Publicado: 01-21-2010 02:27 PM
For advocates, the question is whether and how far to conciliate the administration’s new enforcement thrust to ensure that legalization passes, and at the same time, how to shift the debate on enforcement away from simply cracking down on illegal hiring. The White House and Senator Schumer have made clear that they want to focus primarily on creating a fool-proof system for verifying who is legally permitted to work in the US, so that the “job magnet” for illegal immigration is eliminated almost completely. This means much more serious and prohibitive fines on businesses that knowingly hire and retain illegal workers, and expanded use of workplace verification systems like “E-Verify,” which companies on federal contract are mandated to use, but is otherwise in use with only a small percentage of companies, and on a strictly voluntary basis.
Amazingly, Schumer has even called for the introduction of a national identification card, with a “biometric” identifier such as a thumbprint, that all Americans, citizens and immigrants alike, would be required to purchase and use to verify their employment eligibility. Pro-privacy groups like the conservative libertarian CATO Institute attacked the national ID card concept when it was first introduced in 1986, and since then, no one in Congress has had the temerity to re-introduce the idea. However, Schumer says he’s willing to confront the privacy groups and also immigration advocates who have refused to “bite the bullet” on workplace enforcement. In effect, the deal is now this: illegal workers already here can stay, and get legalized, but all future illegal flows must be stopped or reduced to a trickle. Schumer, in fact, envisions a 90% reduction in illegal hiring after just one year, which no one thinks is even remotely possible given the political and technical obstacles to implementation.
Still, some advocates want to appease Schumer by agreeing to the biometric card in pilot form, just as they agreed to the development of computer verification systems twenty years ago, but succeeded in bottling up and prolonging its implementation. Alternatively, advocates might agree to a partial expansion of the E-Verify system – making it mandatory in additional sectors of the economy, perhaps, but its full implementation subject to the achievement of lower error rates, especially a reduction in “false positives” (immigrants with green cards that the system wrongly “screens out”). Expanding E-Verify in this fashion wouldn’t prevent most workers without legal papers from getting hired, at least not in the short term, and would continue to drag out the workplace enforcement issue for a number of years. But opponents of illegal immigration are well aware of this fact and will be pressuring moderates in both parties to take a much harder line.
For advocates, the big danger in the current debate, perhaps, is that GOP conservatives may eventually agree to back a legalization program but only if it’s conditioned on a verifiable reduction in the level of illegal migration. When GOP conservatives introduced a bill along these lines in 2006-2007, it gained little support. But the idea has resurfaced after a study jointly sponsored by the Brookings Institution and Duke University and released in September 2009 endorsed the concept. The study proposed that the US Government Accountability Office be asked to formally “certify” reductions in illegal immigration, and that in place of a one-time sweeping legalization, illegal aliens currently residing in the US be legalized in proportion to certified reductions in the ongoing flow. The idea appalls advocates who see it as a clever ploy to undermine legalization. But depending on the degree of GOP opposition, and the emerging demands for compromise, a certification-based legalization concept could add additional pressure on advocates to agree to expanded enforcement.
In addition to these pressures, there are at least two other “wild cards” that could negatively influence the prospects for a reform bill passing this spring. They are:
The Economy. GOP conservatives have recently criticized Obama for considering an immigration bill when so many Americans are still out of work. Advocates reply that immigrants don't take the jobs of the native-born; therefore, the level of native-born unemployment shouldn't matter. Besides, workers with legal status will earn higher incomes, increase consumer demand, and improve the overall economy. The problem here is not the facts – many Americans agree with them, according to polls – but with the symbolism. Improving the status of the foreign-born when conditions for native-born workers are still so dismal may strike some as unfair, even preferential. The idea might sell better if the recession were ending and unemployment were declining. In fact, unemployment is scheduled to increase steadily for the rest of the year. Expect GOP conservatives to hammer away at this point, and to call for a suspension of immigration reform until the economy improves.
“National Security.” Recent history suggests that fear of domestic terrorism, real or imagined, can critically affect the public’s receptivity to immigration reform. Recall the George W. Bush came to office touting the need for comprehensive reform and pledging to work with Mexico to achieve it. But after 9/11 all such talk ceased. It took another 5 years, and Bush’s re-election, before immigration reform returned to the national policy agenda. Sadly, we may be entering a similar cycle. The deadly attack at Fort Hood, the arrest of US-based Muslim "extremists" in Pakistan, and the near-destruction of a US airliner at the hands of an inbound Muslim tourist, have created a new psychology of fear about subversion and terrorism on US soil linked to Al-Qaeda. While no one has suggested publicly that "lax" or "loose" immigration policies are responsible for these developments – in fact, the Ft. Hood shooter and the Muslims arrested in Pakistan were American citizens - renewed public suspicion about the loyalty and patriotism of foreign-born residents, or the effectiveness of homeland security defense systems could easily spill over into the immigration debate. As with the economy, much will depend on how heavily – and disingenuously - GOP conservatives decide to exploit these fears and concerns. But if they do arise in a big way, they will surely add more pressure on advocates to agree to even greater concessions on immigration enforcement - if only to keep the far right at bay.
Publicado: 01-21-2010 02:32 PM
Alternatively, the White House might try to pass smaller and less controversial pieces of immigration legislation now, and postpone consideration of the big-ticket items, including a sweeping legalization program, until after the mid-term elections. In 2007, Democrats did try a more piecemeal approach to legalization that combined the agricultural “guest worker” bill protecting business and labor alike and the so-called “DREAM Act” that would have granted legal status to an estimated 2 million undocumented youth who agreed to go to college or join the US military. Conservatives, meanwhile, tried to pass a new immigration enforcement bill, including an expansion of E-Verify, but without an accompanying legalization program. Both of these efforts failed. In theory, though, the two sides could now agree to combine their separate measures into a single bill, and both sides might walk away claiming victory. Advocates, because they secured a partial but significant legalization, and conservatives, because they derailed a more sweeping one.
A third scenario, perhaps the most likely, is this: the White House continues to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill but simply begins the debate on the bill without trying to resolve it before November. This is certainly not the ideal scenario. A more GOP-controlled Congress that might emerge after November is likely to be less receptive to legalization, and indeed, to immigration reform as a whole. But the advantage of this approach for the White House, however cynical, is that it can still take credit for initiating long-overdue action on immigration reform without risking an embarrassing pre-election defeat or forcing potentially vulnerable House Democrats to defend their votes. One version of this scenario is to have the Senate alone vote on the bill in the hopes of securing provisional passage, just as the Senate did in May 2006, prior to the start of that year’s mid-term election campaign.
Rahm Emmanuel, still the leading voice of White House caution on immigration reform, is reportedly pushing this “Senate vote-only” approach. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who insists that Democrats already have the votes to pass immigration reform, believes that further delay will damage the prospects for passage, just as it did in 2006. Democrats won a sweeping victory in the mid-term elections that year, but it turns out that they lost the momentum to pass reform in 2007. It’s a cautionary tale that should remind the White House that if immigration reform fails to pass in 2010, or at least by the end of Obama’s first term, Latinos won’t just be pointing their fingers at the GOP.
( TRATARE DE TRAELO EN ESPANOL)
Publicado: 01-21-2010 02:33 PM
ESTA ARTE ESTA MUY INTERESANTE.....?
Publicado: 01-21-2010 02:45 PM
Publicado: 01-21-2010 05:35 PM
Publicado: 01-22-2010 01:30 PM
En el área de Los Ángeles, este sábado se realizarán dos eventos, uno en Van Nuys y otro en la escuela Santee, para analizar la propuesta de reforma presentada por el congresista Luis Gutierrez.
En el caso de Van Nuys, la marcha iniciará a las 10:00 AM partiendo del Centro Cívico, 6230 del bulevar Van Nuys, hasta llegar a la Iglesia El Camino, ubicada en el 14800 de Sherman Way. Se estima que entre las 12:30 y la 1:00 PM dará inicio un foro informativo en el que participarán líderes. Entre ellos, la congresista Judy Chu, el presidente de la Asociación de Abogados de Inmigración AILA), Bernard Wolfsdorf y la directora ejecutiva de la Coalición de Los Ángeles para los Derechos Humanos de los Inmigrantes (CHIRLA).
"Es la primera vez que los grupos proinmigrantes llevaremos a cabo una marcha acompañada de un foro con expertos", comentó Juan José Gutiérrez, de la Coalición para los Derechos Plenos de los Inmigrantes.
"Creemos que después de la marcha de Phoenix el fin de semana pasado, esta movilización es importante porque daremos un impulso a un movimiento en el que participarán todos los sectores sociales: el movimiento obrero, abogados, grupos religiosos, comunitarios y políticos", señaló.
El mismo sábado a las 9:00 AM, se realizará en la cafetería del Complejo Educativo Santee otro foro comunitario de análisis sobre la misma iniciativa, en donde un grupo de panelistas revisará las diferentes tendencias políticas e ideológicas dentro del movimiento proinmigrante y discutirá si los puntos que plantea la propuesta de Gutiérrez representan una solución para esta comunidad. Se puede obtener más información en el (323) 602-3425.
Página siguiente 12
Imprimir Enviar Guardar Vincular a
Publicado: 01-22-2010 02:40 PM
Publicado: 01-22-2010 06:54 PM
No creo que se arriesguen a una revuelta de marchas de nuevo. Eso seria un suicidio para ambos partidos...democratas porque son el status quo y ahi se iria la ira....los republicanos porque quieren sacudirse la percepcion de anti latinos que han tenido.
TENEMOS QUE PRESIONAR LLAMANDO, organicemonos!!!