Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.
Barack Obama has bowed before the UN over Arizona immigration law
There can be few sights more humiliating for the American people than that of a US president kowtowing to a foreign leader or to supranational institutions. Continental Europeans are used to this sort of thing after decades of dominance by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and have grudgingly accepted over time the gradual and undemocratic erosion of their freedoms. But most Americans fiercely defend their national sovereignty, and find the idea of giving international organisations a say over their laws and lives completely unacceptable.
The Obama administration however has submitted a report to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, South African judge Navanethem Pillay, which makes direct reference to a popular Arizona immigration law aimed at tackling illegal immigration, which is fiercely opposed by the White House, and is the subject of legal action by the Justice Department. The report references
A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, (which) has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
The highly controversial reference to the Arizona law serves only one purpose – to gain UN and international support for the Obama administration’s position in the face of mounting opposition from Arizona legislators and a majority of the American people. A recent Rasmussen poll showed 61 percent of Americans backing Arizona-style laws for their own states, and just 28 percent supporting a Justice Department challenge .
By doing so, Obama officials undoubtedly hope to stir up international condemnation of the Arizona policy in advance of the UN General Assembly meetings in September, which they believe will increase pressure on Arizona to back down. It is a highly cynical move that speaks volumes about the Obama team’s willingness to undercut American sovereignty and popular will on the world stage.
This approach has rightly been strongly condemned by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who described the Arizona reference in the government report as “downright offensive”, and called on it to be removed. The State Department has just announced that it will stand by its decision to include Arizona in its UN submission, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly in favour of it.
It is important to note that the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations will go before the UN Human Rights Council, which includes in its current membership some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The likes of China, Cuba, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, will have a right to pass judgment over the Arizona immigration law, a humiliation for a great superpower before some of the most brutal regimes on the face of the earth.
Over the course of the last 19 months, Barack Obama has bowed before Emperors and Kings, and apologised for his country on numerous occasions, from Cairo to Strasbourg. By deliberately placing the immigration policy of a US state before the Human Rights Council, he is now bowing before the United Nations, and undercutting the sovereignty of his own nation. This is not leadership but a surrender of US interests before a declining world body that is a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and a bully pulpit for many of the world’s most odious tyrants. It is also yet another example of an imperial-style presidency that is increasingly out of touch with the American people and public opinion.
WASHINGTON – Records show that about 47,000 people have been removed or deported from the U.S. after the Homeland Security Department sifted through 3 million sets of fingerprints taken from bookings at local jails.
About one-quarter of those kicked out of the country did not have criminal records, according to government data obtained by immigration advocacy groups that have filed a lawsuit. The groups plan to release the data Tuesday and provided early copies to The Associated Press.
As issue is a fingerprint-sharing program known as Secure Communities that the government says is focused on getting rid of the "worst of the worst" criminal immigrants from the U.S.
Immigration advocates say that the government instead spends too much time on lower-level criminals or non-criminals.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement divides crimes into three categories, with Level 1 being the most serious. Most of those deported committed Level 2 or 3 crimes or were non-criminals, a monthly report of Secure Communities statistics shows.
"ICE has pulled a bait and switch, with local law enforcement spending more time and resources facilitating the deportations of bus boys and gardeners than murderers and rapists and at considerable cost to local community policing strategies, making us all less safe," said Peter Markowitz, director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Markowitz's clinic, the National Day Laborer Organizers Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights had requested and sued for the statistics. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released some of the documents late Monday.
Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said non-criminals still may be people who have failed to show up for deportation hearings, who recently crossed the border illegally or who re-entered the country after deportation. He also said it's important to remember that more people commit crimes that are considered Level 2 and 3.
Secure Communities is "a beneficial partnership tool for ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies helping to identify, prioritize and remove convicted criminal aliens not only from the communities, but also from the country," Rocha said.
The Obama administration wants Secure Communities operating nationwide by 2013.
As of Aug. 3, 494 counties and local and state agencies in 27 states were sharing fingerprints from jail bookings through the program.
From October 2008 through June of this year, 46,929 people identified through Secure Communities were removed from the U.S., the documents show. Of those, 12,293 were considered non-criminals.
By IVAN MORENO, Associated Press Writer Ivan Moreno, Associated Press Writer
–
7 mins ago
DENVER – The federal government is rapidly expanding a
program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests,
drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the
initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.
The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide.
The San Francisco sheriff wanted nothing to do with
the program, and the City Council in Washington, D.C., blocked use of
the fingerprint plan in the nation's capital. Colorado is the latest to
debate the program, called Secure Communities, and immigrant groups have
begun to speak up, telling the governor in a letter last week that the
initiative will make crime victims reluctant to cooperate with police
"due to fear of being drawn into the immigration regime."
Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who
is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history
records and Department of Homeland Security
immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and
whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not
included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has
been expanding the initiative.
Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have
joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by
2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places
where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on
population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.
Since everyone arrested would be screened, the program could easily deport more people than Arizona's new law,
said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against
the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program.
Patel said that because illegal immigrants could be referred to ICE at
the point of arrest, even before a conviction, the program can create an
incentive for profiling and create a pipeline to deport more people.
Patel filed the lawsuit on behalf of the National Day
Laborer Organizing Network, which is concerned the program could soon
come to New York. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, statistical
information about who has been deported as a result of the program and
what they were arrested for.
Supporters of the program argue it is helping
identify dangerous criminals that would otherwise go undetected. Since
Oct. 27, 2008 through the end of May, almost 2.6 million people have
been screened with Secure Communities. Of those, almost 35,000 were
identified as illegal immigrants previously arrested or convicted for
the most serious crimes, including murder and rape, ICE said Thursday.
More than 205,000 who were identified as illegal immigrants had arrest
records for less serious crimes.
In Ohio, Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones praised the program, which was implemented in his jurisdiction earlier this month.
"It's really a heaven-sent for us," Jones said. He
said the program helps solve the problem police often have of not
knowing whether someone they arrested has a criminal history and is in
the country illegally.
"I don't want them in my community," Jones said. "I've got enough homegrown criminals here."
Carl Rusnok,
an ICE spokesman, said Secure Communities is a way for law enforcement
to identify illegal immigrants after their arrest at no additional cost
to local jurisdictions. Jones agreed.
"We arrest these people anyway," he said. "All it does is help us deport people who shouldn't be here."
Rusnok said ICE created the program after Congress
directed the agency to improve the way it identifies and deports illegal
immigrants with criminal backgrounds. ICE has gotten $550 million for
the program since 2008, Rusnok said.
Rusnok said the only place he knows of that has
requested not to be a part of Secure Communities is San Francisco, which
began the program June 8. Eileen Hirst, the chief of staff for San
Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, said it happened "without our input
or approval."
Hirst said the sheriff thought Secure Communities
cast too wide a net and worried that it would sweep up U.S. citizens and
minor offenders, such as people who commit traffic infractions but miss
their court hearings. Hirst also said the program goes against San
Francisco's sanctuary city policy that calls for authorities to only
report foreign-born suspects booked for felonies.
"Now, we're reporting every single individual who comes into our custody and gets fingerprinted," Hirst said.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown denied Hennessey's request to
opt out. Brown said that prior to Secure Communities, illegal immigrants
with criminal histories were often released before their status was
discovered.
This month, Washington, D.C., police decided not to pursue the program
because the City Council introduced a bill that would prohibit
authorities from sharing arrest data with ICE out of concern for
immigrants' civil rights. Matthew Bromeland, special assistant to the
police chief, said police wanted the program and were talking with ICE
about how address concerns from immigrant advocates before the bill
forced them to halt negotiations.
Colorado officials became interested in the program after an illegal
immigrant from Guatemala with a long criminal record was accused of
causing a car crash at a suburban Denver ice-cream shop, killing two
women in a truck and a 3-year-old inside the store. Authorities say the
illegal immigrant, Francis M. Hernandez, stayed off ICE's radar because
he conned police with 12 aliases and two different dates of birth.
A task-force assembled after the crash recommended Secure Communities as a solution.
Evan Dreyer, a spokesman for Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, said Ritter
recognizes that other states have had issues with the program and he
wants to take time to consider the concerns raised by immigrant rights groups before deciding "how or if to move forward."
The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition said in its letter to the
governor that the Secure Communities is "inherently flawed and should
not be implemented." CIRC said one of its main concerns is that in cases
of domestic violence, where both parties may be taken into custody
while authorities investigate a case, victims may feel reluctant to
report a crime out of fear that their illegal status will be discovered.
ICE maintains that only suspects arrested for crimes — and not the
people reporting them — will be screened for their legal status.
PHOENIX (Reuters) – Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar
hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside
her west Phoenix apartment block.
A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi
Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her
family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on
illegal immigrants.
"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said
Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative.
They have us cornered."
The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across
Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend
as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.
The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal
immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers,
landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of
Arizona, which borders Mexico.
It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime
and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to
investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an
illegal immigrant.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona
after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago
requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer
system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new
law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and
butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in
recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/
"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded
even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother
of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures
and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.
She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."
LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE
Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.
The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a
bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.
Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by
65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state
governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of
the 100-seat Senate.
Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial
profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed
by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary
injunction to block the law.
A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.
The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.
While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their
U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.
Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and
leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and
two children born in Phoenix.
"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are
committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard
sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to
the shops."
Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some
clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family
heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.
"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be
here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in
Phoenix.
Ariz. law comes after years of mounting anger
By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press Writers
July 25, 2010. –
PHOENIX – As the days tick down until the Arizona immigration law takes effect, the state stands as a monument to the anger over illegal immigration that is present in so many places.
The anger has been simmering for years, and erupted
into a full-blown fury with the murder of a prominent rancher on the
border earlier this year. The killing became a powerful rallying cry for
immigration reform and the sweeping new law set to take effect Thursday, barring any last-minute legal action.
But it does not tell the whole story about how Arizona got to this point.
Turn on the evening news in Arizona and some report
reflecting the state's battle with illegal immigration will likely flash
across the screen.
A drop house
crammed with illegal border-crossers smack in the middle of a suburban
neighborhood. Traffic patrols and workplace raids that net the arrest of
dozens of illegal immigrants, often in heavily Hispanic communities.
Politicians speaking venomously about border violence and the leech of
immigration costs on the state treasury.
Along the streets, Arizonans see day laborers near
Wal-Mart and Home Depot parking lots, waiting for work. In some
Phoenix-area neighborhoods, Spanish is so predominant both in spoken
word and signage that residents complain they feel like they're in a
foreign country.
Then rancher Robert Krentz was gunned down in March
while checking water lines on his property near the border. Authorities
believe — but have never produced substantive proof — that an illegal
immigrant, likely a scout for drug smugglers, was to blame.
Almost immediately Krentz came to symbolize what's at
stake with illegal immigration. Politicians quickly connected the dots,
but everyday folks also spoke with anger and fear about the rancher's
death.
"You can't ignore the damage and the costs to the
taxpayers and the disrespect that comes with it and those who think they
have a right to break our laws," says Russell Pearce, the fiery state
senator who wrote Arizona's new immigration law.
Pearce, in fact, is the godfather of anti-illegal immigration sentiment in Arizona and author of many of the tough laws.
He regularly depicts illegal immigration as an
"invasion." He can tick off the names of police officers killed or
wounded by criminals in the country illegally.
One of those names is that of his son, Maricopa
County Sheriff's Deputy Sean Pearce, who survived a gunshot wound to the
abdomen from an illegal immigrant in 2004 while serving a search
warrant in a homicide case.
That might explain Pearce's indefatigable effort
against those entering the country illegally, but he says he held tough
views before his son was shot. He insists that his frustration centers
more broadly on the crime that immigrant smugglers bring into the
country and the financial stress that illegal border-crossers put on
communities.
Between 40 percent and 50 percent of all immigrant
arrests each year on the U.S.-Mexico border are made in Arizona,
according to the U.S. Border Patrol.
And the annual costs? About $600 million for
educating illegal immigrants at K-12 schools, more than $120 million for
jailing illegal immigrants convicted of state crimes and as much as $50
million that hospitals have to eat for treating illegal
border-crossers, according to figures provided by Superintendent of
Public Instruction Tom Horne, Gov. Jan Brewer's office and the Arizona
Hospital and Healthcare Association.
At Copper Queen Community Hospital, 4 miles north of
the border in Bisbee, the emergency room sees one or two illegal
immigrants every shift. Dr. Daniel Roe, the emergency-room medical
director, says many come in with broken bones from jumping the
15-foot-tall border fence, others suffer from walking for days in the
desert with little to no water, and others have been involved in car
accidents.
"It's very much part of our normal flow," he says. "But it demands resources. So it affects the operating budget."
Immigrant medical costs led the hospital to shutter a skilled nursing
facility and its maternity ward several years ago, according to the
hospital's top administrator.
John Leopard, who camped out with Minuteman Project volunteers during a
2005 patrol north of the border, says he's not as irritated by seeing
day laborers lining street corners as he is the federal government's
inactions and the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new
immigration law.
The law requires police who are enforcing other laws to check a person's
immigration status if officers reasonably suspect the person is in the
country illegally. It also requires that people carry and produce their
immigration papers, while making it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work in a public place.
"We have policies that are injurious to our well-being," says Leopard, a
retired computer scientist whose housekeeper was in the country
illegally before she was able to obtain U.S. citizenship.
Don Sorchych, editor and publisher of a small local newspaper called the
Sonoran News, says over the past 20 years his quaint Phoenix-area town
of Cave Creek has seen illegal immigrants set up "villages" made of
scrap lumber and canvas.
"I think people confuse racial profiling and being a racist," Sorchych
says. "I'm not saying you should, but if you could profile, you'd be
right 95 percent of the time. They wear a certain uniform, certain
shoes, gloves in their back pockets, clothes from Goodwill."
Sorchych got so fired up about illegal immigration that he took photos of people who picked up day laborers and published them.
"I am not so sure it's the media and politicians who are whipping this
up as much as the public," said Rick Van Schoik, director of Arizona
State University's North American Center for Transborder Studies. "In
election years, people who tend toward either extreme want to find
passions that their cause would win the election."
The immigration anger has led the state to pass at least seven laws
cracking down on illegal immigration in as many years. Those laws made
English the state's official language, denied bail to illegal immigrants
charged with serious crimes and prohibited them from being awarded
punitive damages in civil cases.
Opponents of the law say illegal immigrants are being scapegoated and
wrongly characterized as freeloaders, pointing out that they pay sales
taxes and put money into Social Security that they will never be able to
take out.
They say the state's rapid growth over the last decade couldn't have
happened without immigrant labor, that housing prices have been kept
reasonable by those who did work that U.S. citizens wouldn't — like
roofing a new subdivision in Arizona's 110-degree summer heat.
As Joy Williams of Tucson sees it, immigrants add to the melting pot that is Arizona and are doing jobs Americans don't want.
Williams, who works as a research clerk in the Pima County Legal
Defender's Office, is also angry — but about what she says is the open
racism she's seen and heard in recent months.
"What is so shocking is people can be so openly verbal about it now and not even flinch," she says.
Since Arizona passed its new immigration law, immigrant rights groups say Hispanics are seeing more open hostility.
Lydia Guzman, president of the Phoenix-based Hispanic civil rights group
Somos America, says community members are reporting racial slurs like
never before. She says she experienced it herself in May while waiting
in line at a grocery store, when one woman looked at Guzman's cart and
whispered to another, "I wonder how much this is going to cost us?'"
Another group, Puente, said its calls complaining of racial incidents
have jumped from about two calls a week to five to six a week.
Lilia Ramos, a 46-year-old illegal immigrant from Acapulco, called
Puenute to lodge a complaint against the Arizona Humane Society in a
dispute involving a dog found on her property.
Ramos says that when she called the Humane Society to report that the
dog didn't belong to her family, the woman on the other end of the line
became angry when Ramos asked if she could speak to someone in Spanish.
"She said, 'There's no one. Are you an American citizen?'" Ramos said in
Spanish. "I said no, and then she asked if I had a green card, and 'if
you don't cooperate, we'll arrest you.' I was quiet and it really scared
me."
Ramos wonders what her papers had to do with an animal seizure and feels the incident wouldn't have happened if not for Arizona's new law.
"I like the United States, but I don't like Arizona anymore," she says.
Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration
Michael Dwyer/Associated Press
At the National Governors Association meeting, from left, Phil Bredesen, Deval Patrick, Joe Manchin III and Bob McDonnell.
BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.
Michael Dwyer/Associated Press
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association on Sunday.
While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.
At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.
“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”
He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”
The administration seemed to be taking a carrot-and-stick approach on Sunday. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in town to give the governors a classified national security briefing, met one-on-one with Jan Brewer, the Republican who succeeded her as governor of Arizona and ardently supports the immigration law.
About the same time as that meeting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on a taped Sunday talk show that the Justice Department could bring yet another lawsuit against Arizona if there is evidence that the immigration law leads to racial profiling.
Ms. Brewer said she and Ms. Napolitano did not discuss the current lawsuit. Instead, in a conversation she described as cordial, they discussed Arizona’s request for more National Guard troops along the border with Mexico, as well as other resources.
The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.
The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.
The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.
Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.
“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.
But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.
“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”
The White House would not directly respond to reports of complaints from some Democratic governors.
But David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, said on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the president remained committed to passing an immigration overhaul, and that addressing the issue did not mean he was ignoring the economy.
“That doesn’t mean we can’t have a good, healthy debate about the economy and other issues,” Mr. Axelrod said.
Mr. Obama addressed the economy last week during stops in Kansas City and Las Vegas, and has been calling on Congress to offer additional tax relief to small businesses.
And the heads of Mr. Obama’s national debt commission — Alan K. Simpson and Erskine B. Bowles — were on hand here on Sunday to press the economic issue.
The nation’s total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion, and Mr. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Mr. Bowles, a Democrat and the White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, offered a gloomy assessment if spending is not brought under control even more.
“This debt is like a cancer,” Mr. Bowles said. “It is truly going to destroy the country from within.”
Still, the issue of immigration commanded as much attention as anything here this weekend.
Ms. Brewer, who was trailed by television cameras all weekend, called the lawsuit “outrageous” and said the state was receiving donations from around the country to help fight it.
“I think Arizona will win,” she said, “and we will take a position for all of America.”
Immigration was not the only topic at the Saturday meeting between Democratic governors and two White House officials — Patrick Gaspard, Mr. Obama’s political director, and Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs. But several governors, including Christine Gregoire of Washington, said it was a particularly heated issue.
Ms. Gregoire, who does not face an election this year, said the White House was doing a poor job of showing the American public that it was working on the problem of illegal immigration.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting from Washington, and Katie Zezima from Boston.
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may follow Arizona's lead on immigration law
By Michael W. Savage Thursday, July 8, 2010
Attention is focused on Arizona and the federal government's challenge to the state's strict new immigration law, but three other states could adopt similar legislation next year.
Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.
The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.
Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted or signed by governors.
The political climate in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, improves the chances that state legislatures there could follow Arizona's lead in 2011.
In 2007, Oklahoma led the way on such laws by adopting legislation that makes it a felony to knowingly transport or shelter an illegal immigrant. It also blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and in-state tuition.
State Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law has been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.
Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's decision to sue Arizona could discourage other states from doing the same. But he also said that similar legislation may be adopted in 2011.
"After the other border states, it is natural to look at the states that have enacted the most anti-immigrant laws" before Arizona, Malhotra said. He said he expected Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah to make the "most vigorous effort" to enact similar legislation early next year.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he thinks the Obama administration designed the lawsuit against Arizona as a "shot across the bows" of all states considering similar moves. He said he doubts, though, that Terrill will be deterred.
"Randy Terrill has made this his issue in Oklahoma and has earned bipartisan support in the past," he said. "He is a determined guy and he is not going to back down too easily."
In Utah, state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R) has been making regular fact-finding trips to Arizona as he finalizes a draft bill. But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.
Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.
"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.
A Utah law that took effect last year made it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers. Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) has said he expects to sign new immigration legislation next year and is meeting with all sides to find a way forward.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) touted a comprehensive set of measures against illegal immigration as the nation's strictest when he signed it into law in 2008. The far-reaching legislation forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers are seeking to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure was signed.
State Sen. Larry Martin (R) said in an interview that an Arizona-type measure was introduced too late this year. "But I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," he said. "As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.
Obama says politics to blame for immigration delay
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE (AP) – July 2, 2010.
WASHINGTON — Hoping to breathe new life into the stalled immigration effort, President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the delay on recalcitrant Republicans whom he said had given in to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."
Republicans responded that Obama's first step going forward must be to secure the border.
In his first immigration speech, Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who had backed attempts during the previous Republican administration to tighten the immigration system. He did not call out anyone by name.
Obama dismissed the focus on a "border security first" approach, saying the system is too big to be fixed "only with fences and border patrols." He advocated a comprehensive approach that would call on the government, businesses and illegal immigrants themselves to live up to their responsibilities within the law.
Obama also wants to create a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S; critics call it amnesty. But Obama said the immigrants must first acknowledge that they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes, perform community service and learn English.
Without setting a timeline, Obama questioned whether the political will exists to get a bill through Congress.
"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes," he said. "That is the political and mathematical reality." In the Senate, Democrats fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP delaying tactics.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Obama would get the bipartisan support he wants "if he would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is in a tight re-election race and could benefit politically from enacting a broad overhaul, said he was committed to passing a bill this year.
Many immigrant advocates praised the president's comments. They had been pressing him for some time to give such as a speech — although it broke no new ground — as a demonstration of his commitment to an issue he promised would be a priority his first year in office.
But an organization of Hispanic conservatives criticized the speech as a "sheer political move" to keep them on board for the November elections. Obama was elected with strong backing from Hispanics and they could tip the balance in several tight races this year.
"President Obama is operating under the false assumption that Latinos are natural-born Democrats who will rally behind his policies in lockstep," said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. "Latinos must not let themselves be deceived by the soaring rhetoric that has replaced meaningful action on immigration."
In Arizona, which is weeks away from enacting a controversial anti-immigrant law that Obama has called "misguided," Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh said he was offended by the president's speech and comments about the new state law.
In the speech, Obama said the law is an understandable expression of the public's frustration with the government's failure to overhaul the immigration system, but it also is ill-conceived, divisive and would put undue pressure on local police departments.
The law requires police enforcing another statute to ask about a person's immigration status if there is reason to believe they're in the country illegally. Immigrant advocates want the Justice Department, which is reviewing the law, to sue Arizona to block it from taking effect this month.
Even before Obama spoke, the path toward getting an immigration bill through Congress was uncertain and it remained so afterward.
"It's really going to be up now to Capitol Hill to answer what has been his very clear call for action," said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Associated Press writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report.
President Obama Sends 1,200 National Guard Troops to Border, Pushes 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform With Republicans
May 26, 2010 8:30 AM
After months of an interagency review process, President Obama Tuesday morning pulled the trigger and ordered 1,200 National Guard troops sent to the U.S.-Mexico border. White House officials said the move was not a response to the Arizona immigration law, but rather an effort to combat to the Mexican crime wave spilling across the border into the U.S., though they acknowledged efforts to stem Mexican drug trafficking would likely also lead to a reduction in illegal immigration.
“This is the latest step in an on-going effort over the course of the past 16 months to increase pressure on transnational criminal organizations and illicit flows in both directions to ensure the federal government fulfills its responsibility to secure the Southwest Border,” an administration official said.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer took credit for the president’s action, saying her "signing of the controversial Arizona immigration law has clearly ignited the talk of action in Washington for the people of Arizona and other border states. I am pleased that President Obama has now, apparently, agreed that our nation must secure the border to address rampant border violence and illegal immigration without other pre-conditions, such as passage of ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
White House officials say that the president acted this week specifically because of legislative considerations. As Congress begins debating a defense spending bill, the President wanted to head off at the pass a measure to authorize sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn’t support, a White House official said. Hence: the alternative measure.
Immigration reform was a major topic when President Obama spoke to Republican Senators at their private caucus lunch Tuesday, though the president did not tell the GOP caucus about the new National Guard troops.
In an exchange some participants described as “tense” -- though now characteristic for them -- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and President Obama had words for each other on the subject.
“It didn’t sound like either was listening to each other,” one attendee later said.
McCain criticized members of the Obama administration -- meaning Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder – who had admitted that they hadn’t read it the Arizona law, though that didn’t stop them from saying it would lead to racial profiling, sources told ABC News.
“I have read the bill,” President Obama told McCain, saying he had legitimate concerns it could lead to racial profiling.
Either way, President Obama said, the state law represented a “patchwork” approach to the issue and reiterated his call for comprehensive immigration reform, pointedly noting that McCain is someone who has supported comprehensive reform in the past. The president told Republicans that he needed their help, that he could ensure a majority of Democrats would support a comprehensive measure but he needed seven or eight Republicans for it to pass the Senate.
A Pentagon official says the 1,200 troops will serve in a one year “bridge” capability until the Department of Homeland Security can hire, train and field additional agents along the four states that border Mexico.
These 1,200 additional National Guard troops will join the more than 340 already working in the border region, helping with increased observation and monitoring of border points of entry; and intelligence analysis of illegal trafficking patterns to support and guide future interdiction operations.
Obama administration officials point out that statistically, illegal immigration into the United States has been reduced, and average violent crime statistics for border states have declined.
Protesters outside playoff game against Phoenix Suns say Phil Jackson erred in seeming to support tough Arizona measure.
A rally outside Staples Center on Monday protests comments by Lakers coach Phil Jackson, who told ESPN: "Â… Am I the only one that heard [the Legislature] say, 'We just took the United States immigration law and adopted it to our state?' " (Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times / May 15, 2010)
By Patrick McDonnell and Robert J. Lopez, Los Angeles Times
A small but spirited group of activists, outraged at comments by Lakers coach Phil Jackson that seemed to back Arizona's controversial new immigration law, rallied Monday outside Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles before the playoff opener against the Phoenix Suns.
"The way we look at it, Phil Jackson is supporting the Arizona law," said Mario Gonzalez, a longtime Lakers fan and rally organizer. "That's surprising. It caught us off guard. We want to find out where the team stands on the law."
Jackson sparked the furor after making remarks to an ESPN.com columnist that seemed supportive of the Arizona law, which makes it a state crime to lack immigration papers and requires police to determine whether people they stop are in the country illegally.
"Am I crazy, or am I the only one that heard [the Legislature] say, 'We just took the United States immigration law and adopted it to our state?' " Jackson said of the Arizona statute.
The Lakers coach disputed the columnist's assertion that Arizona legislators had "usurped" federal immigration law — an allegation widely made by critics who say the law could lead to racial profiling of Latinos.
Jackson released a statement Monday before the game, saying he has respect for those who oppose the law. "I've been involved in a number of progressive political issues over the years and I support those who stand up for their beliefs. It is what makes this country great," he said.
"I have respect for those who oppose the new Arizona immigration law, but I am wary of putting entire sports organizations in the middle of political controversies. This was the message of my statement," he said. "I know others feel differently, even in the Lakers organization, but it was a personal statement. In this regard, it is my wish that this statement not be used by either side to rally activists."
But his words did little to mollify about three dozen protesters, some of whom waved signs and banners that said, "Phil say no to Racist Az. Bill" and "Los Lakers. Stand up! Speak out."
Others banged on drums as activists shouted: "Phil Jackson, stop the hate!" and "Lakers si, Phil Jackson no!"
Rusty Feuer, 69, said she came to the U.S. from Canada but would never be asked for identification papers because she is white.
"I'm here because this is racist," she said of the law. "I'm blond and blue-eyed and they would never stop me."
Rodney Lusain, who teaches history at Los Angeles High School, brought about 15 of his students with him. The students, who are 16 and 17 years old, have been studying immigration issues.
"Today," Lusain said, "they get to see the power of protest."
For junior Jonathon Grijalva, 17, attending the protest with the class was an opportunity to make a statement on behalf of his parents, who came to Los Angeles from Mexico about 20 years ago.
"We're here to fight for their right to be here," he said
Andres Meza, an electrician from Placentia and an immigrant from Mexico, waved a U.S. flag that was upside down and had a small swastika taped to it.
"I love America, but they are doing the wrong thing," he said of officials in Arizona.
He also took aim at Jackson, saying that "he should stand on the right side and support immigrants."
Jackson, long known as a free spirit who in ESPN columnist J.A. Adande's words "has showed lefty leanings in the past," also seemed to chastise the Suns' management for its criticism of the Arizona law.
The Suns' owner and several players have publicly decried the statute.
"I don't think teams should get involved in the political stuff," Jackson told Adande. "If I heard it right, the American people are really for stronger immigration laws…. Where we stand as basketball teams, we should let that kind of play out and let the political end of that go where it's going to go."
Gonzalez, the protest organizer, said Monday's rally was not meant as a call to boycott the Lakers or root against the L.A. squad in its push to repeat as league champions. Rather, he said, the action is aimed at condemning Jackson's apparent support for the Arizona law and clarifying Lakers' management's opinion on the matter.
"We want to give Phil Jackson the benefit of the doubt," said Nativo Lopez, head of the Mexican American Political Assn. "There are nuances here that Phil Jackson perhaps is not familiar with. He's an expert at basketball but not at immigration law."
Inhofe speaks out for tough, new Ariz. immigration law
By Michael O'Brien- 04/26/10 07:53 AM ET
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) defended Arizona's tough new immigration law on Monday, calling it a response to the federal government's inaction.
Inhofe, a conservative Republican who opposed comprehensive immigration reform several years earlier, said there's nothing wrong with Arizona's new law, which is seen as granting authorities some of the most leeway in the country in pursuing illegal immigrants.
"I think the frustration is that the federal government isn't enforcing the laws, so we're going to do it on the state level," Inhofe said of the factors which led to the law during an appearance on KTOK radio.
"I don't see anything wrong with that," Inhofe said of the new law.
The senator did save some tough words for his Senate colleague John McCain (R-Ariz.), though, hitting the 2008 GOP presidential nominee for shifting stances on immigration.
McCain, a longtime supporter of immigration reforms that would give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, has called for thousands of National Guard troops to be sent to the border between the U.S. and Mexico.
McCain is also in the midst of a primary fight with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), who's attacked McCain from his right on immigration.
Inhofe chided his colleague for the perceived shift, saying, "He may be reversing his position on some other things before this is over."
Grijalva calls on Obama to battle a new Arizona immigration law
By Bridget Johnson - 04/26/10 01:42 AM ET
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called on President Barack Obama to fight a new law signed Friday in Arizona that gives police power to request ID from suspected illegal immigrants.
Grijalva, speaking at a rally Sunday at the Arizona state Capitol, asked Obama to not cooperate with the law, according to the Associated Press.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.
Nearly a week ago, Grijalva and Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) asked Obama to shun the law. On Friday, hours before Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law, Obama criticized it. "The recent efforts in Arizona ... threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust in police and their communities that are so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.
"Our message today is: 'Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,'" said Gutierrez at the rally. "We need you to support us today."
Grijalva, who has previously called for an economic boycott of Arizona over the bill, closed his regional offices early Friday because of reported death threats.
The controversial part of the bill text reads that law enforcement officials are required to "determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state ... if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S."
GOP senators differ on bringing up immigration reform this Congress
By Jordan Fabian - 04/25/10 12:19 PM ET
Two Republican senators Sunday had different takes on bringing up comprehensive immigration reform this Congress.
The issue has quickly been pushed to the forefront because of a controversial new immigration law passed in Arizona this week. Democrats say that the law, which allows state police to check the identification of suspected illegal immigrants, is unfair and highlights the need for comprehensive reform.
Most Republicans say that the issue of border security needs to be addressed before any discussion about a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The issue has also caused a stir because it has seemed to usurp climate change and energy legislation that was supposed to be brought up in the Senate after the financial reform debate.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said on CNN's "State of the Union" that bringing up immigration reform and climate change legislation is a bad idea because there is limited time to consider the issue.
"I don't see how you could bring either up," Chambliss said. "I'm not sure where you find the time to deal with both of these major issues."
There are about 50 legislative days left in this Congress and Chambliss said the Senate still needs to consider the budget and deficit concerns.
But Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) echoed Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) saying the bill shows that federal authorities have failed to act to secure the border.
Asked if it is the right time to bring up the bill, Shelby said that it's more important to secure the borders and then consider other measures. He left the door open for supporting an immigration bill but also indicated he could oppose one, saying "I think we'll have to look at the details."
When asked if the measure would come up this year, Shelby was also noncommittal, saying "maybe."
McCain to Obama: Send troops to border if you
don't like new immigration law
By Ian Swanson
-
04/24/10 09:06 AM ET
President Barack Obama should dispatch National Guard troops to
the border
if he doesn’t like Arizona’s new immigration law, Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.)
said Friday.
McCain, who endorsed the tough new Arizona law earlier this week,
defended
it as necessary because of the federal government’s inability to secure
the
border.
“If the president doesn’t like what the Arizona Legislature and
governor may
be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the
dispatch of
3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000
additional
Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well,” McCain said at a
news
conference Friday in downtown Phoenix, according to a report in the Arizona
Republic.
“And that way, then the state of Arizona will not have to enact
legislation
which they have to do because of the federal government’s failure to
carry out
its responsibilities, which is to secure the borders.”
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation Friday that allows police
to stop
and question anyone they believe may be in the country illegally.
Brewer’s signature immediately set off a firestorm of criticism from
Hispanic groups, who say the new law will infringe upon the civil
liberties of
people who are citizens of the United States or who are in the country
legally.
Phoenix’s Democratic mayor has threatened to sue the state, and other
groups
are looking at economic boycotts of Arizona.
Hours before Brewer offered her signature, Obama criticized the
effort as
“misguided”and said it
“threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as
Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities
that is so
crucial to keeping us safe.”
McCain has twice been involved in legislative efforts to boost border
security while creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants,
but has
taken a hard turn this year and is talking almost exclusively about
security.
The reason is the tough primary challenge from former Rep. J.D.
Hayworth, who on
Friday criticized McCain in his own reaction to Brewer’s decision.
“As John McCain and others serving in Washington have alternated
between
inaction and amnesty, Arizona acted decisively today to enforce the rule
of law
and truly secure our border,” Hayworth said in the statement.
The fight in Arizona seems likely to put immigration reform on the
Senate’s
agenda, though it is unclear if any legislation can make it through the
chamber
as both parties eye the 2010 midterm elections.
Monday climate bill rollout scuttled as Graham
decides to walk away
By Ben Geman
-
04/24/10 06:37 PM ET
Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) decision to walk away from Senate
talks on climate change and energy legislation – at least for now –
has prompted the measure's remaining architects to scuttle Monday’s
planned unveiling of the bill.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is
crafting the bill with Graham and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.),
announced what he called a temporary postponement and said he remained
committed to action this year on a sweeping climate and energy measure.
“We
all believe that this year is our best and perhaps last chance for
Congress to pass a comprehensive approach. We believe that we had
reached such an agreement and were excited to announce it on Monday, but
regrettably external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only
temporarily,” Kerry said in a statement Saturday.
“I
remain deeply committed to this effort which I have worked on for more
than twenty years. We have no choice but to act this year. The American
people deserve better than for the Senate to defer this debate or settle
for an energy-only bill that won’t get the job done,” he added.
Kerry
praised Graham’s work on the climate effort and expressed hope that he
would rejoin the initiative “once the politics of immigration are
resolved,” but vowed to press ahead one way or the other.
“Lindsey has helped to build an unprecedented coalition of
stakeholders from the environmental community and the industry who have
been prepared to stand together behind a proposal. That can’t change. We
can’t allow this moment to pass us by,” Kerry said.
“We will
continue to work and we will do everything necessary to be ready when
the moment presents itself. The White House and Senate Leadership have
told us from the start that this is the year for action, and until they
tell us otherwise we’re pressing forward,” he said.
Here's
Kerry's entire statement:
“For more than six months, Lindsey
Graham, Joe Lieberman, and I have been meeting for hours each day to
find a bi-partisan path forward and build an unprecedented coalition of
stakeholders to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year.
We all believe that this year is our best and perhaps last chance for
Congress to pass a comprehensive approach. We believe that we had
reached such an agreement and were excited to announce it on Monday, but
regrettably external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only
temporarily.
“I remain deeply committed to this effort
which I have worked on for more than twenty years. We have no choice but
to act this year. The American people deserve better than for the
Senate to defer this debate or settle for an energy-only bill that won’t
get the job done.
“Senator Graham came forward and
has made a significant contribution to both the process and the product.
Joe and I deeply regret that he feels immigration politics have gotten
in the way and for now prevent him from being engaged in the way he
intended. But we have to press forward. Lindsey has helped to build an
unprecedented coalition of stakeholders from the environmental community
and the industry who have been prepared to stand together behind a
proposal. That can’t change. We can’t allow this moment to pass us by.
“Joe
and I will continue to work together and are hopeful that Lindsey will
rejoin us once the politics of immigration are resolved. We will
continue to work and we will do everything necessary to be ready when
the moment presents itself. The White House and Senate Leadership have
told us from the start that this is the year for action, and until they
tell us otherwise we’re pressing forward.”
Dem to Obama: Push immigration or lose Latino voters at polls
By Russell Berman and Bob Cusack - 04/20/10 06:00 AM ET
A congressman from the president’s home state is threatening that he will urge Latino voters to stay home this November if the Democratic Party does not make a concerted effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (Ill.) is arguably President Barack Obama’s biggest Democratic critic in Congress. And he’s not fond of Obama’s top advisers at the White House, either.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) member has strongly criticized the administration’s policy on deportation and questioned its commitment to far-reaching reform.
Some Democrats have felt little urgency in pursuing the controversial issue, partly because they see no risk that Hispanic voters will bolt the party for the GOP. But Gutierrez says they are missing the real political consequence of inaction.
“We can stay home,” Gutierrez said in an interview with The Hill. “We can say, ‘You know what? There is a third option: We can refuse to participate.’ ”
For Gutierrez, a former cab driver first elected to represent Chicago in 1992, the shift from close Obama ally to ornery critic has been stark. The lawmaker was one of the former Illinois senator’s earliest campaign supporters, and — as Gutierrez is quick to note — he stuck by Obama even as many Hispanic leaders rallied around Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
When Gutierrez talks about his old Chicago neighbor, he speaks of “anger, disillusionment, dissatisfaction” and “betrayal.” He says Obama has failed to keep his campaign commitment to immigration reform, and he decries what he calls an “enforcement-only” policy in which the administration has deported more undocumented immigrants than in the final year of the George W. Bush administration.
Gutierrez says Latinos have lost patience with Obama, and he predicts an “escalation” of activism aimed at forcing immigration reform to the fore of the party agenda.
“We’re going to make it uncomfortable for the Democratic Party,” Gutierrez said, adding that immigration advocates would step up the pressure by drawing lessons from the movements for civil rights and women’s suffrage. “There’ll probably be civil disobedience. There will probably be a number of different actions. What we have to do is we have to break through this wall of silence, because we’re invisible.”
Gutierrez is not alone. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a CHC member who serves in the Democratic leadership, said earlier this month that Latinos view the president with “suspicion” for failing to meet expectations.
Firing salvos is nothing new for Gutierrez, a lawmaker known for his singular and strident advocacy of the immigration cause. In 2008, he compared Border Patrol agents to the “Gestapo.” More recently, he made a high-profile threat to vote against the healthcare overhaul at its most critical stage.
Few in Washington believed he would vote no, but Gutierrez managed to wrangle a White House meeting and a public nudge from Obama in support of the comprehensive immigration blueprint being developed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
“Would we have liked him to have done more? Yes,” Gutierrez said, acknowledging that Obama’s statement reiterating his support for comprehensive immigration reform “wasn’t the most enthusiastic press release.”
“It’s incremental,” he said. “Before you run, you walk.”
Among his grievances with Obama is the president’s shift in rhetoric. When Obama campaigned, Gutierrez said, he used the phrase “undocumented workers.” When he addressed Congress on healthcare last September, the president referred to “illegal immigrants” in insisting that they would not be covered under the administration’s plan.
“You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community,” Gutierrez said.
The final straw for immigration advocates came in January, the outspoken legislator said, when Obama barely mentioned the issue in his State of the Union address.
“He said it with so little enthusiasm, and so little commitment, that they didn’t believe him,” Gutierrez said, drawing a direct line between that speech and a large rally of immigration advocates in Washington last month that happened to coincide with the final House vote on healthcare.
“If you only understood how devastating it was to our sense of hope and our sense of commitment of this president,” he said.
Gutierrez, who has not faced a serious electoral challenge since his first term, said he doesn’t lambaste the administration because he likes to.
“It’s very hard. I don’t want you to think that it’s easy,” he said. “I don’t want to pile on. It’s just he’s got to get this done.”
Gutierrez noted that Obama initially promised on the campaign trail that he would pursue immigration reform in 2009, then backtracked. And he vows he will hold the president accountable.
He said, “I meet women who are being raped by their employers. I meet children who the government has come early in the morning and taken their dads. I meet someone dying from cancer, an American citizen, who says … ‘Luis, can I die knowing that the mother of my children is going to raise [them]?’ I can’t give him that, because there’s nothing in the law.”
Despite his criticism of Obama, Gutierrez said he is more optimistic about the chances for progress on immigration.
The president transformed from “Professor Barack Obama” to “Lyndon Johnson Barack Obama” during the healthcare debate, he said.
Gutierrez noted a number of positive gestures from the White House, including an invitation for him to attend a bill-signing for a jobs measure that, he said, “I had nothing to do with.”
“I don’t think I even co-sponsored it. Why did they invite me?” Gutierrez wondered, before answering his own question. “After he signed the bill, [Obama] came up to me, he said, ‘Hey Luis, I appreciate your support. We’re going to work on comprehensive immigration reform.’ ” Gutierrez also pointed to recent comments by Michelle Obama extolling the contributions of immigrants in the U.S. The first lady on Sunday said immigration reform was “still on the top” of the Obama agenda.
When it comes to a legislative and political path to enacting immigration reform in an election year, Gutierrez is less specific. He grudgingly accepts the consensus opinion that the legislation must start in the Senate, but he makes sure to point out that even there, immigration gets short shrift.
“Every other basic fundamental issue we start in the House,” he said.
The broader journey for a bill that will create a path to citizenship for the nation’s 12 million undocumented immigrants has been years in the making.
Gutierrez was a lead co-sponsor, along with Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), of the sweeping bill that passed the Senate in 2006 before stalling amid a conservative revolt in 2007. He nearly quit the House after the effort failed in 2007, but he changed his mind and decided to stay and pursue what has become the cause of his career.
“This has kept me in Congress,” the 56-year-old lawmaker said.
The House Democrat is not shy in blasting Obama’s closest advisers. Asserting that he is not culpable for what the administration does or does not do, Gutierrez said, “I’m not at the White House. Rahm [Emanuel] is there. [David] Axelrod’s there. And I don’t know that they’re giving him the best advice.”
Gutierrez scoffs when it is pointed out that Obama nominated the first Latina to the Supreme Court and pushed for immigration reform-friendly provisions in the 2009 children’s healthcare insurance law.
“We’re supposed to applaud because they did the right thing? Because they finally acted as Democrats? So big deal. What did they do that was so extraordinary? Oh, a Latina’s on the Supreme Court? About time!”
The White House did not comment for this article.
Gutierrez’s allies in Congress say the congressman’s outbursts have a purpose.
“There’s a difference between being an enemy and a forceful advocate,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said, referring to Gutierrez’s criticism of Obama.
Part of his role as a leader on immigration, Clarke said, was to make sure there’s a spotlight on the issue.
“He’s a pretty smart pol,” said Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a leader on immigration in the Irish-American community. Crowley said Gutierrez’s credibility stems from his ability to build unlikely coalitions on immigration and because he is well-liked in the Democratic Caucus.
As for Obama, lawmakers are quick to note a relationship between the two men that goes back years. “Luis is very strategic and he’s very smart, and so is the president,” Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) said.
Gutierrez, Honda said, “holds no animosity. The heat is about the issue. It’s not about personalities.”
A video of The Hill’s interview with Gutierrez can be viewed here.
THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...
COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC 2009, 2010. All Rights Reserved.
