistan and China to completely bypass any limit on H1B visas and bring in an unlimited number of lower-paid engineers and computer techies to replace Americans," she said in her written statement, as well as recruitment centers in the Philippines that "would decimate the U.S. nursing profession."

E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 4
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... K1F1I1.DTL