Thread: Navigating immigration passage

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ne ... 583663.php


Monday, February 19, 2007
Navigating immigration passage
U.S. legislators discuss what a successful immigration bill needs.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
WASHINGTON – The debate about how to reform the nation's immigration system will soon heat up again on both sides of the Capitol.

With the Democratic takeover of Congress, two lawmakers long active in this issue will lead the House and Senate immigration subcommittees where policy decisions start. At his news conference Wednesday, President Bush reiterated his support for a comprehensive fix and said he believed this was an issue he could work on with the new majority.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, leads the House panel, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., heads the Senate subcommittee.

Lofgren recently sat down with The Orange County Register to talk about her plans for immigration. Kennedy declined an interview but answered by e-mail the questions posed to Lofgren.

Here are excerpts.






Q: What is your main goal as chair of the subcommittee?

Lofgren: Craft and guide to passage a comprehensive bipartisan, practical immigration reform bill.

Kennedy: We all agree that America's immigration system is broken. Millions of families wait for years to be reunited with their loved ones. Tens of thousands of employers are unable to obtain immigrant visas for the workers they depend on. The result is a growing crisis of illegal immigration. There's an urgent need for legislation and policies to fix the broken system.

Q: What will it take to get that done?

Lofgren: We're going to start right away and build on the work we did last year. The House passed the Sensenbrenner bill (an enforcement-only measure by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.), but most House members really never had the full issue before them. There's an educational effort that will have to happen here in the House and some reaching out to some people who think they disagree, and find common ground with them.

Kennedy: Right now, we have the elements in place to enact the reforms the American people have been calling for. The president and the House of Representatives are genuine partners in this debate. I am confident we can pass a tough but fair immigration plan that protects our borders, upholds our values, strengthens our laws and ensures our prosperity.

Q: Why has getting a comprehensive bill been so difficult?

Lofgren:People have strong views on this subject. I think that the section of the Republican caucus that Mr. (Tom) Tancredo (R-Colo.) seems to speak for seems very adamant about their opposition to immigration, and I don't expect that he and I are likely to find common ground. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground with others on the other side of the aisle. I think also that it was an issue that some thought could be used to political advantage, and there was a lot of angry rhetoric that made it more difficult to reach agreement. What I've been talking to some of my colleagues about is if we just stop yelling about this and just methodically work our way through the outstanding issues, we'd probably get a lot further.

Kennedy: On the issue of immigration, emotions run high, and divisiveness gets in the way of progress.

Q: The conventional wisdom is that the Senate will act on a comprehensive bill first. Is that so? Will something get to Bush's desk this year?

Lofgren: They probably will. We want to act promptly, and we also want to be inclusive. But we have some work to do. They did a lot of that already, and there's some things that we didn't have a chance to do last Congress. (Q: So you think it will get to the president this year?) Yes. I'm an optimist so I hope we will.

Kennedy: Yes, we can. (Sen.) John McCain (R-Ariz.) and I are working together to put forward a solid bill that will pass both the House and the Senate this year. The Senate spent weeks on our bill last year, so it makes sense for the Senate to take the lead. But our colleagues in the House are just as determined to pass a good bill, and we're working closely together.




Q: Is there one element of a comprehensive bill that's the most difficult?

Lofgren:I don't know yet. We've got disparate elements of American society pulling in different directions. People worry, and they have a right to say we don't want to do 1986 (amnesty) all over again. I don't either. I want something that is workable and lasting, which means we have to have a system that accommodates our current problem but will also work for the orderly movement of people across our borders and enforcement of our laws in the future.

Kennedy: The legalization provisions have been a source of controversy from the start, but they shouldn't be. It's wrong for opponents to call it amnesty.

Q: A plan that legalizes many of the 12 million illegal immigrants here. Isn't that amnesty?

Lofgren: The question is what kind of punishment. You don't have the death penalty for trespass. What kind of sanction is appropriate? Is it fines? Is it some other things? The word "amnesty" has some people very agitated, but I'm trying to listen to what that means to people in the House. What level of sanction will make people feel that there's justice? That's what we're trying to find out.

Kennedy: Not at all. Amnesty means a free pass. Our plan is tough but fair. Illegal immigrants already here can earn citizenship by working hard for years, paying a big penalty, passing all background checks, learning English and civics, and then going to the back of the line. They should be able to obtain a temporary visa that could lead to permanent residency, over time.


Q: Some say we don't need to deport the 12 million – that if we enforce the rules, the jobs won't be there, and they'll go home. Do you agree?

Lofgren: I don't think most observers believe that that's the case. I think I count myself among them. We should have better workplace enforcement, and that's going to be an element of the comprehensive bill. But you also need a system that works.

Kennedy: The primary cause is not too little enforcement, but too few visas. Employers insist on hiring immigrants to meet their labor needs. Family reunification is an essential goal as well. Our immigration system is broken because the American economy demands low-skilled workers, but our current immigration system doesn't grant enough visas to meet the demand. Enforcement alone cannot address these fundamental imbalances.

Q: Should the Real ID Act, which bans illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses, be repealed?

Lofgren: I don't know. It's a huge unfunded mandate. We're not going to take that up as part of this bill. We need to take a look at certainly the costs to states and localities.

Kennedy: I had many concerns about the act. The provisions were highly controversial, harmful and unnecessary. We need to revisit that piece of legislation and correct its harmful effects. The threat of terrorism hasn't ended, so we must do all we can to enact genuine measures to stop terrorists before they act and to see that law-enforcement officials have the full support they need. The provisions of the Real ID Act do not improve these efforts. They don't make us safer or prevent terrorism. What they are is an invitation to gross abuses and a false solution to national and border security

Q: Should foreign worker H-1B visas be capped? Changed?

Lofgren: Whatever we do on H-1Bs we're going to make sure that it does not adversely affect American workers. I think there is a weakness in the current program, and I want to make sure we address it. On the other hand, there are some very talented Americans who were born in other countries who have grown the economy. Take Sergey Brin and Google. I'm glad that Google is in Mountain View instead of Russia.

Kennedy: H-1B visas offer American businesses vital access to talented and highly skilled workers throughout the world. As in any labor program, we have to carefully manage the flow of nonimmigrant labor so that it complements rather than competes with the American work force.

GAWD, I HATE KENNEDY, HE IS THE BIGGEST JERK IN CONGRESS, THE MAN IS JUST PLAIN STUPID AND BENT ON DESTROYING AMERICA!!!THERE IS NO GETTING THREW TO THE MAN!!!