Thread: Pro-CIR people feel that amnesty is far away.

Comment from the Pro-amnesty people of Immigration Daily
Obama Pelosi And CIR

Immigration advocates have been concerned about the priority that President Obama assigns to immigration. A New York Times report dated January 10th said "On issues like immigration and climate change, Mr. Obama may focus on narrow moves first." A more recent report in the Arizona Daily Star dated January 18th says "the consensus is that the economic crisis will put immigration on the back burner until late this year or early 2010." All this has led to the anti-immigrationists gleefully crowing that "The outlook for [CIR] is so bleak that even Obama's 'immigration transition team' — two law professors, Tino Cuellar of Stanford University and Georgetown's Alexander Aleinikoff — has nothing to say."

However, we have consistently held that it is Congress which makes laws, and that the Obama administration's priorities would serve as guidelines only for Congress, nothing more. So lets take a look at where the Senate and the House stand. Since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, the Senate twice tried to enact significant benefits - once with CIR vide Kennedy-Kyl, and once with DREAM. Both times, the Senate failed to achieve cloture (unlike the situation four years ago, when the Senate succeeded in passing McCain-Kennedy), but still, at least the Senate tried. In the current Congress, Senate Majority Leader Reid has already signaled immigration to be a top-ten priority and introduced a place holder bill. The contrast with the House is marked. With Ms. Lofgren as chair of the House immigration subcommittee, few hearings and fewer markups of any immigration benefits bills proceeded even in subcommittee, and there was no floor vote. In the current Congress, Rep. Lofgren has apparently been silent on immigration benefits.

Now comes news that Rep. Lofgren has been promoted to Chair the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is possible that Speaker Pelosi will permit Ms. Lofgren to keep her gavel at the Immigration subcommittee despite the effects of her promotion on Ms. Lofgren's time and energy. This would be unfortunate, for two independent reasons. Firstly, it may signal that the House Democratic leadership has decided that not much effort will be needed in the immigration subcommittee in this Congress, thereby permitting Ms. Lofgren to wear both hats without unduly straining her - in this case, the House Hispanic Caucus may well see this as a declaration of war on immigrants by the Democratic leadership. Secondly, Ms. Pelosi has two much better options readily at hand, both to send a message of friendship to an important part of her caucus, and to free up Ms. Lofgren for her now-loftier responsibilities as full Committee chair. These alternatives are Ms. Jackson-Lee or Mr. Gutierrez as House Immigration Subcomittee chair. Both are stalwart champions for legalization, and it is quite likely that the House will become a hot bed of activity on the legalization front once either of these two takes the gavel.

We urge the Democratic leadership in the White House, and both Chambers of Congress to take heed of recent analysis of the November 2008 election which shows that "according to exit poll data, Obama actually performed about seven points worse among Hispanics in Colorado than did Kerry" and that the Upper Midwest appears to be trending Republican. The Hispanic vote continues to be important to Democratic victories, and it will be absolutely pivotal once the country's honeymoon with Mr. Obama fades into a memory. Acting on immigration benefits without delay is necessary if winning in elections is the goal, replacing the now-promoted Ms. Lofgren with a more activist Immigration Subcommittee chair is a good idea for pragmatic Democrats.

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2009,0122.shtm

Henry Cuellar gave a speech awhile ago to the Hispanic Caucus. The headline in Spanish language papers was "Immigration Reform - Now or Never!"

We ALL know there is NO way that headline would be permitted in an English language paper because the answer would be a resounding NEVER.

However, we have consistently held that it is Congress which makes laws, and that the Obama administration's priorities would serve as guidelines only for Congress, nothing more.

They'd better tell Elvira, who's busy sending letters to Obama.