Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

Schumer: McCain Said to Me, ‘Let’s Get Immigration Reform Done’ – CNSNews.com


AZCentral.com
Schumer: McCain Said to Me, 'Let's Get Immigration Reform Done'
CNSNews.com
He even said to me when I called him this weekend, 'Let's get immigration reform done,' so he's thinking of the future. As you know, he and I worked on that [2013 comprehensive immigration reform] bill. And it was great to see him back, strong as he was..
Roberts: Is John McCain's finest hour yet to come?AZCentral.com
When it comes to John McCain, some journalists will never, ever learnMedia Matters for America (blog)
Horowitz: John McCain; An AppreciationGoLocal Worcester

all 1,000 news articles »

Read more here:
Schumer: McCain Said to Me, 'Let's Get Immigration Reform Done' - CNSNews.com

Keep politics out of this tragedy, Dan Patrick – Fort Worth Star Telegram


Fort Worth Star Telegram
Keep politics out of this tragedy, Dan Patrick
Fort Worth Star Telegram
Immigrants in the back of a sweltering tractor trailer in San Antonio this weekend served as a grisly illustration of the sacrifices some are willing to make to get to the United States. By the time authorities found the stifling semi truck in a Wal ...
Deaths show need for immigration reform: EditorialEl Paso Times
Death toll in San Antonio immigrant-smuggling case rises to 10Texas Tribune
Smuggling deaths show need for humane immigration lawsTimes Record News
mySanAntonio.com -Washington Post
all 2,630 news articles »

Read more:
Keep politics out of this tragedy, Dan Patrick - Fort Worth Star Telegram

Losing Jeff Sessions Means Losing Immigration Reform with Him – National Review

Does Donald Trump realize how close he is to fatally undermining the core policy on which he campaigned?

It really looks as though President Trump is trying to bait his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into resigning. Sandwiched between two interviews with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in which he criticized Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation of the Trump campaigns ties to Russia, the president tweeted his displeasure at Sessions for following Trumps own stated post-election policy of leaving Hillary Clinton alone. It was Trump, after all, who first reneged on his demagogic threat to lock her up, with Trump spokesperson Kellyanne Conway instead saying he wanted to help her heal.

What really seems to be at work is that Trump wants Special Counsel Robert Muellers Russia investigation contained or stopped altogether, and he is angry that Sessions took himself off the field. Trump is daring Sessions to resign so that he wont have to take the responsibility for firing him.

If the president continues to stay angry about this, he will likely fire Sessions and then appoint someone who will restrain or fire Mueller. Major media outlets, which know how to play on Trumps insecurities, will, in their plausibly deniable way, begin to dare him to do it, hoping this brings about the ultimate crisis of his administration, or at least heapmore guilt on the Republican party for its complicity in his presidency.

Trumps treatment of Sessions is already dissuading prominent congressional Republicans from tying themselves more closely to the administration. If this is the reward Sessions gets for his loyalty he gave Trump his earliest Senate endorsement and worked closely with him on his signature campaign issue hen why on earth would Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell stick their necks out for the president?

Even if Trump does fire Sessions, I doubt that Republicans are yet willing to hasten the end of this presidency. Regardless, losing Sessions would politically hobble Trump in a serious way going forward. The administration has so far failed to learn from the congressional health-care debate that its the White House that needs to lead on legislative efforts, not only to whip a working coalition together, but also to select for popular reforms. The Senate is pushing forward on its promise to repeal Obamacare even though the various bills they have put together are about as popular as poison.

On the long-overdue issue of immigration reform, Sessions was primed to provide leadership from within the executive branch. Any restrictionist bill was already going to be a tough legislative battle, given opposition from Republican elites, corporate America, and the media. Firing Sessions or forcing him to resign would tip the balance of power in the White House even farther away from conservatives towards the New York moderates, very likely killing any chance of immigration reform. And that, in turn, would deprive Trumps earliest and most vocal supporters of their rationale for supporting his presidency. The entire premise of the Trump campaign was that he was, in Steve Bannons words, a blunt instrument who could be used to push through restrictionist immigration reform and other needed change. The support of Sessions was the social proof of this thesis.

Instead, Trump is proving another theory correct: namely, that he is an incompetent and politically unreliable buffoon. He is not loyal to people who risk their reputations for him, and his promises are worthless. The wall isnt going to be built, and Mexico isnt going to pay for it.

David Frum rightly credited Ann Coulter with changing the 2016 election with her tub-thumping immigration-restrictionist book, Adios America. She followed it up with In Trump We Trust. That trust was misplaced. Trump will not be used as a blunt instrument. Rather, he is the one who used Jeff Sessions, and every other populist who supported him. Restrictionists need a new theory for how to translate their ideas into policy.

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review.

See the original post here:
Losing Jeff Sessions Means Losing Immigration Reform with Him - National Review

Why Immigrants Were Given Legal Status by Ronald Reagan – Newsweek

Newsweek published this story under the headlineof "A New Immigration Policy on August 3, 1981, as the Reagan administration planned to announce what would become the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.In light of recent news involving the smuggling ofimmigrants into the U.S., Newsweek is republishing the story.

Descendants of immigrants themselves, Americans have always been of two minds about immigration: the desire to pull up the ladder tugs against the Statue of Liberty's proud exhortation, "Give me your tired, your poor." At the moment, the national mood seems to be on the side of retrenchmentin part because of the recent influx of Cuban and Haitian refugees. A Roper poll last year found nine out of 10 people in favor of an end to illegal immigration, and eight of 10 wanting to reduce the number of legal immigrants. After the confusion of the Carter years, a new policy seems to be an urgent priorityand this week, the Reagan administration plans to announce the first major overhaul of immigration rules since 1965.The overhaul is the outcome of protracted deliberations and negotiations, beginning in 1978 with a blue-ribbon Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, headed by the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, the president of Notre Dame University, and ending with the recommendations of a Cabinet-level task force led by Attorney General William French Smith. The task force's findings were supposed to be revealed last week, but were withdrawn for more fine tuning. Still, the administration's major themes remain unaltered: in a plan that already is producing odd political alignments, the White House would confer eventual legal status on millions of aliens now considered illegals, create a "guest worker" program for Mexicans that some critics are calling "institutionalized serfdom"and for the first time, penalize employers who break the rules.

The illegal aliens present the thorniest problem. There are now as many as 6 million of them living in the United States, and their ranks swell by 250,000 to 500,000 a year. They provide a vital source of labor for the agricultural, manufacturing and restaurant industries in states where they settle in numbers, yet their status is shadowynever quite tolerated, never quite rejected. The administration proposes to deal with illegal aliens in two ways. Illegals with 10 years' continuous residency could become eligible immediately for permanent-resident status. Others would become eligible by degrees, providing they had immigrated before January1, 1981. The purpose of spacing out the granting of permanent-resident status, officials say, is to soften its demographic and financial impact.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Penalties: The plan also calls for choking off further illegal immigration. Border patrols would be increased, and more money would be made available to the hard pressed Immigration and Naturalization Service. Employers who "knowingly and willfully" hire illegal aliens would be fined, and even enjoined if they persisted in the practice. There is a big pitfall in the proposal, however: the documentation workers would need is easily forged. "You can buy a social-security card for less than $5 at flea markets," says one Houston builder. Yet the alternativesome sort of tamperproof card that could become the foundation of a national identification systemis opposed by civil libertarians, making them strange allies of employers who enjoy the current freedom to hire illegals.

The proposed guest-worker program is just as controversial. During a two-year experimental period, 50,000 Mexicans a year would be issued temporary visas to work in areas where their skills were in demand. Mexican officials and some employers criticize the proposal for not bringing in enough workers, while labor and civil-rights groups say that it will bring in too manyand that its real purpose is to provide cheap labor and deflate wage levels. Some union officials also see it as an attempt to cripple organizing efforts: "Reagan is telling everyone, "Go aheadrip them off. If they complain, we'll send them home'," says Alfredo De Avila of the Texas Farmworkers Union.

Higher Ceiling: Changes are also proposed for legal immigrants and refugees. The government currently allows 270,000 immigrants a year to settle in the United States, not counting immediate relatives of American citizens, who enter under another category. The new plan would raise the ceiling to 310,000, by adding to the quotas for Canadians and Mexicans"a partial alternative to illegal immigration," according to a task-force memo. Refugees would continue to be admittedthe administration expects about 150,000 in the next fiscal yearbut episodes such as the Cuban boat brigade and the Haitian migration would be discouraged. Moreover, the administration wants emergency authority to ban travel by American citizens and vessels to certain countries, such as Cuba, for the purpose of picking up refugees. It would also like the Coast Guard to be allowed to interdict on the high seas any foreign-flag vessels suspected of ferryingillegalimmigrantsinto the United States.

Finally, the plan would make it easier to deport illegals who do slip through the net, by denying them appeals to the Federal courts. In all the package would cost about $415 million, of which $180 million would be recovered through fees. Anyway, with immigration policy, money is not the issue; the real question is how far the United States can retrench on a historic promise without losing its identity.

Continue reading here:
Why Immigrants Were Given Legal Status by Ronald Reagan - Newsweek

San Antonio Incident Highlights Political Disagreement on Immigration Reform – Houston Public Media

State politicians say the tragedy illustrates the need for immigration reform although predictably they disagree on the details.

Poncho Nevrez is the State representative for District 74.

It covers about 500 miles out of the 1200 miles of border where Texas and Mexico meet.

Nevrez says when it comes to smuggling incidents like the one in San Antonio, border security isnt the problem.

I dont believe this stuff is in anyway related to border security or sanctuary cities. Weve been having this type of smuggling event for years and years, Nevrez says.

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick disagrees.

He wrote in a statement on Facebook that, these people paid a terrible price and demonstrate why we need a secure border and legal immigration reform so we can control who enters our country.

Nevrez says what causes people to come across under harsh conditions is the desire to get work, and thats what policies need to focus on.

If we had some sort of better policy for immigration purposes, folks like that who are coming over here to work wouldnt feel compelled to smuggle themselves in a trailer, Nevrez says.

The driver is charged with illegally transporting immigrants.

See more here:
San Antonio Incident Highlights Political Disagreement on Immigration Reform - Houston Public Media