House Republicans refocus immigration debate

by Brian Bennett - Mar. 30, 2011 04:06 PM
Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans are drafting legislation that would require the federal government to develop a plan to add more fencing, sensors, agents and even drones to stop every illegal entry into the United States.

The legislative effort offers another example of how a more conservative Congress has steered the immigration debate away from the Obama administration's two-pronged push for reforms and improved border security and toward a focus on strict enforcement of immigration laws. In December, a lame-duck House controlled by Democrats passed the DREAM Act, a reform that would have created a path to citizenship for some young illegal immigrants in the U.S., but it was narrowly defeated in the Senate.

The Democrats' Senate majority means the latest legislation is unlikely to pass, but the goal may be more political. By continuing to spearhead such measures, Republicans, who feel they are in agreement with most voters, hope to force Democrats to take a position on immigration issues in advance of the 2012 campaign.

The change in tone of the debate also comes as census data show that Latinos comprise the fastest-growing bloc of voters, potentially a complicating factor for Republican strategists. The number of Hispanic voters is increasing most in states that in 2010 gained congressional seats and Electoral College votes, according to a study released in January by the Pew Hispanic Center. Florida and Nevada, two battleground states in recent presidential elections, gained seats with Latinos as a growing share of voters.

Immigration skirmishes seem to excite the Republican base, said Wayne Cornelius, a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, who has spent more than 40 years studying cross-border migration.

"In the short term, they calculate they can gain more votes with these hard-liner proposals," he said, but some may have qualms about alienating Latinos.

A Republican strategist acknowledged there is debate within the party about how to handle immigration enforcement without driving away Latino voters who might otherwise agree with the fiscal conservative aspects of the party platform. Republican activists have said they believe some Latino voters support the GOP position on immigration.

But many Republicans want a modernized immigration system that is consistent with the values of an immigrant nation, and those party members who speak loudly against reforms are a "vocal minority," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the debate.

The U.S. has spent more than $4.5 billion to improve border security in the nine years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and critics argue that stopping every illegal crossing is an impractical goal.

"It is all just symbolic showmanship. It will never get through the Senate. It may have short term electoral utility but will not result in any real legislation," Cornelius said.

But U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, a Michigan Republican who authored the "Secure Border Act of 2011," said in an interview that "Congress needs to reflect the political will of the majority of the American people, which is to secure our borders."

The Republican effort to push the Department of Homeland Security to take a tougher stance on immigration enforcement follows a request last year by all seven Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee that asked DHS to determine how much money it needs to deport every illegal immigrant the government encounters. DHS has not estimated the cost, but a 2005 report by the Center for American Progress concluded it would require $206 billion over five years to deport the roughly 11 million people in the country illegally.

The Obama administration has, in practice, largely supported the argument that border security is the first priority, Cornelius said. "It is really a red herring. We will never have the border secure enough. ... Making immigration reform hostage to border security is a recipe for policy paralysis."

Miller's proposed legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security to give Congress a five-year plan to bring unlawful entries and smuggling down to nearly zero, and let Congress decide whether to fund it. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and 10 other Republicans have agreed to co-sponsor the bill, which could be introduced as soon as Thursday.

The proposal may come with such a hefty price tag that it's unrealistic to implement. But Republicans say cost should not be the Border Patrol's concern. "They need to be very candid with us and tell us what they need," Miller said. "We're the ones passing the budgets and we have to decide amongst ourselves."

Customs and Border Protection developed a strategic plan for securing the border by 2014, but some lawmakers said it doesn't go far enough. The Border Patrol reported to the Government Accountability Office that by October 2010 it had control of 873 miles of the nearly 2,000 miles of southwest border, or 44 percent.

Asking DHS how it can stop all illegal entries is "asking the wrong question," said Doris Meissner, former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, because law enforcement cannot change the underlying forces - jobs and the illegal drug market - that draw migrants and smugglers to the U.S.

"Members of Congress may want to pour concrete from sea to shining sea," Cornelius said, "but it is simply not realistic."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... z1I8ADvgUH