Thread: Immigration reform to get a quiet kickoff

Immigration reform to get a quiet kickoff

The White House has downplayed expectations for a meeting next week of lawmakers involved in the issue. Some Democrats say they might not be able to pass a citizenship plan until after the 2010 vote.

By Peter Wallsten
June 20, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Lawmakers will gather at the White House next week for a working session on immigration reform, a meeting that has been highly anticipated by Latino leaders eager for President Obama to honor his campaign promise to put millions of undocumented workers on a "pathway to citizenship." But many Democrats are now concluding that they may well not have the muscle to pass such a controversial measure -- at least not immediately, and possibly not until after the 2010 midterm election.

And even though Obama used a Latino prayer breakfast Friday morning to reiterate his intention to pass some sort of new immigration plan during his presidency, next week's gathering demonstrates how the White House and congressional leaders are trying to strike a careful balance. They are seeking to assuage Latino voters, who are a key constituency, while avoiding specific promises on timing and substance, and while trying not to antagonize independent voters who may have a skeptical view of legalization plans.

Obama, for example, slightly rephrased his immigration goals during Friday's remarks, saying that new legislation should "clarify the status of millions who are here illegally, many who have put down roots."

"For those who wish to become citizens, we should require them to pay a penalty and pay taxes, learn English, go to the back of the line behind those who played by the rules," Obama said.

The biggest obstacle to speedy passage of a citizenship plan, according to interviews with lawmakers and Capitol Hill strategists, is the House. Democrats hold a wide majority there, but at least 40 members represent moderate or conservative swing districts with few Latino voters where legalization plans are unpopular and often derided as "amnesty" for lawbreakers.


"This a very, very difficult issue," said Rep. Jason Altmire, a Democrat elected in 2006 from rural western Pennsylvania. "The Democratic Party is doing everything they can to capture this very fast-growing community, and I understand that. But I'm not in that camp. I made it clear that I was going to take a very hard line on this, and my district takes a hard line."

The White House has downplayed expectations for next week's meeting. According to Latino lawmakers who met with Obama this spring, the president had indicated that he would host a summit with lawmakers and advocacy groups, just as he did with healthcare leaders when he kicked off the debate on that front-burner issue. Instead, the immigration event will be small and private and will include only House and Senate members involved in the immigration debate.

Moreover, the White House is careful to point out that Obama wants to merely begin the debate this year. He is not promising that a plan will be passed this year, although in his campaign he said he would make the issue "a top priority in my first year as president."

Since then, Obama has made it clear that he has two primary legislative goals for the year -- a healthcare overhaul and a global warming bill. Both proposals are already putting many swing-district Democrats in a political bind.

Still, some vocal Latino activists, led by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), have pledged to keep applying pressure.

Emma Lozano, an activist who is married to one of Gutierrez's congressional staffers, is organizing a demonstration to take place outside the White House during the immigration meeting, and Gutierrez has promised to tell demonstrators immediately following the meeting what the president said or did not say.

"We need to hear, 'This is what we're for, and this is the timeline,' " said Gutierrez. "This has got to happen this year. . . . Everybody in the House and the Senate is waiting for a signal from the White House."

In recent elections, some party leaders, including now-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, were advising Democratic candidates in swing districts to steer clear of immigration, or take a hard line by calling for stricter border enforcement and regulation of employers.

Surveys in swing districts presented to Democratic candidates by pollster Stanley Greenberg portrayed support for legalization as a political risk.

But Obama's success with Latinos last year has prompted some Democrats to find a rhetorical middle ground, as has the widespread belief that the party's political dominance relies in part on solidifying its standing with the fast-growing Latino bloc.

Greenberg produced new swing-district polling last summer to counter his earlier surveys -- this time reporting that "a policy and message that focuses on requiring illegal immigrants to become legal expands the Democratic advantage on the immigration issue." He said that pushing a "legal status requirement" is more popular than simply talking about border enforcement.

One senior Democrat intent on acting this year is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who faces a reelection campaign in a home state, Nevada, where Latinos are a fast-growing constituency. He has pledged to push legislation in the fall.

But prior efforts have failed in the Senate. And with the measure's long-standing champions, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), no longer taking the lead, strategists say that success is possible only if Obama steps in.

Some strategists believe the most likely time to press the issue will be in 2011, when Obama, once again needing Latino votes to win states such as Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada and perhaps to compete in Texas and Arizona, will be most motivated to lobby nervous Democrats on behalf of a legalization plan.

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

Times staff writer Anna Gorman in Los Angeles contributed to this report

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 9385.story

Some Democrats say they might not be able to pass a citizenship plan until after the 2010 vote.

I think this is the plan of many in Congress, wait to pass amnesty until after the 2010 elections, because if they try before, they know the Dems will lose their majority in the House and Senate. But if they pass it after 2010, they risk losing seats in 2012. Why?

Because they know the American people don't want any amnesty - not now, not ever. Period.

Give it up, Give up your amnesty goal, now. Time to come up with a new plan. Go rebuild your own countries. Stop wasting your time, effort, and our money here.

Sometimes I have to agree with you BIN.

Amnesty, been there done that and look what happened.

2010 may have some surprising election results.

Emma Lozano, an activist who is married to one of Gutierrez's congressional staffers,




Wait a minute......she's married to "Reverend" Slim Coleman, right?

Since when is HE a congressional staffer?

First I've heard of it.

They are the couple behind Elvira Arellano

We had better go there in order to keep them company.

Originally Posted by azwreath

Emma Lozano, an activist who is married to one of Gutierrez's congressional staffers,




Wait a minute......she's married to "Reverend" Slim Coleman, right?

Since when is HE a congressional staffer?

First I've heard of it.

I was just going to post about this! Everytime I've seen him he wears his collar -he is a man of the church. Well that store front church that kept a fugitive hidden for a year -Elvira. And now they have Flor who has been there over? a year. What's the point of Flor staying? She gets no press. I have her name on google alert -and I've gotten nothing for a long time now.

Surely this article has that fact all wrong. In May Roland Burris (who took Obama's senator spot) came to Waukegan to talk about 287g. Slim and Emma were there. Here's Slim on the right with Burris sitting to the left of him.

[quote="Richard:

[b]They are the couple behind Elvira Arellano [/b]


Yes, I remember...........we haven't heard anything about, or from, them in quite some time.

When in blazes was Coleman hired on as a staffer for Guitierrez?


We had better go there in order to keep them company.


Oh, I would love to see nothing more than a group of American citizens and legal immigrants......all fighting to stay afloat in this horrible economy.....meet them with a counter protest.

I don't know that it will happen this time, but I believe that this is an eventuality and they will be not only greatly outnumbered but extremely surprised as well.

Originally Posted by fedupinwaukegan

Originally Posted by azwreath

Emma Lozano, an activist who is married to one of Gutierrez's congressional staffers,




Wait a minute......she's married to "Reverend" Slim Coleman, right?

Since when is HE a congressional staffer?

First I've heard of it.

I was just going to post about this! Everytime I've seen him he wears his collar -he is a man of the church. Well that store front church that kept a fugitive hidden for a year -Elvira. And now they have Flor who has been there over? a year. What's the point of Flor staying? She gets no press. I have her name on google alert -and I've gotten nothing for a long time now.

Surely this article has that fact all wrong. In May Roland Burris (who took Obama's senator spot) came to Waukegan to talk about 287g. Slim and Emma were there. Here's Slim on the right with Burris sitting to the left of him.

I had noticed that Flor isn't getting a lick of attention Nobody cares!!

Elvira had a great deal to do with the alienation with her antics and bs but Emma didn't really help mattwers much either. Her big idea of a boycott and the thuggish tactics which were used did a lot of damage.

So, is Slim now working for Guitierrez or was that an error in facts? Or maybe Emma is just outright lying to the press?

If it's true, it's been kept awfully hush-hush.........we KNOW that those two would've been letting everyone know it just to make it known how "important" they are.

And, if it is true and been kept so quiet the next question has to be WHY.......what are they trying to hide?

For people like Sharpton and Burris it is about power not principal and they see Latino power as growing and they want to be on the same side. As for Coleman a lot of people speak Spanish since it is not all that difficult to pick up and once you can you can communicate in Spanish it is tempting to patronize and pander to the Latinos.