British Views on Immigration

   Today, British authorities announced plans to promote a new agenda in parliamentary proceedings. The new agenda is a tougher stance on immigration. This is significant in the immigration debate in the United States.

   The two countries are closely allied and major political changes in either country garner interest in the other. In a time when immigration reform is the hot button issue in the United States, when Britain comes out with a statement that promotes a tough immigration agenda, this is significant.

   On Wednesday, British authorities announced plans to "make it easier to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes, increase fines on companies that use illegal labor and force private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. Temporary migrants would also be forced to pay for some health care."

In a time when views on immigration are softening, this puts a wrench in the gears of immigration reform. Time will tell if these views become dominant and are sent across to our lawmakers as anti-immigration fuel.






References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/world/europe/britain-urges-tougher-immigration-laws.html?_r=0 

Economics of Amnesty

     A recent report published by the Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative group, was obtained by Fox News. The focus of the report is to discuss the impact that immigration and amnesty would have on our economic situation. Specifically, it hopes to bring to light the impact that would come about if newly legalized immigrants were able to tap into benefits from the government.

     The report is being called biased and wrong. Stephen Moore, and economist and journalist for the Wall Street Times had this to say about the report:
"You've got to look at both sides of the equation. Yes the immigrants will use benefits no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists-myself included- think they 'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

     Despite these claims, some are calling the findings alarming. In the report, the Heritage Foundation states that when amnesty is granted to illegal immigrants, the government will have new expenses to the tune of 6.3 trillion dollars. They contrast this amount against a 3.1 trillion dollar increase in revenue as a result of taxes.

     While many find these reports highly alarming, many are calling these numbers erroneous. The loudest criticism is that the report assumes no financial mobility. It assumes that illegal immigrants receiving amnesty would remain in low paying, low skill jobs for the duration of their working lives and this, in all likelihood, would certainly not be the case. 

     Regardless of interpretations and speculations about the future, amnesty would bring a profound change to our country- especially economically, whether for good or bad. 

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

Alabama Ruling

     Published today via the Los Angeles times is the announcement that the Supreme Court has chosen to not hear the case from Alabama seeking to the right to enforce immigration laws. Specifically, Alabama passed a law allowing law enforcement to arrest and jail anyone that hides or transports illegal immigrants. 

     The law allowed law enforcement officials this right and clearly made the enforcement of immigration issues a state-executed law. The law had been shot down on state levels and was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with lower courts, definitively stating that enforcement of immigration laws is strictly the right of the federal government. 

     If you will recall, a similar issue took place after Arizona passed it's controversial SB-1070 law which greatly increased Arizona's strictness compared to other states. That law was also similarly picked apart by the courts. Notable is the victory that this poses for the Obama Administration. The ruling from the Supreme Court was 8-1 with Antonin Scalia dissenting. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-alabama-immigration-law-20130429,0,359722.story

Mark Zuckerberg and Immigration

    In an interesting development, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has announced the plans for creating a new political action group with specific policy goals. In his initial statement, he released the name of this new group as well as an initial policy plan- one that we can be interested in.

    His new group is called FWD.us (or, "Forward U.S.") and represents an ambitious effort to jump into the political scene. His goal is to link investors and entrepreneur-types with politicians-especially in Silicon Valley.

    He stated: "We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants, and it's a policy unfit for today's world." Perhaps to be taken as a good sign, the group is partnering with members from both political parties showing that a bi-partisan effort is desired. This further shows that momentum is being gained in immigration reform's platform.

GOP Key Players

Key Players

Without an understanding of who the main players are, no one can honestly claim they fully understand the immigration issue. On both sides of the aisle, there are key players who's "stamp of approval/disapproval" steers the agenda. Their opinions serve as rallying forces for or against any agenda and with a tinderbox issue such as immigration, "simple statements" are anything but that.

This blog post will focus on two GOP members that are prominent in the immigration debate: Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Raul Labrador. Both are hispanic and their opinions in this issue are extremely important.

Sen. Marco Rubio is a senator from Florida and is the junior member of the Senate from Florida. He is cuban-American has risen to prominence when he was considered as a possible running-mate to Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race.

 His influence is important because he is hispanic and is willing to consider immigration reform and rally the GOP behind the issue. He has appeared to distance himself from the Gang of 8, indicating that his approval has yet to be fully earned. If he withdraws support, the GOP support could leave as well.





Rep. Raul Labrador is also hispanic which is beneficial for any GOP showing support or disapproval for the immigration agenda. He is a Congressman that in 2006, was elected to represent the 14th district in Idaho. He is a key player in the immigration reform agenda because he has openly stated that the GOP needs to be "open-minded" on immigration reform.


His support comes with a caveat: in order to compromise on the pathway to citizenship, the GOP needs assurances that their agendas (such as more border security) will be passed. He has stated that this is the main reason that the GOP should support immigration reform.



These are two crucial players in the immigration reform issue. Their support will determine how hard the bill is to pass in Congress (and in fact if it will pass at all). Clearly, they are key players from the GOP and will be in the news prominently as this issue heats up.

Big Changes in Reform

Major Steps Forward

      Changes are certainly in the works. Immigration is moving forward and in the words of the Huffington Post, "immigration momentum is unstoppable." Based on all indications, it seems that immigration reform is inevitable with only one real question in remaining: when.

      On Friday, two major (and historically antagonisitc) sides agreed on a very important deal. Labor and buisness came together and agreed on a proposal that should gain traction in Congress. Under this new plan, a "W" visa will be created for "low skill" workers in industries such as hospitality, construction, and farming. These low skill workers would then have a new and improved path to citizenship.


Under this plan, a new formula for determining the number of visas given will be instituted. In the first year, 20,000 visas will be given, 35,000 in the second, 55,000 in the third, and 75,000 in the fourth. In the fourth year, the economy will dictate whether it will be more or less than 75,000 visas.










Sourced from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-leopold/immigration-reform_b_2989345.html

Climate Change and Politics

   When thinking about immigration, we can see that there are so many other issues that are wrapped into it. For example, when discussing immigration reform, opponents and proponents can mention economics, national security, morality and race. An often ignored sub-category of immigration however, is its role in climate change.

   In a recent article, Bill McKibbens of the LA Times discusses how climate change relates to immigration. Opponents of immigration reform often declare that more people in the United States only means more carbon in the atmosphere. Clearly, when one becomes more industrialized (which will surely happen when the United States absorbs immigrants from Mexico, Honduras, etc) more carbon will be produced because of the prevalence of First World amenities. 

  Recent studies show that while this is true, it cannot be used by immigration reform opponents. Why? Because when women become industrialized, they have fewer children. So, the statement that it will be more harmful for the environment is unfounded and erroneous. 

  Why is this significant? Even though this blog is not concerned with the environment, it shows that in the politics of immigration, anything is ammunition- even things that are not true. Yet, this very fact can, and may one day be used to further the push for immigration reform.

Boehner's/Rubio's Role in Immigration

   Immigration reform developments certainly has been heating up in recent weeks. As the gun-control issue cools significantly and the economy shows solid gains, attention is once again focusing on immigration reform.

   An article published yesterday shows why this is happening. The article points to 5 definitive reasons why immigration reform could be passed this year when it only a couple of weeks ago that seemed highly unlikely .

   The first is that the House is finally getting things done. House Speaker John Boehner is getting things done. 3 months ago, it looked like the convention was that unless the GOP was unified, any bill would not be passed. Since then, the House has passed notable bills including Sandy Relief and a new tax deal. I believe that this change is a recognition that immigration reform will make it to the floor and it is in the best interests of the GOP to find some sort of compromise of the immigration reform issue.

   Secondly, the bill that Obama recently created and was leaked was skewered by Republicans. This seems like a bad thing to immigration reform advocates but in reality it isn't. Senator Marco Rubio was an outspoken critic yet introduced his own views and it was not significantly different than President Obama's.

   Going off point two, Marco Rubio is inadvertently (or intentionally) engaging conservatives and Republicans in the immigration debate. And this time, the outspoken critics are not as loud, and some are even jumping on the
bandwagon calling for reform. Clearly, it is politically correct this go around to favor reform.

   In 2007, immigration reform went down in flames. While there were other hot-topic issues that are not as prominent this go around,


Senator Marco Rubio with wife Jeanette

(War in Iraq, looming elections) one of the main problems is that labor industries and big-business were at odds. This time, they are seeing the same goals and finding a compromise that supports reform.

   And lastly, when considering the highly-controversial topic of a pathway to citizenship, there seems to at least be a push, especially under Republican leadership, to have a bipartisan compromise. This bodes well for supporters of immigration reform.

Sequestration and Immigration

This blog post will discuss sequestration's role in the politics of immigration. A lot has been discussed concerning sequestration and fiscal cliffs over the last few months. The majority of those discussions has related to military cuts and other entitlements.

There is another side however. In the United States, there are droves of illegal immigrants that are detained in US prisons for a variety of reasons. Currently, the president is trying to use immigrants as a prop in the sequestration fight. Even though it is interesting that he is the one that signed the sequestration law into practice, he is using the sequestration to cause a rift in the republican party.

Typically, military cuts are used as props because it is such an important industry but President Obama recently found that the immigration issue can easily be used in politics.



 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-sequester-nears-immigration-detainees-are-released/2013/02/26/bc00ffba-8038-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

House of Cards and Immigration

   This blog will tie in the current immigration reform developments that took place over the weekend with some pop culture/entertainment references.

   This last week I began watching a show called "House of Cards." The show is about a House Majority Whip that is an expert manipulator that uses his experience and finesse to postion himself as high up the political ladder as possible. The last few episodes have given me a new appreciation for the balancing act that many politicians have to strike. Ideas such as political capital were discussed. The main idea that I picked up was how much work goes into creating and passing an agenda.

   In the series, the agenda was education reform. In real-life, the agenda that we are looking at (and is a hot-button issue) is immigration reform. The series shows that much work goes into preparing a bill; not only as something suitable for the creator of the legislation but also passable in Congress. Recently, an immigration reform bill was leaked to the press and the GOP was extremely critical saying it is"dead on arrival." This was common in the show that I was watching and is being played out in real life.

   Another aspect of politics that we can see is in political capital. Political capital is the amount of leverage you have for the accomplishing of your entire agenda. In "House of Cards"the president and the main character attempt to pass education reform. They are successful but as they look to their next issue they approach it with caution. The president says "we spent a hell of a lot of capital on education, we can't afford another fight like that." I believe, as we discussed in class, that President Obama spent a lot of political capital on gun-control and backed off just in time to not waste it all when coming up to his main issue of immigration.

   The lesson that we can learn from the show and this week in politics is that you must be very careful when leaking information. He may have seriously hurt his plan simply by releasing it too early.

Immigration Reform (2-7-2013)

On Thursday, Raul Labrador (R- Idaho) released a statement basically saying that House Republicans will not vote for the proposed immigration reform that Democrats put forth. Democrats are seeking to pass a bill that provides a path to full citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants that are currently in the country.

The problem is that the Republicans hold the house and are saying that they absolutely will not vote for the bill. They state that they will "normalize" illegal immigrants' status (presumably reducing the fear of deportation for undocumented workers)  in this country but will not give full citizenship. The part that is tricky for Republicans is that Democrats are drawing a line in the sand and forcing Republicans to choose a side: compromise greatly or appear anti-immigrant and anti-minority in upcoming elections.

It seems like politics as usual. I feel that Republicans are in desperate need of finding a stance on immigration or they risk not winning another election. Hopefully something changes in their stance because it would be a shame if an issue like this put someone like Hillary Clinton into presidential office. 

Post 1

The first thing that I'm going to discuss in regards to the Politics of Immigration will aptly fit the title of this blog. This will not be a rant about any particular stance of immigration: those views may come clear down the road.

Instead, this will discuss the politics of the matter. The first story that I found relating to immigration was found on Yahoo!. (http://news.yahoo.com/fraud-concerns-linger-over-ill-license-law-155828827.html)

The news article discusses how undocumented workers will be allowed to receive driver's licenses starting in October in Illinois. It passed with surprising bipartisanship, yet there are still opponents of the bill.

The main argument for the bill is that it will force illegal immigrants to purchase insurance and will also weed out drivers that cannot pass the written and behind-the-wheel tests. On the contrary however is that fraud could become more prevalent because finger-printing will not be required (because few illegal immigrants would consent to fingerprints). Many states have case-studies that prove that fraud will increase.

So how did this get passed if it is basically understood that fraud will increase? The championing of immigrants rights, (which is an interesting statement considering their illegality) is what pushed this measure forward. It seems that all too often, politics gets in the way of common sense.

This is my blog on the Politics of Immigration.