Immigration Law

H-1B Cap Reached and the First News Out of Washington is Not Good

2007-04-04T09:01:00.000-04:00

Senators Durbin and Grassley have reacted to the disastrous fact that the FY 2008 H-1B cap was reached (and by far surpassed) on the very first day for filing not by proposing that the cap be raised but by proposing that further restrictions on the program be imposed! While they're at it, they are proposing further restrictions on L intracompany transfers, too!

Their proposal, called the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007, is an odd reaction to the fact that about 150,000 applications were filed for 65,000 H-1B slots on April 2, 2007 and that applications will be approved only for those are lucky enough to survive the lottery process that the USCIS will now hold.

Clearly the need for foreign workers is there and you would think Congress would want to make it as easy as possible for U.S. companies to compete in the global economy. Instead, Congress restricts the numbers so tightly that employers in certain sectors of our economy are left to simply hope for the best in a lottery when it comes to staffing.

Let's hope the Durbin/Grassley proposal goes nowhere and Congress gets serious about increasing or, better yet, eliminating the H-1B cap altogether.

H-1B Cap Reached on Very First Day for Filing - Maybe Congress Will Now Get the Message

2007-04-04T08:33:00.000-04:00

To no one’s surprise, the USCIS has announced that as of April 2, 2007, it has received enough H-1B petitions to reach the 2008 Fiscal Year cap of 65,000 and therefore has set April 2, 2007 as the "final receipt date" for such petitions. April 2 happens to also be the very first date on which such petitions could be filed. It was fully expected that the cap would be reached and surpassed on the first day for filing and, in fact, approximately 150,000 petitions were filed.

The USCIS will subject the H-1B petitions that were received on both April 2 and April 3 to a computer-generated random selection process, a lottery, and it announced that because of the high volume of petitions it received, the lottery will take several weeks to conduct. The petitions that are not selected in the lottery will be returned to the petitioner along with the filing fees.
Any H-1B petition received on April 4 or later will simply be rejected.

As for the first 20,000 H-1B petitions that were filed on behalf of aliens with U.S. earned Masters’ or higher degrees, the USCIS announced that it does not yet know how many such petitions were received on April 2 and April 3 and that it will make an announcements regarding the "final receipt date" for such petitions at a later date. The first such 20,000 petitions are exempt from the 65,000 cap as directed by the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004.

In a press release, Carlina Tapia-Ruano, the President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association correctly noted: "Every year, the application window becomes shorter and shorter, to the point that it is now practically non-existent. These high-skilled workers help to keep our system dynamic, and many sectors of the economy will suffer from this shortage. This absurd situation illustrates the disconnect between current immigration policy and the needs of our economy."

Hazelton's Trial

2007-03-14T22:54:00.000-04:00

The much anticipated trial regarding the effort of Hazelton, Pennsylvania to usurp the federal government's exclusive authority over the country's immigration laws has begun. Hazelton's ordinances would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, deny business permits to companies that employed them, and require residents to register with the city to prove their citizenship. Hazelton's mayor claims that he is only trying to do what the federal government has failed to do--deal with the problem of illegal immigration. That's a fair enough criticism of the federal government but Hazelton's response is not the answer.

The mayor blames all of Hazelton's woes on illegal immigrants--crime, gangs, increased health care costs, increased school costs, longer waits in emergency rooms, etc. and denies that his targets include legal immigrants. On the courthouse steps, the mayor now claims to be fighting for Hazelton and beyond--all the cities of the United States.

The problem for the mayor, of course, is that the ordinances are clearly illegal and the result of the trial is undoubtedly a foregone conclusion. The mayor has overstepped his bounds and is trying to assume an authority that he simply does not have and should not have.

Just as clearly, Hazelton's anti-immigrant law targets Latino residents whether they be legal or illegal residents. Latino residents have gotten the message that they are not welcome and are not safe in Hazelton. Some are leaving, others who might otherwise have come to open businesses are no longer coming. As I have said in earlier posts, only time will tell whether Hazelton regrets driving out everyone who doesn't "look American". The court will make permanent its injunction that has prevented Hazelton from enforcing its law but the damage has probably already been done. Having put out the unwelcome mat, Hazelton will get its chance to see just how fast it returns to the good old days of no crime, no gangs, affordable health care, reasonable school costs and emergency rooms where there's never a wait.

Bill Gates: Unlimited H1B Visas

2007-03-10T11:32:00.000-05:00

In testimony before Congress on March 7th, Bill Gates called on Congress to allow for an "infinite" number of H1B guest-worker visas. No surprise there. But perhaps there was a surprise in the reception he was given--largely favorable.

His testimony was before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the context of the issue of improving U.S. competitiveness in the world. Gates believes that American students must be better equipped in their math and science skills, that more money must be spent on research and that immigration laws must be re-written to to allow American companies to hire more foreigners.

On the immigration reform issue, Gate believes there is a "crisis" in the shortage of qualified scientific talent in the U.S. and that the 65,000 cap on H1B visas must be raised. When he was asked how many H1B visas should be allowed each year, Gates said "I don't think there should be any limit." Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire replied that he agreed "100 percent" but that that was politically impossible. Perhaps, Gregg suggested, doubling the number was more realistic.

In a sign of progress, Gates' time before the Committee was very different than his last Congressional appearance almost a decade ago when he was blasted with questions about Microsoft and alleged monopolistic practices. This time around, Gates and Microsoft were praised for what Gates has done with his wealth particularly through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The proof, of course, will be in the specifics of whatever comprehensive immigration reform proposals are put forward by both the Senate and the House--hopefully soon.

Is the Bush Adminstration Backtracking on Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

2007-03-04T22:14:00.000-05:00

Both Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff distanced themselves from comprehensive immigration reform in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this past week. Specifically, both suggested that immigration reform did not need to provide for a path to eventual citizenship for illegal aliens. Instead, they said, providing temporary legal status for purposes of temporary work would be enough to persuade illegal aliens to register with the government. They testified as lawmakers continued to finalize details of a broad immigration bill that might be introduced in the Senate as early as the first full week in March. Mr. Gutierrez said essentially that aliens working illegally in the U.S. really don't want citizenship anyway. He testified that most such workers simply want to work and want to eventually return home.

Their remarks are in contradiction to last year's bipartisan Senate-passed immigration reform and in contradiction to remarks that President Bush has made himself in support of eventual earned citizenship for such illegal aliens. House Republicans, of course, oppose any provisions for eventual citizenship and think immigration reform should be limited to increased border protection and the mass removal of those already here illegally.

A White House spokesman insisted that despite such remarks by two of his Cabinet secretaries, President Bush still supported a path to citizenship that would include payments of fines back taxes and a requirement to learn English, among other things.

The Real ID Act - - On Its Way to Repeal?

2007-01-27T20:11:00.000-05:00

According to a report in the Washington Post this week, Maine lawmakers have demanded the repeal of the Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism federal law that was passed in May, 2005 that will require a national digital identification system by 2008--mostly at the expense of the states, not the federal government. States have three years to implement what critics call an unfunded federal mandate that, critics say, won't really work anyway.

According to the Post article, eight other states have measures pending that call for the repeal of the law.

The ID Real Act sets national standards for drivers licenses and state id cards all of which will soon have to include digital photos and machine-readable technology. The problem with the law is that while it sets these national standards, it leaves it to states to verify the documents that citizens will have to present when applying for a drivers license or an id card. States will have to verify whether birth certificates, Social Security cards, etc., are legitimate and will have to verify that the applicant is in the United States legally.

The estimated cost to the states? According to the National Governors Association, more than $11 billion over five years. How much has Congress actually allocated in federal funds? $40 million. Can it be done within the three year deadline? Again, according to the Governors, about another seven years.

Will Congress Fund Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

2007-01-05T20:33:00.000-05:00

Even if Congress acts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, is the U.S. prepared to handle the millions of applications that will be filed by those seeking legal residency? Not according to U.S. officials.

The USCIS concedes that it can't even handle its existing work and certainly not the flood of new applications that would be expected if reform is enacted. According to Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner, the bureau "lacks the processing capacity, systems integration and project management resources needed to manage a potential increase in workloads" and the current effort to replace the nationwide computer network has been halted because the agency lacks $72 million to complete it.

"Congress needs to step up and provide the funding to ensure that USCIS is able to build a functioning infrastructure, regardless of the fate of immigration reform," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of programs for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

In fact, all the talk of comprehensive immigration reform will be rendered pretty meaningless if the USCIS can't afford to process the paperwork that will be filed by those trying to get themselves legal. Why bother to pass reform that no one can take practical advantage of?

A while back I posted an article about the ridiculous situation in Zimbabwe where the government can't afford to buy the ink to print passports. Are we really in no better a position than Zimbabwe? What a terrible irony if Congress finally enacts comprehensive immigration reform but then doesn't fund it.

Undocumented Immigrants: Net Economic Benefit to Texas

2006-12-21T21:45:00.000-05:00

Carole Keeton Strayhorn, the Texas Comptroller, has concluded, no surprise, that undocumented immigrants have provided a substantial net economic benefit to Texas.

In a report that she says marks "the first time any state has done a comprehensive financial analysis of the impact of undocumented immigrants on a state's budget and economy, looking at gross state product, revenues generated, taxes paid and the cost of state services", the Controller concluded that "(t)he absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received."

The largest cost factor spent on state services for the undocumented? Education. The largest portion of revenues? Sales tax and other consumption taxes and fees.

The Comptroller said that the report contradicted two recent reports that found that the costs of undocumented immigrants exceeded revenue because those reports based their findings on outdated data from 1994, as opposed to the current, more accurate data used in the Comptroller's report.

Passports - A Tale of Two Countries, the U.S. and Zimbabwe

2006-11-29T20:58:00.000-05:00

On November 29th, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the U.S. would begin requiring just about everyone -- even U.S. citizens -- to have a passport in order to enter the U.S. if arriving by air. In the U.S., since only one in four Americans currently has a passport, it's safe to assume that even with a $97.00 price tag, a lot more will passports will be being issued soon.

On the same date, Zimbabwe made quite a different announcement. It is temporarily no longer issuing passports. Why? The goverment has no cash to pay foreign suppliers of the ink and films used to produce them. So at least temporarily, Zimbabwe will only be issuing passports to senior government officials and to those with medical emergencies who need medical care out of the country.

The Choice of Senator Mel Martinez to Head the RNC - Do the Republicans Finally Get it?

2006-11-21T21:10:00.000-05:00

In light of polls that show that the Democratic Party regained as many as 10 to 13 percent of Latinos who voted for President Bush in 2004, the Republican Party may have wised up. The choice of Hispanic Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) to head the Republican National Committee suggests that Republicans can read election returns and see that right-wing, anti-immigrant extremists in their party accomplished nothing other than leading the GOP right into minority status.

In New Jersey, in particular, those hateful local anti-immigrant ordinances are beginning to be re-thought: Bogota tried to hold a referendum to deny bilingual services to immigrants but was shot down first by a county clerk and then by a court that upheld the clerk's ruling, in Riverside, as noted in an earlier post, two Republicans who led the anti-immigrant charge, lost their bids for re-election and in Freehold, the taxpayers will now foot the bill for the politicians' ill-advised harassment of immigrant day laborers, to the tune of paying out $245,000 in legal fees for the lawyers representing the laborers and $33,000 to the Latino laborers themselves. Freehold taxpayers should remember that during the next election.

With Latino voters being the fastest-growing voting bloc, it's no surprise that the Republicans seem to have finally woken up to the fact that immigrants are to be embraced, not scapegoated.

Hazelton, PA will eventually come around too.

To 3 of 4 Americans, Better Get a Passport!

2006-11-21T20:49:00.000-05:00

DHS Secretary Chertoff today announced the date by which all air travelers entering the U.S. (including returning Americans and Canadians) will be required to show a passport for entry: January 23, 2007. The only exceptions will be for some frequent travelers between the U.S. and Canada, members of the American military on official business and some U.S. merchant mariners.

No more re-entry for U.S. citizens with only a driver's license or a birth certificate.

It's currently estimated that only 1 in 4 Americans have a passport (with its $97 cost) so if you don't have one, it's time to do so.

Although some officials are concern that the changes could interfere with travel and commerce, DHS says it really should be a non-issue since 90 percent of passengers leaving from Canadian airports have passports, 69 percent of U.S. travelers to Canada, 58 percent of U.S. travelers to Mexico, and 75 percent of U.S. travelers to the Caribbean already hold passports.

Another Reason to Increase the H1B Cap

2006-11-16T21:51:00.000-05:00

On November 16th, the National Foundation for American Policy and Content First released a report showing that nearly one in every five U.S. startups that relied on venture capital before going public during a 35-year period ended in 2005, was started by an immigrant. And since 1990, it's been one in every four such companies.

Jerry Yang, Yahoo's founder, was quoted as saying "Yahoo would not be an American company today if the United States had not welcomed my family and me almost 30 years ago. We must do all that we can to ensure that the door is open for the next generation of top entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists from around the world to come to the U.S. and thrive." The study was completed in the context of efforts to convince Congress to raise the H1B cap which is now set at only 65,000. The study's sponsor, the National Venture Capital Association, is supporting legislation to raise it to 115,000, a number many would still consider too low.

About 90 percent of the immigrant-founded startups that were included in the study are involved in high-tech manufacturing, information technology, life sciences or electronic commerce with Silicon Valley still the center for both big venture capital firms and immigrant investors.

Interestingly, the study also found that companies launched by U.S. entrepreneurs go public faster (6.8 years on average) than other companies (9.3 years on average).

The study just provides more evidence of the need for an increase in the H1B numbers, something that Congress appears to be ready to do.

2006-11-11T16:43:00.000-05:00

Poland

Muzeum Narodowe, Warszawa, Polska

Title: Winter Scenery From River
Painter: Julian Fałat (1853-1929)
Year: 1907

Post Election Second Thoughts in Riverside, NJ

2006-11-10T21:19:00.000-05:00

Voters in Riverside, New Jersey elected a Democratic majority on its township committee--the same previously Republican-controlled township committee that passed Riverside's anti-immigrant ordiance back in July. So far, the ordinance has resulted in two lawsuits that the town has had to defend at taxpayer expense (one of which seeks $10 million in damages) and has given Riverside a national reputation as being an intolerant, bigoted community. The head of the Riverside Business Association (who is a Republican and who says she voted Democratic) says the ordinance has been bad for business. Gee, no kidding. Some residents are hoping the newly-configured township committee will work toward rescinding the ordinance in exchange for the lawsuits being dropped.

Is it really possible that those who passed this illegal, short-sighted and completely unworkable ordinance didn't see this coming? What did they think they were really accomplishing? One of the losing Republicans now says he thought he was giving the residents of Riverside what they wanted. He now says: "I guess we were wrong."

Demagoging the Immigration Issue Right Into Minority Status

2006-11-10T21:09:00.000-05:00

It was refreshing to see Dick Armey, former majority leader of the Republican House from 1995 to 2002, make the following statement in his November 8th op-ed piece in the WSJ: "Candidates that bet on the high demagogy coefficient associated with illegal immigration, notably in Arizona, lost." Demagogy is a completely accurate description of the far right-wing Republican effort to rally their so-called base on the immigration issue. They did so not because it was best for the short and/or long term interests of the country but because it was a means to maintaining political power simply for power's sake. Consider the election results:

Anti-immigrant extremist Republican Randy Graf lost Arizona's 8th District overwhelming to Democratic opponent Gabrielle Giffords, who supports comprehensive immigration reform. Anti-immigrant Republican J.D. Hayworth lost in Arizona’s 5th district where, just two years ago he won by 21%. Anit-immigrant Republican and now former Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee John Hostettler lost big in Indiana(R-IN). Restrictionists Republicans Mike Whalen (Iowa), Rick O'Donnell (Colorado) and Melissa Hart (Pennsylvania) all lost.

In the Senate, of course, Republican Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania) who broke with President Bush on comprehensive immigration reform lost by even a bigger margin than expected to Bob Casey who supports such reform. Democrat Bob Menendez (New Jersey) beat Tom Kean, who opposed immigration reform. Democrat Bill Nelson (Florida) trounced Katherine Harris, who opposed reform and Tom Carper (Delaware) overwhelmingly (70% to 29%) beat Jan Ting who, for reasons that could only have been known to himself, based his entire campaign on an anti-immigrant message.

Mr. Armey made another good point in his op-ed piece: "You can't build a winning constituency based on anger". He's right. The Republican House leadership demagoged the immigration issue and what did they get for their efforts? They got minority party status and probably alienated Latino voters who the party has been trying to court over the past several years.

Now, fortunately, there's lots of post-election talk of real, comprehensive and practical immigration reform having a shot at passage. It's an opportunity for President Bush and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to show they are both sincere about wanting to work together on an issue that is so important to our country's interests.

Hazelton, Pennsylvania--Anti-Immigration Law is Blocked by a Federal Court

2006-11-08T11:58:00.000-05:00

U.S. District Judge James Munley has blocked the city of Hazleton from enforcing its anti-immigrant ordinances. He issues a temporary restraining order on the grounds that landlords, tenants and businesses that cater to Hispanics faced “irreparable harm” from the laws. “We find it in the public interest to protect residents’ access to homes, education, jobs and businesses,” he wrote. The order was petitioned for by Hispanic groups and the ACLU who made the obvious argument that the laws are an illegal attempt by a local government to infringe on the federal government’s exclusive power to make and enforce immigration law.

The plaintiffs include the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, landlords, a restaurateur and several illegal immigrants facing eviction, including children who attend public schools.

The Judge held that the town offered "only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants, but has nothing concrete to back up these claims” and that it failed to provide statistics on the number of illegal immigrants living there.

Mayor Lou Barletta apparently claimed that the town's attorneys had only a few hours to prepare for the hearing--an odd claim given that the town (and presumably the town's attorneys) have been working on these ordinances for months and could have seen this inevitable legal challenge coming a mile away.

The judge’s restraining order expires Nov. 14 and a hearing on the ACLU’s motion for a temporary injunction, something that almost certainly will be granted.

Again, Hazelton needs to leave immigration law to the federal government and now, following the November 7th elections, Congress may finally be ready to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

No Suprise in Arizona's Elections

2006-11-08T11:05:00.000-05:00

In what should be no suprise to anyone, anti-immigration Republicans in Arizona lost big in November 7th elections . Republicans Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth both lost. In the words of the Tuscon Citizen, "the staunchest critics of illegal immigration in Arizona got the message in the form of either a pink slip or a rejection letter." The message being that voters want comprehensive immigration reform.

It's true that Arizona voters also overwhelingly passed 4 hard-line illegal immigration propositions, leaving no doubt that Arizon voters are clearly concerned, as are all Americians, about many issues involved with illegal immigration. But Arizona voters elected officials who took measured, rational positions on comprehensive immigration reform and rejected the candidates who took irrational, unworkable enforcement-only positions.

You have to wonder what the now minority House Republican leadership is thinking this morning, the morning afer the election, when they consider how they managed to lose seats that had been in Republican hands for so many years. The immigration issue, which is so important to the entire country and to Arizon citizens in particular, was just so botched by the House Republican leadership--those ridiculous town meetings, a 700 mile fence, etc. And so now these two particular House seats are lost to the Republicans and, of course, so is the majority party status.

Maybe now that President Bush has a Congress that appears ready to engage in an intelligent debate about the illegal and legal immigration issues we face, we may get meaningful and comprehensive immigration reform.

Why isn't the GOP supporting Randy Graf?

2006-10-23T21:26:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports today something that has been as obvious as it is inexplicable: the national GOP has abandoned Randy Graf, the Republican who is trying to replace moderate Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe in Arizona's 8th District by running as a one-issue, extremist anti-immigrant candidate.

It’s obvious because Kolbe himself refuses to endorse Graf and calls him unelectable and the National Republican Congressional Committee has canceled political ads it had planned for him (allowing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to conserve much needed funds by doing the same for Graf's Democratic opponent, former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords).

The Post cites polls that show that even in conservative Arizona, voters reject the enforcement-only policy favored by the House GOP and favor some form of guest worker program leading to eventual citizenship. The article notes that Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano remains popular even after rejecting GOP bills that would have restricted government services for illegal immigrants.

The national GOP's position on Graf is inexplicable because Graf is simply taking the same position that the national House GOP leaders have been taking for a year now—border enforcement and mass deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants already here in the U.S.

If Graf’s position in consistent with that of the House GOP, and it is, then why isn’t the House GOP working hard and spending money to get him elected?

McCain endorses Graf -- That's Disappointing

2006-10-17T16:31:00.000-04:00

It was very disappointing to hear that John McCain has endorsed Randy Graf in Graf's bid to win the House of Representatives seat being vacated by Rep. Jim Kolbe. McCain and Graf couldn't be more different in their views of immigration reform. Graf favors an extreme enforcement-only approach that is thought to be so out of touch with even the average GOP voter that the national GOP has essentially conceded the seat; McCain favors comprehensive immigration reform that includes a guest worker program leading to eventual legal residency.

How can McCain say that "it would be a pleasure to work with him in Washington" and how can Graf call McCain's endorsement "a great honor"?

I thought both men, in their own way, were more principled.

Hazelton, PA, Riverside, NJ . . . Are You Paying Any Attention At All to What's Happening in Georgetown, Delaware?

2006-10-16T21:03:00.000-04:00

As if the shortsightedness and simplistic thinking of the politicians in Hazelton, PA and Riverside, NJ wasn't obvious enough, the recently reported success story of the integration of immigrants in the small town of Georgetown, Delaware just further makes the point.

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the win-win situation in Georgetown where immigrants have been arriving for a decade to fill an economic need and where the locals work with them in an intelligent and thoughtful way. Since 1993/1994, Guatemalans have come to work in Georgetown's poultry-processing plants and although there were some rough times initially, the immigrants are now welcome and have become a part of the town's fabric.

Instead of single male immigrants, families are coming; immigrants students are excelling local schools; the town celebrates its new found diversity with a festival.

According to the Inquirer article, one developer says of the Guatemalan immigrants" "They have filled a need. We would have a very difficult time without them." The director of Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. describes the immigrants as "essential" to the local economy. According to the Mayor, "The jobs weren't getting done by anyone else." Without the immigrant workers, the local chicken industry would collapse and the local economy would then soon follow. The immigrant employers include Purdue, Tyson Foods, Mountaire Farms and Allen Family Foods.

The Georgetown police do not make it their job to enforce federal immigration law. Instead, they work at gaining the trust of the Hispanic community so that crimes are reported--without fear of deportation/removal.

The local elementary school, which is now 55% Hispanic, was just named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education--one of only three in the entire state of Delaware.

It sure sounds like Georgetown, Delaware--it's Mayor, its police, its employers, its schools and, most of all, its townspeople--have figured out that immigrants should be welcomed, just like America has been doing for generations. Why is this so hard for the folks in Hazelton and Riverside to figure out?

If You Thought the Wait at Your Local DMW Was Long Before . . .

2006-10-12T22:18:00.000-04:00

This week, the WSJ wrote a compelling editorial on one of the recent "accomplishments" of the Republican Congress on immigration, an accomplishment that the editorial refers to as the "Real Bad ID Act".

The law, of course, is actually called the Real ID Act, a brainchild of James Sensenbrenner (R., Wis.). Sensenbrenner's thought was to halt illegal immigration by denying drivers licenses to undocumented aliens, something that will, in fact, do nothing to keep people from illegally crossing the border and will only make it more likely that the highways will be more crowded with more unlicensed and uninsured motorists. Under the law, which must be operational by May, 2008, all 245 million existing holders of drivers' licenses will have to apply in person for new drivers licenses. According to the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the law will require that state motor vehicle department staffs be more than doubled and of course, already long lines at your local DMW will be even longer.

The dollar cost? $11 billion. The amount Congress has appropriated? $40 million.

As aptly noted in the WSJ, " . . . this is from a Republican Congress that made its first legislation upon taking power in 1995 a bill against imposing "unfunded mandates." It included a pledge not to impose any burden on the states that wasn't fully financed from Washington. Now comes Real ID, transforming state departments of motor vehicles back into everyone's worst nightmare."

The Border Fence That Will Never Be Built

2006-10-07T08:41:00.000-04:00

President Bush signed the new $34 billion homeland-security budget bill this past week without even referring to the $1.2 billion 700 mile border fence which is authorized by the new law. In the weeks leading to the mid-term elections, GOP leaders will trumpet the border fence as a great step toward immigration reform. However, behind the scenes they insured that the wall, in fact, will never be built, at least not as advertised.

Shortly before recessing, lawmakers gave the administration the authority to distribute the $1.2 billion to projects other than the actual physical fence such as roads, technology and something called "tactical infrastructure" such as ground-based radar, cameras and sensors. Congress also committed to allowing native American tribes, individual members of Congress, governors and local leaders to have a say in the placement of the fence and it gave Michael Chernoff the authority to use the funds for other alternatives whenever he deems a physical fence to be "impractical".

As the Houston Chronicle editorialized, "the hollow new law authorizing a 700-mile barrier on the U.S-Mexico border served two constituencies. It apparently pleased lawmakers desperate to show they achieved something, no matter its value, on immigration reform. And it satisfied anyone who liked the immigration status quo."

Of course, gutting the fence idea is a good thing. President Bush has repreatedly said he doesn't think that enforcement-only approach provides for meaningful immigration reform and he's right. The Senate has said the same thing. Hopefully, the House will now be satisfied that it can go into the midterm elections being able to say it has provided for enforcement and then, after the elections, start working with the President and the Senate on true immigration reform.

Arizona's 8th District

2006-09-15T09:06:00.000-04:00

It was disappointing that Randy Graf won Tuesday's Republican primary in Arizona’s open 8th Congressional District. Graf is the extremist anti-immigrant activist who was opposed by incumbent Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, whose retirement is leaving the seat open, and by much of the state and national Republican Party establishment. He defeated the moderate Republican, Steve Huffman, and now faces Democrat Gabrielle Giffords in the general election.

While Arizona's 8th District is generally Republican leaning (as is the state), it is thought that Graf can't win the general election because, it is thought, his anti-immigrant views appeal only to a small Republican base. The Republican establishment fears that his win on Tuesday means the GOP will lose the seat.

If, in the spring and summer of this year, the Republican House leaders had addressed the immigration issues in a responsible, intelligent way, then maybe they wouldn't be faced with this possibility. The issue would have been taken away from anti-immigrant activists like Graf and a moderate like Huffman would likely have been a sure winner in November.

Stay tuned.

How Low Can the House Republicans Go?

2006-09-07T21:46:00.000-04:00

In its September 6 edition, the WSJ reports on yet another danger in the House's failure to compromise on immigration reform and it notes the irony that it was Congress itself that raised illegal immigration as a political issue in the first place.

Congressional negotiators have never met to try to iron out the differences between the Senate version of immigration reform and the House version of border enforcement only and a compromise before the November elections seems impossible.

The article points out the interesting change in the demographics of illegal immigration. While at one time, most illegal immigrants concentrated in a half-dozen states, the low income jobs that are now available in the South and in the mid-West are attracting illegal immigrants to those areas, areas in which House Republicans have inflaming anti-iimigrant passions. For example, the WSJ reports that Steve King (R-Iowa) continues to claim that illegal immigrants commit sex crimes against "eight little girls" every day.

Can the House Republicans possibly lower the level of debate any further than that?

House Republicans v. the U.S. Business Community

2006-08-26T19:46:00.000-04:00

The amazing refusal of House Republicans to recognize the fact that their own political base is in favor of comprehensive immigration reform was highlighted in an article in the August 24 edition of the WSJ. In the face of lifelong Republican businessmen and women telling (or trying to tell) their Representatives that the U.S. needs more than the simplistic enforcement-only approach favored by House Republican leaders, George Sensenbrenner continues to insist that the public "overwhelmingly" supports the House's version of "reform" over the Senate's.

Dennis Nixon, a long time Republican Party supporter who is Chairman of International Bancshares, Corp is quoted in the article as saying that comprehensive reform "recognizes that illegal immigration is filling a gigantic need" and that he feels like "a man without a party". No wonder when House Republicans respond by suggesting that people like Mr. Nixon are really just motivated by a desire for cheap labor with no regard to border security. This insulting response must truely frustrate people like Mr. Nixon who presumably could have been counted on to be a sure Republican voter in November.

Of course, I have no idea how he and others will vote (or if they even will vote)
but it is clear that House Republican leaders are dangerously out of touch with the country on this issue. Mr. Sensenbrenner must not be too bothered by the prospect of having to call Nancy Pelosi "Madame Speaker".