The Hill
The Big Question:Will the Senate tackle immigration this year?
By Sydelle Moore - 04/14/10 11:35 AM ET

Today's question:

What are the chances that the Senate will tackle immigration reform this year?

Some background reading here.

Bill Press, host of the "Bill Press Show" and a contributor to The Hill's Pundits Blog, said:

I'd like to see them do it, I think the country needs it, but — with Wall Street reform, a Supreme Court vacancy, and midterm elections — I don't believe there's a realistic chance the Senate will tackle immigration reform this year.

A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist at The Hill, said:

It's easy to see why immigration reform is a top priority for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and easy to see why the president himself has continued talking it up. But it's difficult to see anything passing this year. Tomorrow we are half way through April, and members have roughly three and a half months left of legislating in this session before departing for recess and campaigning in August. The adminstration, along with Democratic leaders in Congress, have decided on a political and legislative push of passing financial services regulation and a package of bills designed to mitigate the effects of a recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) allowing corporate and labor money to flow into the election process as never before. Their hope is to paint Republicans, should they oppose reform and election disclosure requirements, as defenders of Wall Street and big business who are standing in the way of economic improvement on Main Street. The Democrats are exhausted after the health care reform battle, which thus far has not improved their standing in public opinion polls. They remain divided over deficits and how soon they should be addressed and may not be able to pass a budget blueprint this year because of election year politics. Senators are working on a new energy and climate bill, members are working in both chambers to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, and indeed Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have co-sponsored a pragmatic, centrist immigration plan. Doesn't mean any of it will get done this year.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

Considering how politically tone deaf the Democratic leadership is -- witness their ploughing ahead on healthcare "reform," in spite of rising popular indignation at the creation of an insurance cartel -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if they next took up the even more volatile issue of immigration "reform."

Damon N. Spiegel, entrepreneur and writer, said:

I suspect the Senate will tackle immigration this year but tackling doesn’t mean success in reform. While we all know immigration reform is an issue in this country the politicians won’t touch this till after the November elections. A strong debate on reform will mobile the Republican party even more than it has during the Healthcare debate. While some might see the Republicans as anti-Latin, anti-immigration the reality is if the Economy does not recovery and the job landscape does not improve the GOP will be able to use this bill as a method to propagate that this bill will actually mean ‘job creation’. In this time of despair and economic disaster should it be time that we as a nation started to build and buy in American buy services and products that are created by Citizens of America. Is that really too much to ask? Is it really that outrageous? Are we racists and bigots by simply asking the people of this country to follow the law of the land?

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

Chances are very good - and very scary - that Congress will seek new immigration legislation.

Harry Reid already has a bill in the Senate. He says its goal is to help the economy and take care of "other purposes." Like other measures being planned, he wants to add millions of illegals to the voting rolls so they'll vote for his agenda.

In the House, Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Ortiz (D-Texas) have a bill with 94 co-sponsors calling for "comprehensive" immigration reform. Comprehensive to these people means amnesty. Every time there's amnesty (there should never be such excusing of law breaking), it means more will flood across the border.

Also, Senators Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Graham (R-S.C.) are cobbling together a bill that will include amnesty and require an ID card for all workers (illegal and legal). They too want to add millions to the voting rolls. This is bipartisan treachery.

Momentum from the passage of the healthcare monstrosity will be relied upon by President Obama to get one of these damaging proposals enacted. Americans should emphatically say NO.

Answers to the legal immigration problem are already on the books. It is against the law to hire an illegal immigrant. Enforce the law! It is the constitutionally assigned task of the federal government (see Article IV, Section 4) to "protect the [states] against invasion." Not just a military invasion, any invasion. And 12-20 million illegal immigrants is an invasion. The federal government is not doing its duty.

Eliseo Medina of the SEIU has stated that he wants to see millions of illegal entrants added to the voting rolls so that they will support "our issues." His issues amount to more government and socialism. There are already millions of illegals fraudulently voting.

The costs of illegal immigrant are huge: economically, politically and culturally. Massive immigration led to the demise of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century. Have we learned nothing from history?

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at UC Irvine, said:

Reid’s optimal strategy is to raise the issue to show his Hispanic street creds but let it go nowhere before the election. The bigger issue here from an economic standpoint is something that Republicans and conservatives need to understand: To avoid future tax hikes and to help Social Security stay solvent, the best immigration policy would be to target younger, very well-educated professional immigrants. Immigrants are the only way to trump demographics – but they have to be net tax revenue positive.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... -this-year