Sunday, June 24, 2007
Immigration debate lacks usual predictability
Letter from Washington: Bill expected to return to the floor Tuesday.
DENA BUNIS
Washington Bureau Chief
The Orange County Register
dbunis@ocregister.com With most bills that come up in Congress, it's not difficult to read who's on what side.

A bill requiring that cars get more miles to the gallon? Consumer groups for. Auto makers against.

A bill to make it easier for people to join a union? Labor for. Business against.

As with most things in the immigration debate, the normal rules do not apply.

Who stands where on the Phoenix of an immigration bill that is set for resurrection on Tuesday is anything but predictable.

Take the immigrant groups.

You'd think that a bill that promises a chance at legalization for millions of undocumented workers and could reunite tens of thousands of families whose kin have been on line for a green card for years would be a no brainer for support from groups who represent immigrants.

Not completely. Most mainline national immigrant groups are behind this bill. Well, that's not exactly true. They are behind the process. There is much about the proposal that these organizations don't like. But so far they are willing to hold their noses and urge senators to vote yes. They know if the measure dies in the Senate, immigration reform is likely impossible for the foreseeable future. But if a bill does get through the Senate, they believe it's possible for it to get "better" in the House.

Frank Sharry, whose National Immigration Forum is an umbrella group for immigrant rights groups around the country, says based on polling and what his organizations tell him it would be irresponsible not to do everything possible to move this bill forward.Cecilia Munoz, of the National Council of La Raza, says people stop her in the street to ask about individual provisions. That's how closely immigrants are following this legislation.


But there are other immigrant groups – mainly organizations that are community-based and less willing to compromise politically – that say this legislation is worthless. They say no bill is better than a bad bill, and they don't believe the measure can be fixed in the House. They insist their constituency would rather take their chances with the next Congress.

Both groups have the same problems with the substance. They worry about the provision that moves the nation's immigration policy from one centered on family reunification to one largely based on a person's skills. They oppose clauses that require temporary workers to work for two years and then go home for a year before coming back to the U.S. to work temporarily again with no path to a green card. And they worry about families being unable to reunite with each other because of an eligibility cutoff date for the green card line that will leave loved ones stranded overseas.

But unlike Sharry and the majority of immigrant groups, organizations like the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, based in San Antonio, have been lobbying lawmakers to vote no. Antonio Gonzalez, the group's leader, called the Senate bill "poisonous flim flam legislation." He accused the national organizations of "drinking the Beltway Kool-aid" and just wanting to have a victory.

This isn't the only schism evident in this debate.

Take organized labor.

The labor unions whose membership is made up almost exclusively of immigrants, such as the Service Employees International Union and UNITE Here, want the process to continue.

Eliseo Medina, SEIU's executive vice president, said there is no disagreement among immigrant supporters that the Senate bill is bad.

But, he says, pulling the plug means the status quo. He says it means migrants from Mexican will continue to die in the desert while trying to cross the border illegally. He says it means there will be more workplace raids rounding up illegal workers and separating them from their families. And it means more local communities will pass ordinances to crack down on illegal immigration because the federal government isn't doing it.

So Medina agrees with those who say that as long as the process is continuing, there is hope for a bill the immigrant community can live with.

No way, say other powerful union groups, such as the AFL-CIO and the building trade unions.

They make a basic labor-centered argument: the bill will depress wages of American workers and continue to exploit immigrant labor.

Organized labor has opposed the kind of temporary worker program in the bill for years. Temporary workers, after all, don't become union members. And companies, they say, will be able to pay these temporary workers less and that will also mean lower wages for American workers as well.

The split in these organizations has put some lawmakers in a tough spot – most notably Sen. Barbara Boxer who as of week's end was still undecided about how she'll vote. It has made Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders – the Senate's only socialist – decide to vote no.

All of this could make for some interesting calculus as the Senate votes Tuesday on whether to bring this bill back to the floor. Supporters need 60 votes. In the last go around, only seven Republicans voted for the motion to go on with the bill. And 12 Democrats didn't. The vote was 50-45 and the bill was pulled from the floor.

A steadfast group of Republican lawmakers oppose the bill because they say it's amnesty and they don't trust that it has enough elements to truly police illegal immigration. It would be ironic if the votes of those senators, combined with those of Democrats who oppose it for just the opposite reasons, end up derailing the measure for a second time.

There is one thing those on both sides of this argument agree: the votes will be close.

We'll be watching.

Bunis is the Register's Washington bureau chief.


http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ne ... 742453.php