Recently proposed federal and state immigration legislation perpetuates a failed enforcement-only approach and side-steps desperately needed policy solutions to fix a broken immigration system in the U.S., say immigration reform proponents throughout the country.
"Since we lost the [immigration reform] bill last year, we have to go through this dark period where legislators consider enforcement-only measures. In the end, they will realize this is not the right approach," said Kevin Appleby, director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' office of migration and refugee policy during a phone interview with The Tidings from his Washington, D.C., office.
Locally, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution March 26 opposing the federal Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act of 2007, an enforcement-only bill in the House (H.R. 4088) and Senate (S. 2368).
The SAVE Act requires all U.S. employers within a four-year time frame to verify the work authorization of all new and current workers --- immigrants and citizens --- via an E-verify program. The program, SAVE Act opponents point out, relies heavily on a Social Security Administration database which contains high error rates according to government sponsored studies. The federal measure would also increase resources for both border and interior enforcement and authorizes funds to train state and local authorities to enforce immigration law.
In a March 26 press conference at City Hall, L.A. City Council president Eric Garcetti, and community leaders, including Seth Brysk, executive director of the American Jewish Committee Los Angeles, and Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights of Los Angeles, stressed that passage of the SAVE Act would undermine local law enforcement's ability to protect and serve its diverse community and likely "cripple" an already struggling economy while endangering the jobs of millions of legal residents and citizens.
As pointed out in the L.A. City Council's opposition resolution, the SAVE Act does not include a path to citizenship program for millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. Neither does it establish a guest worker program or address the issue of separated U.S. citizen children from their undocumented parents and "simply dumps more resources onto a failed policy instead of proposing a real solution to the problem."
At Tidings' press time, SAVE Act supporters had gathered 184 out of 218 Representatives' signatures needed for a Discharge Petition to force a House floor vote on the bill. Bills qualifying for a floor vote via Discharge Petition bypass the usual committee process that provides for the addition of amendments.
"We don't want the discharge petition to be successful because the SAVE Act is an enforcement-only bill. It runs counter to what the bishops are looking for in comprehensive immigration reform," said Antonio Cube, the new national manager of the USCCB's Justice for Immigrants Campaign who started in his position March 17.
Cube, previously the legislative director for the Washington State Catholic Conference, stressed the bishops are not opposed to immigration reform --- including border security and strengthening immigration enforcement --- as long as there's a way to bring 12 million undocumented people living in the U.S. out of the shadows, reunify families and create a workable policy for future immigration flows.
"If the SAVE Act passes, we'll still have people living in the underclass and employers paying under the table and employees being taken advantage of," said Cube. He noted the enforcement-only act will also do nothing to increase legal channels of immigration or solve the backlog in family visas.
For some people from certain countries, he explained, the wait in the backlog is up to nearly 22 years before relatives can immigrate and join family members in the U.S. Cube added passage of the SAVE Act would give enforcement-only proponents "what they need" so they won't "have to come back to the [negotiating] table" for comprehensive immigration reform bills.
State proposals
In Sacramento last week, Republican Assembly members proposed nearly two dozen bills aimed at cutting off public services to undocumented immigrants and punishing employers who hire illegal workers. One bill, (AB 44) supports repeal of birthright citizenship in the Constitution for children of foreign visitors and illegal immigrants, while another (AB 1758) repeals a 2001 California law that allows undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state tuition fees rather than the higher tuition fees required for nonresidents.
According to Carol Hogan, communications director for the California Catholic Conference, the "Assembly Republican Border Security Legislative Package" is "just an exercise" since the state legislature's democratic majority will likely nix the proposed laws. "Some bills will never get scheduled for a hearing and others will summarily be voted down," said Hogan.
Hogan thought Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a "fairly thoughtful statement" March 26 when he said it was a "big mistake" to blame undocumented immigrants for California's $16 billion budget shortfall.
"It's very easy to look for scapegoats," said Hogan. "I think he wanted to cut people off at the pass. The governor can point to a lot of [government] overspending. Very few policies have sunset dates. They just keep getting funded."
She predicted little legislation happening in Sacramento in the near future due to the impending budget showdown. "If Republicans hold fast to their position of no new taxes, there's going to be a meltdown this summer," Hogan said.
For further immigration reform information, visit www.justiceforimmigrants.org. For information on USCCB's upcoming Migration Conference July 28-31 in Washington, D.C., visit http://www.nationalmigrationconference.org/. |