California Snake Oil

Here in my home state, the budget is over $25 billion in the red. One group is trying to find someone to blame, but not the Governor nor the legislature who got us into this mess. It's far easier to pick on a group with little or no political power.

This group consists of "undocumented workers" or "illegal aliens", take your pick, or to be more precise, their U.S. citizen children.

The plan is to put a proposition on the California ballot which, if passed, would cut off welfare payments to these children. Will this solve the budget crisis? Hardly, since the cuts would be less than 4% of the budget deficit. Would such a move be challenged in court? Certainly. There is no getting around the fact that under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, these children are U.S. citizens and cannot have their legal rights abridged, no matter what the status of their parents. Will it make a lot of voters enraged against "Mexicans" and "wetbacks"? But of course...

History tends to repeat itself, and this is no exception. Back in 1994, a bunch of zealots put anti-immigrant Proposition 187 on the ballot. The proposition would have cut health, welfare and educational benefits for illegals and, in some cases, for their U.S. citizen children. Sound familiar?

I wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times about Proposition 187, warning that the ballot initiative was clearly unconstitutional. The proponents of 187 dubbed it "SOS", short for "Save Our State". My article was entitled "Snake Oil Salesmen".

Proposition 187 was passed by an overwhelming majority of voters. Republican Governor Pete Wilson endorsed the proposition and went on to win the election.

Did Proposition 187 accomplish its stated goals? Hardly. The Courts declared the proposition unconstitutional. What's more, the campaign jolted the state's large Hispanic population into action. Millions of immigrants naturalized as American citizens and registered to vote. The Republican presence in the California State Legislature shrunk to about one-third.

Hopefully, the latest attempt to demonize immigrants from Mexico and their U.S. citizen children will fail at the ballot box. In any case, it will be a colossal waste of time and money since U.S. citizens cannot legally be deprived of benefits due to the immigration status of their parents.

One can only hope that the comprehensive immigration reform bill supported by the Obama Administration will pass Congress and be signed into law this fall. Let's get every worker in this country on the tax rolls, and handle this matter in an intelligent fashion.

We link to the latest legislative proposals from our "Immigration Legislation" page at

http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#3

Senate Bill Includes Immigration Measures

On July 9, the Senate, by a vote of 84 to 6, passed a DHS funding bill which includes a variety of immigration enforcement and benefits measures. The measure now goes to a House-Senate Conference Committee which must reconcile this bill with a funding measure previously passed by the House of Representatives which contains none of the immigration amendments added by the Senate.

ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

The Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) to provide that the DHS must complete 700 miles of actual fencing along the U.S.- Mexican border by the end of fiscal year 2010. Despite being funded for several years, the DHS has only managed to erect a fraction of this amount.

The bill also includes an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) which is aimed at preventing the DHS from rescinding the "No-Match" rule. Secretary Napolitano had announced her intention to do so earlier this week. This rule would require employers to fire workers who are unable to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security Records.

The bill also includes an amendment by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) which would effectively make the "E-Verify" program permanent for federal contractors. Not only would "E-Verify" be used to check the immigration status of new hirees, it would also apply to existing employees who are assigned to work under a federal contract. Before the Sessions' amendment passed, 10 Democrats joined most of the Republican Senators in voting for a procedural motion. The House bill would extend the "E-Verify" program, but only for a period two years.

However, both the mandatory "E-Verify" program for federal contractors and the implementation of the "No-Match" rule have both been enjoined by a Federal Court order since 2007. Therefore, it is not clear that either provision of the Senate bill would become effective even if they remain in the final bill after a House-Senate Conference Committee meeting, and are signed into law.

The Senate bill also contains an amendment by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IO) which allows employers, for the first time, to use the "E-Verify" program to screen existing employees as well as new hires.

DHS spokesman Matt Chandler criticized these amendments. He stated that they "are designed to prevent real progress on immigration enforcement and are a reflection of the old administration's strategy: all show, no substance."

BENEFITS PROVISIONS

The Senate also adopted two amendments offered by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). The first would eliminate the "widow's penalty". This would allow foreign-born widows and orphans to remain eligible for permanent residence even when the U.S. citizen spouse/parent dies before they achieve such status. The second would extend the "Conrad 30" J waiver program for physicians and the religious worker program for non-ministers until September 30, 2012. Currently, both programs are due to expire on September 30, 2009.

Finally, the Senate bill includes an amendment by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) which would make the EB-5 Regional Center Investor program permanent. Currently, the program is due to expire on September 30, 2009.

COMMENTARY

What should we make of the Senate's sudden interest in adding far-reaching immigration amendments to an appropriations bill?

Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel, states, with regard to the "No-Match" rule that "while the Senate might think it has taken a step to fix illegal immigration, it has actually set into motion a rule that will jeopardize the jobs of tens of thousands of U.S. citizens who could be unjustly fired under the rule due to SSA database errors."

Mary Giovagnoli of the Immigration Policy Center is not impressed by many of the Senate's actions. She states that "enforcement-only amendments win on the Senate floor — bad policy, but great political theater. Unfortunately, political theater is often hard for politicians to resist when they are dealing with complex issues that defy simple solutions."

We link to her analysis of the enforcement provisions of the Senate bill and to the ACLU's press release from our "Media" page at

http://shusterman.com/media.html#1
Since Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has promised to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by Labor Day, we hope that the most controversial immigration amendments to the DHS appropriations bill will be stricken by the House-Senate Conference Committee. Perhaps it would be better if major changes in our immigration laws were made after legislative hearings and an opportunity for Members of Congress to examine the arguments for and against each measure.