Thread: Shuler targets immigration

CITIZEN-TIMES.com
Shuler targets immigration
Bill would put focus on enforcement

By Doug Abrahms
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
November 3, 2007 12:15 am
WASHINGTON- Employers would be required to verify their workers are in the U.S. legally, under a bill Rep. Heath Shuler will introduce next week.

Shuler, D-Waynesville, who said turning off the employment magnet will reduce illegal immigration, has added 75 House Democratic and Republican co-sponsors for the measure. The bill would require employers to verify workers' status through a Department of Homeland Security database, which currently is voluntary.

"North Carolina is dealing with one of the fastest-growing illegal immigrant populations in the country," Shuler said. "This legislation represents a common-sense answer to the immigration problem facing our nation."

Shuler's bill also would add 8,000 Border Patrol agents, increase aerial surveillance of the border and spend more on workplace enforcement of immigration laws. So far, 41 other Democrats and 34 Republicans have agreed to co-sponsor the bill, including Reps. Mike McIntyre, Sue Myrick, Walter Jones and Robin Hayes of North Carolina.

Failed bills

A comprehensive bill that sought to legalize the status of millions of illegal immigrants, beef up border security and enforce labor laws failed to pass the Senate in June.

More limited immigration bills have been offered since, including one in the Senate that would have allowed children of illegal immigrants to remain legally in the U.S. after attending two years of college or serving in the military. That bill failed last month.

Shuler's bill "seems to be one of the most extensive enforcement bills introduced," said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. His group favors stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

Typically, freshman lawmakers stand little chance of getting difficult bills through the House, he said.

But the Democrats who control Congress are struggling with immigration policy, just as Republicans did before 2006, Camarota said. Many Americans are frustrated that so many immigrants continue to cross the Mexican border illegally, he said.

"I think there's real fear of the issue in the Democratic Party," Camarota said.

Voter discontent over immigration

Democracy Corps, a polling company run by Democrats Stan Greenberg and James Carville, released a memo this week warning Democrats that illegal immigration has caused current voter discontent. Many Americans wonder why the U.S. has lost control of its borders and doesn't go after illegal employment, the memo said.

"Voters want control of the borders and workplace and (to re-create) an immigration system that works and oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants - positions supported by about two-thirds of the country," the memo said. "If political leaders do not start there, they are not likely to be heard on other steps."

But stronger enforcement will do little to stem the tide of illegal immigration because the U.S. economy has a big need for workers, said Douglas Rivlin, a spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, which supports comprehensive immigration reform.

He said about one in 20 U.S. workers are illegal immigrants.

"In the long run, I predict that really only broad measures will pass and work," Rivlin said

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs. ... 30306/1250

The US can fill those positions with out of work Americans and legal immigrants.

We do not need 20 million workers who have so few skills, that their own countries don't want to deal with them.

Illegals should go back and try to come in the legal way. If they've been convicted of ANY crimes in the US, they should never be allowed to return.

I think we need to cut off ALL guest worker programs, close our borders and get our country in order and, if need be, let SOME workers back in, but only the number we might need, not extras. IF we need ag workers, let them in, pay them good, and make them go home at the end of the season. Some of the problem is that we have workers that work south during certain parts of the year and move up north for certain parts of the year (in Calif.). When they worked down here they collected unemployment from up north. When they worked up north they would collect unemployment from south. Nice gig uh?