Rove and Cornyn Want States to Leave Immigration Policy to Feds

Senator John Cornyn and Karl Rove were in East Texas on Monday to discuss immigration at a panel sponsored by the Texas Employers for Immigration Reform.

It's interesting to watch Rove's moves on immigration. As a political strategist, he's always happy to have a wedge issue to focus voters and the media on something besides the president's shredding of the constitution or his own close calls with justice. But the immigration issue has backfired on the GOP. It's red meat to their base, and at the same time, backlash from the increasingly virulent rhetoric surrounding this issue threatens to undermine a decade of improving relations between the GOP and Latino voters. If the GOP pushes for laws that would please the anti-immigration base of the party, it would also alienate the business world and its funding base, who argue that without immigrant labor, their businesses would shut down.

So the Republicans have been trying to have it both ways - paying homage to the anti-immigrant wing in theory while catering to the corporate world in practice. If you have any doubt about how hard it is to walk that tightrope, take a look at the feedback that Cornyn and Rove received on the right-wing blogs covering the East Texas Panel.

Cornyn was pillaged for suggesting that immigration policy should be left to the federal government, but the biggest backlash came over Rove's comments regarding the question of deportation.

If you think we can take 5 percent of our work force and throw them out, you're kidding yourself," Rove said. "We would suffer serious economic damage. There's a moral cost. There's a practical cost."

Here is the response from a Lone Star Times commenter to Rove's quote.

What Cornyn and Rove mean is: “Monied GOP interests need cheap labor to exploit, so we have to consider the ‘economic’ impact.” Let’s at least tell it like it is.

As with so many other issues that can only be solved through complicated, "nuanced" policies, (think global warming or mideast peace) the GOP doesn't really want to solve this problem. So the best they can do is send the former deputy chief of staff out to try to soften the worst of the rhetoric and hope that the blow-back isn't too bad. And maybe they can blame it all on the Democrats. So far no one seems to be buying it.

john cornyn is actually right about something (and it's about time)

We don't agree on much with Sen. John Cornyn, a tried and true Texas Republican that stands on the wrong side of issues such as SCHIP and Iraq and recently authored a "sense of the Senate" resolution condemning liberal organization MoveOn.org for an ad they took out in the New York Times.

There's not much doubt that we will support the eventual Democratic nominee that will run against Cornyn in 2008. In the primary, Texas Democrats will choose between Rick Noriega and Mikal Watts, both of whom would make an all-around better senator for Texas.

But maybe Cornyn's not all bad.

Here's what Cornyn and his staff had to say in a constituent response email about the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (S. 988) introduced by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

As you know, the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes employers in certain industries to hire temporary and seasonal workers—subject to an annual cap of 66,000 employees—from outside the United States. The H-2B program is designed to help U.S. employers fill a one-time need, seasonal need, peak-load need or intermittent need.

I supported a comprehensive immigration effort that would include a robust temporary worker program that meets the needs of the U.S. labor market. Though the comprehensive immigration reform proposal debated this year could not be adopted because of significant flaws, I continue to push for the Senate to re-engage the debate on immigration reform this year. As an interim step, I support reform measures that will streamline existing temporary worker programs, like the H-2B visa program, as a solution to demands in critical sectors like the Texas landscaping and construction industries. President George W. Bush has recognized the need for such reform and has taken the lead in looking at ways to administratively reform both the H-2B and H-1A seasonal worker programs.

I support the goal of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (S. 988) as introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski. I am also exploring introducing a more comprehensive legislative package designed to create more targeted reforms to both the H-2B and H-2A programs and to permanently re-authorize the “returning worker” provisions introduced in the Save our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–13, as amended by P.L. 109–364).

I guess even if you make a career of bad decisions, you'll eventually do something right by accident. Or, he truly stands on the side of small business and supports legal immigrants and seasonal workers, both of which are invaluable to Texans and our state's economy.

Thankfully, Sen. Mikulski was able to protect small businesses for another year by adding language to the 2008 fiscal spending bill. In a press release, the senator said we could count on her to keep fighting for small business.

“Who says my promises made are not promises kept? I told small businesses they could count on me to keep fighting, and I meant it,” said Senator Mikulski. “Without these seasonal workers, many businesses would not survive – forced to limit services, lay off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.”

The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, signed into law by President Bush in May 2005, made significant changes to the federal H2B (non-skilled seasonal worker) visa program. Among the changes, it exempted returning seasonal workers from counting against the national cap of 66,000 people, created new anti-fraud provisions, and ensured a fair allocation of H2B visas among spring and summer employees. This exemption, however, was not made permanent in the 2005 bill, and has to be extended each year until Senator Mikulski’s proposal to make it permanent is passed into law. Last year, a last-minute, one-year extension was included as part of the 2007 Department of Defense authorization bill, but it expired on September 30, 2007.

Senator Mikulski joined Senator John Warner (R-Va.) in March 2007 to introduce a stand alone bill to extend the provision, and also included it as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration packages considered by the Senate this spring. Unfortunately, no bill was brought up for a final vote before the provision’s expiration.

Today’s provision is a one-year extension to allow companies to continue to get the seasonal workers they depend on, and will expire on September 30, 2008.

Mikulski vowed that she won't give up until the fix is permanent. We're glad that John Cornyn stands by her side. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, however, is another story. She is remaining intentionally ambiguous on the issue. A line from her constituent response:

Temporary work visas play an important role in ensuring U.S. companies have the workers they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. However, U.S. immigration policy must ensure American workers have every opportunity to compete for available jobs.

Perhaps she will remain vague, since anything regarding immigration is seen as controversial in Texas. But why is she worried, when she enjoys such high approval ratings? It seems like she has some new career aspirations which might prohibit her from taking any real stances for the remainder of her Senate term.

The Real Reason Bush Wants to Revive the Immigration Bill

After suffering a humbling defeat only a few short weeks ago, the Bush administration is pushing a revised immigration bill like its life depended on it. Current editorials opine about how Bush's experiences growing up with Hispanics in Midland, Texas shaped his compassion for immigrants, and that he's fighting for this legislation as part of his legacy, that it will be the signal piece of legislation for Bush's second term.

Bull.

There are plenty of good reasons to tackle the immigration policy and bring a sensible and humane piece of legislation to the floor. But don't kid yourself. With polls slipping, the Republicans (especially those outside the executive branch who will soon be facing re-election challenges) would like to get this issue behind them. The debate on our borders always had the potential to split the Republican Party like no other issue. You know when you hear stalwart conservatives denounce the zealots on rightwing radio that the Republican Party isn't helped by this debate.

No, the real reason is much more cynical. It's exactly because the issue is red meat to conservatives that it is important to have this debate now. Because no other issue besides abortion can so galvanize the public. And what the Republicans need now is something to grab the headlines, something that will send the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters over the deep end. Because what else could distract the public from Vice President Dick Cheney's absurd assertions that he is no longer subject to oversight or accountability?

Think this is too cynical? That risking the future of conservatives who will soon be defending their records to a disgusted public puts the stakes too high? It's as Rovian a strategy as attacking an opponents strength. Or dumping unfavorable news on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

Remember when just after the elections the Democrats were riding high on their recent election victories, and politicians like Jack Murtha were suddenly talking credibly on withdrawal plans? The administration had gone on record saying a new war plan was in the works.

What happened next? Daddy Bush brought in James Baker to craft the report of the Iraq Study Group. Bush Sr. might have actually thought he was buying his son a way out short of total capitulation, but he underestimated Dubya.

Bush grabbed onto the report and immediately challenged it. So rather than the Iraq Study Group recommendations being the compromise to begin winding down the war, it reset the debate. He also immediately signalled he was delaying the announcement of his new war strategy, which then coincidentally came out at the beginning of the legislative session. Instead of having the spotlight to themselves to highlight their agenda on popular issues such as the minimum wage, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democrats were relegated to the business section while front pages and editorials debated the pros and cons of the President's new strategy.

And what was the President's new plan? A surge. In the light of almost unanimous opposition from his own military advisors, he called not for a withdrawal, but for a plan to increase troop levels. It was the most inflammatory decision he could make. Of course, it wasn't going to work, but again, it reset the debate. When was the last time you heard anyone discuss Murtha's proposals? Or even the Iraq Study Group? Yes, our brave men and women are fighting and dying every day, not for a military strategy, but a political one, not for winning wars, not even for winning elections, but simply to preserve power.

So we will have another bitter debate on immigration, one only slightly more likely to succeed than the last one. But it might still serve its intended purpose - to distract the public from the fact that our second-highest elected official has declared himself above the law.

Rahm Emanuel is introducing legislation to defund Cheney's office.

....if you really believe that you're not part of the executive branch, we should[n't] fund you in the executive branch....."

"It's not like I'm looking for this fight," replied Emanuel. "But if the vice president wants to act like he's unaccountable and above the law ... I'll meet that."

In any other presidency, in any other time, this would be the run-up to a constitutional crisis. In the Bush administration, its a good reason to whip up the immigration debate.

Petitioners Gather Signatures to Put Immigration Issue on Ballot

A group known as "Let the Voters Decide" was in Farmers Branch this weekend gathering petitions to put its immigration ordinance on the ballot. Volunteers were walking in several neighborhoods, asking registered voters to sign a petition challenging the ordinance that requires landlords to verify proof of citizenship or residency for every tenant. The group has a week to sign up 5% of registered voters based on last May's election in order to get the ordinance on the ballot. This works out to about 726 valid signatures.

The controversial measures passed by council have brought national attention to this town of 30,000 in Dallas County. The ordinances, put forth by councilman Tim O'Hare, also include making English the official language and another one enabling the Police Department to check the residency status of people arrested for a crime. A fourth provision that would have made employers criminally responsible for hiring illegals was withdrawn. The petition being circulated targets only the landlord ordinance.

Reactions of residents to the measures vary. Some are extremely embarrassed and feel that the ordinances do not reflect the tolerant community in which they live. Others adamantly feel that the council did the right thing. Most agree that the city laws are a poor substitute for comprehensive federal immigration reform.

And not all signers of the petition are in favor of repealing the ordinance. Some residents feel that such a controversial issue should be subject to wider debate, but still expected the majority of Farmers Branch voters to support the ordinance. City council members seem content to let the issue be decided by "the will of the people."

City Council member Tim O'Hare said the petition process is a good check on the City Council, but he's confident voters would back the ordinance if it came to a vote.

"I don't think it will be close," he said.

Mayor Bob Phelps said residents have the right to gather signatures. "If they do that and the city secretary certifies everything, then I certainly have no problem with it," he said.

As of this weekend, the petition drive appeared to be going well. If enough signatures are validated, the ordinance could be brought before the Farmers Branch town council for a revote. If town council still supports the ordinance, it would be put on the May ballot for voter approval. If the ordinance takes effect in January, as planned, several groups stand ready to file lawsuits to prevent its enforcement.

farmers branch passes anti-immigration measures

At tonight's meeting, city council members in Farmers Branch unanimously approved strict new anti-immigration measures, including standardizing English as the official language of the city and imposing harsh penalties for landlords and business owners that deal with illegal immigrants.

The Dallas Morning News reports that inside the hall, supporters applauded as the votes were announced. Gathered outside were hundreds of protestors in opposition to the new measures.

WhosPlayin? has reported on startling irregularities at the meeting where the controversial immigration measure was passed. According to a source, Hispanics were being turned away from the meeting and a disproportionate number of Caucasian citizens were admitted to the hearing.

It seems that although the crowd outside was 90% Hispanic and 10% White, the authorities only let about 10% Hispanics into the chambers for the meeting. According to one source, Hispanics were being turned away while whites were let in. The source estimated the attendees inside the chambers to be 90% white.

Farmers Branch is a Dallas suburb. According to Wikipedia's information from the 2000 Census, the city is 37% Hispanic. Demographics have continued to shift over the past six years.

Dallas Marches for Immigration Rights

An estimated 350,000-500,000 people marched in downtown Dallas on Sunday to protest proposed immigration reform legislation. The Dallas Morning News reports that the march "rewrote history" as the largest of its kind in North Texas. The protest was peaceful, with only one arrest.

"It rewrote history," said Roberto Calderon, a history professor at the University of North Texas who participated in the march. "There's no turning back. It makes concrete the larger demographic and cultural changes that are taking place for the community here in North Texas and Dallas."