Thread: Q&A with Rep. Sensenbrenner

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar..._cid=rss:site1

Immigration debate: Q&A with Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
By Danielle Knight

Posted 6/6/06


The House and Senate will soon start hammering out the stark differences between their immigration reform proposals. The Senate bill would put undocumented workers in the United States on a path toward citizenship. But the House proposal, firmly supported by the Republican leadership, opposes that plan, calling it "amnesty." Instead, the House passed a bill in December to beef up border security.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican, introduced the original House bill. As Judiciary Committee chair, he is expected to be the House's lead negotiator on the immigration bill. He spoke with U.S. News about how this may be the most difficult bargaining he's ever had to do.

Are you optimistic that a compromise can be reached?

A: This is the toughest thing that I have ever been asked to do in 27 1/2 years in Congress and 10 years prior to that in the Wisconsin Legislature. I can say that the demonstrations that took place a couple of months ago made the American people more polarized than ever before. But doing nothing is probably the worst of all possible worlds because if we do nothing there will be another 20 million illegal immigrants that enter the country in the next 10 years and that will overcrowd our schools and probably cause a collapse of the healthcare system.

Is there any part of the guest-worker plan or path to citizenship that you support?

A: I do not support anything that is an amnesty. The real problem with the Senate bill is that the people who would apply for amnesty would end up pricing themselves out of the market in many of the jobs that they currently hold. Amnesty is not going to be as successful as its supporters think because if someone legalizes themselves and then they end up paying Social Security taxes and state and federal securities, and increase their cost to their employer. If there are more illegal immigrants out there, they are simply going to fire the person who has been legalized and hire the illegal immigrant.

How do you define amnesty?

A: Amnesty is granting citizenship to an illegal immigrant that is currently in the country. It is very important if there is to be a compromise reached that the Senate back off amnesty. The way they have set it up is that it is an invitation to the same type of wholesale document fraud that occurred in Simpson-Mazzoli [an immigration bill passed during the Reagan administration]. It also has U.S. citizenship for sale for $3,250–which is the fine that the illegal immigrants would have to pay. And U.S. citizenship should never be for sale. But it's also unfair to legal immigrants who play by the rules. The Senate bill actually gives an incentive to illegally entering the country rather than playing by the rules and doing it the legal way.

You sound pessimistic about a compromise.

A: It's going to be a heavy lift. It's going to be tough work. There has to be some flexibility involved. We have to learn why Simpson-Mazzoli failed to solve the problem. It failed to solve the problem because the employer sanctions were never enforced. And that means we have to do things in the proper order. The first thing is to secure the border. There is not that much of a difference between the two bills on that. The second thing is to cut off the magnet of jobs for illegal immigrants. That means having realistic and enforceable employer sanctions. So hiring illegals because there is no enforcement ends up lowering the labor costs of the people who hire them, so much so that with low fines and very selective and spotty enforcement, people can get away with undercutting the competition that is only hiring citizens and legal immigrants with green cards.

Do you think it is possible to close the border in any meaningful way? Some say beefing up the border will not solve the problem.

A: There is no single solution in this issue. One of the reasons that there isn't is that we, basically, have let the issue of illegal immigration go for 50 years. And we are paying the price of ignoring this issue for such a long period of time. I make no apologies for being the person that brought this issue to national attention through the introduction of my bill.

Are there any border security measures that you think are more important than others? Or do you think all will make it into the final bill?

A: It's hard to say. What I'm concerned about is that the Senate bill requires us to consult with Mexico before building any kind of a barrier. We are building a barrier to protect ourselves, and we shouldn't have to talk to any foreign government on it. It is important that we fund the additional Border Patrol agents rather than authorize a lot of them and never fund any of them. That is what happened at the time the 2004 intelligence bill passed, which authorized 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and the administration only wanted to fund 188 of them.

Are there any border security measures that you don't support?

A: I'm not going to say what I support and what I don't support because that limits my ability to try to reach a compromise. What I can say is that border security and enforcing employer sanctions are essential if we are to prevent millions more illegal immigrants from coming across the border.

What are you hearing in your district about immigration?

A: I'm getting very strong support in my district. There are some church groups that are opposed to what the House of Representatives has done. But over Memorial Day, I did four parades in four distinct parts of my district. I got cheered in all four parades. There were more people that came out in the middle of the street, saying: "I want to shake your hand because you're doing the right thing on immigration."

Are people saying that border security should be the No. 1 priority?

A: People talk more about border security than enforcing employer sanctions. But even a lot of people with the church groups say that because we are not enforcing employer sanctions there are many employers who actually exploit illegal immigrants, and they don't like that. And neither do I. The people who hire large numbers of illegal immigrants are the 21st-century slave masters, and they are just as immoral as the 19th-century slave masters.

Do you think it is really possible to deport all the illegal immigrants?

A: No. However, if we shut off the jobs by enforcing employer sanctions, many of the illegal immigrants will simply decide to go home because they cannot make money in the United States. And you will see an attrition.

Do you think that the stark difference between the Senate and House bills reveals a larger split between House and Senate Republicans?

A: This is a really a bipartisan issue. It might not appear that way from the way the debate is going. But, for example, there are liberal Democrats, like the two senators from North Dakota, who are very strongly opposed to amnesty and a guest-worker program. They are also very strongly in favor of improved border security.

What do you think of the proposal put forth by Rep. Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, that is getting a lot of attention? It is a compromise that would provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to leave the country and then apply for guest-worker visas in the United States.

A: I have not reviewed the Pence proposal. The thing is that the conference committee will be dealing with the House bill and the Senate bill as starters. The Senate has passed a bill; the House has passed its version of a bill. But the Pence bill itself has passed neither house.

Do you think immigration will be a key issue in the upcoming elections?

A: How this works out will determine whether it will be a key issue in November. We still have a little more than five months before the election, and five months in the political season is kind of like centuries in history.

If no compromise is reached, how will this reflect on Congress?

A: I am committed to working hard to try to reach a compromise that solves the problem. On the other hand, I don't want to put my name on a bill that makes the problem worse.

Sounds like he is holding firm, but of course the proof is in the pudding.