Cathy D. Christiansen asked:


Jerry Erickson

Published: July 1, 2009

The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.

In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”

One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.  Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.

President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”

It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.

On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.

Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.

President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.

 

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.

 

 

 

Chad asked:

After less than eight months in office, President Barack Obama’s administration is under serious scrutiny by some leading immigrant advocates.

As the legislative drive for health care insurance reform picks up steam, pro-immigrant groups are increasingly alarmed by proposals that target both documented and undocumented resident of the US.

In a telephonic press conference September 16, Latino rights, religious and political leaders blasted policy ideas circulating around the White House and Capitol Hill as not only an attack on the immigrant community

but a threat to public health as well.

“We’ve been deeply disturbed by developments in the health care debate and the treatment of immigrants in it,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the Washington, D.C-based Americas Voice immigrant advocacy organization.

Sharry criticized Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana), President Obama and Democrats for bending over backwards to accommodate political opponents, especially Republicans like shouting South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who “demonize immigrants.”

Sharry and other pro-immigrant leaders said they were deeply concerned by measures unveiled in the Senate Finance Committee and in other quarters on Capitol Hill that would exclude immigrants from participating in an insurance exchange even with their own money, prevent children of undocumented residents from getting coverage, probe the residency status of emergency room patients, and make verification of residency status an expanded, cumbersome process for both citizens and non-citizens alike.

According to Eric Rodriguez, vice-president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) an estimated 7 of 28 million legal immigrants do not have health insurance.

Under the plan released by Senator Baucus today, undocumented immigrants, who will be virtually barred from obtaining any kind of health insurance at all, would face fines of $950 and upwards if they managed to obtain any sort of emergency treatment.

US Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) voiced dismay that the White House was considering keeping many immigrants out of the insurance exchange, especially after Gutierrez and other members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus agreed that no public monies or tax credits could be used by undocumented residents in a new health insurance reform scheme.

Gutierrez contended that prohibiting undocumented residents from being in the exchange even with their own cash could result in masses of people losing their health insurance coverage.

“What about millions of undocumented workers who have health care through their employers?” Gutierrez asked. “Are they going to lose their benefits?”

“Health care policies should not be dictated by a heckler,” said NCLR President Janet Murguia, in a separate statement also made on September 16. Despite some improvements in the plan announced by Sen. Baucus,

Murguia warned that the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee had the potential to “drive up costs, leave people uncovered and threaten public health.”

Kevin Appleby, director of migrant policy for the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, said that the Church, one of the largest health care providers in the country, often provides treatment to immigrants. The migrant

advocate characterized the denial of health care to sick people as a “fool-hardy” and “mean-spirited” policy. Asserting that the Obama Administration had “capitulated” to anti-immigrant forces, Appleby said

that elected officials had sacrificed public health care on the altar on politics.

Rev. Luis Cortes, president of Esperanza USA, said that it wasn’t too long ago when widespread concern surfaced about the H1N1 virus, but that current proposals on the table would jeopardize people in dire need of health care.

Both political parties, Cortes contended, are “running the fastest to see who is the harshest.” Judging looming actions by Congress and the White House, as “morally punishable by Christian scripture,” Cortes said that the political price could be high for Democrats as well as Republicans. Adding that the immigrant community was once hopeful of the Democrats, Cortes said that local elections would have to be examined “one-by-one” in the future.

Numerous analysts consider New American voters, immigrants and their children, a key voting bloc that swept the Democrats into the White House and Congress last year. Many pro-immigrant groups are growing increasingly frustrated by the pace of immigration reform promised by presidential candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Speaking to reporters, Rep. Gutierrez recalled how the Latino community was inspired by Obama’ candidacy, and took to heart the fellow Illinois Democrat’s pledge to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and on to the path of legalization. “That’s the President I voted for, not the one who says you cannot have health care,” Gutierrez said.

The longtime Latino political leader and other participants of the September 16 press conference called for the end of “wedge” politics and the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.

J.J. Jackson asked:

Liberals are gushing over, and President Obama is praising endlessly, Sonia Sotomayor. Repeatedly we are being barraged by the left with the personal story of one who could possibly be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. While such tales are always compelling, what is rather annoying is how any time you want to move beyond that superficial and sugary coating to examine her record the left quickly jumps right back to it. In an attempt to keep your attention away from a debate about who should be sitting on the highest court in the nation, people who do not want to examine anything of substance shout, “Look! Up In the sky!” Then they regale you with tales about how Sotomayor can stop a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

President Obama claims that Sotomayor is smart. He even claims that she believes in the Constitution. But when one stops following his pointed finger into the sky where his nominee supposedly soars, we see that there is a plethora of evidence on the ground that contradicts the rhetoric. And for Sotomayor, that evidence littering the ground is damning and destroys any credibility those that call her smart and a defender of the Constitution may have.

There is one case in particular that sums this point up so succinctly and makes it impossible to ignore that Sonia Sotomayor is neither smart nor a believer in our Constitution. That case is Maloney vs. Cuomo in which Sotomayor signed onto an opinion that flies so far in the face of the facts that she should not be elected bubblegum sidewalk scraper much less nominated to the Supreme Court.

The case involved one James Maloney who was trying to assert his second amendment right to keep and bear arms but had been arrested for carrying a pair of nunchucks. The opinion with which Sotomayor agreed stated that the arrest was warranted because, now get this, the second amendment, “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government and not upon that of the state.”

Sotomayor did in this decision what liberals always do. She looked for something that she might be able to use to support her opinion and disregarded anything that actually contradicted it. Things like, oh I don’t know, say the 14th Amendment? You know that one don’t you? It says that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which makes it clear that the states must, absolutely must, protect the same rights as the Constitution itself protects.

Sotomayor’s opinion does lead to some interesting potential conundrums however. If the second amendment only applies to the federal government as she suggests then what about other rights retained by the people and specifically called out in our Constitution?

Can the states now infringe upon my freedom of religion? How about my freedom of speech? What about my right to petition from redress? After all, unlike the second amendment, the first amendment specifically states that it is Congress that shall make no law regarding such.

Can the states now decide that they do not need a warrant to search my home even though the Constitution forbids such actions? Or can the states now decide to deprive me of a right to due process and a right to jury trial? What about these Constitutional protections written in a similar manner to the second amendment that Sonia Sotomayor believes stops at federal authority only?

Can I now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the whim of the state? Can blacks now be placed back in shackles and shipped off to the plantations again simply for being black? After all, if what is written in the federal constitution only applies to the federal government what is to stop the states from doing any of these things?

Is my right to assemble in jeopardy now because my state legislature might decide that such is not a good idea? Can the state now quarter soldiers in my home without my permission? Can my papers and effects now be seized on the whim of the state alone?

Where does the lunacy of this opinion which Sotomayor agreed with end?

Of course the 14th Amendment renders all of these questions of mine moot. But Sotomayor either never read far enough into the Constitution to find it or is so wedded to ideology that she chose to ignore it. Can we afford to place someone who is obviously a wifty illiterate or dangerous ignoramus at best and a treacherous anti-American radical at worst to a court where such opinions of hers would become the norm and perhaps even the law? Will Americans stop looking to the sky for a super woman that does not exist long enough to ask serious questions and soundly reject her?