A tale of two districts – Video
A tale of two districts
Reps. Jeff Denham and Tom McClintock, both Republicans of California, discuss their opposing views on immigration reform. Reps. Jeff Denham and Tom McClintoc...
By: Andre Johnson
More here:
Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category
Farm group pushes for broad immigration reform
The American Farm Bureau Federation study says said that fruit and vegetable growers would be among the hardest-hit in changes to agricultural labor reform focusing solely on immigration enforcement.(Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)
WASHINGTON The country's largest farm group said Monday that changes to agricultural labor reform focusing solely on immigration enforcement would raise food prices by 6% and reduce the country's food and fiber production by as much as a $60 billion annually.
In a 45-page study released by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the agriculture group said that fruit and vegetable growers and livestock owners would be hit the hardest.
According to the report, under an enforcement-only scenario fruit production would plummet in the United States by 30% to 61%, vegetable output by 15% to 31%. The impact to fruits and vegetable crops would be the most severe because they must be picked by hand, meaning a sudden loss in workers would increase the chance that some of the produce would go unpicked and rot in the field. Livestock also would be hit with production falling by 13% to 27%,the farm group said.
The report found that consumers and the agricultural sector would benefit from a comprehensive approach that includes an overhauled guest-worker program, the chance for skilled workers to earn an adjustment of status over time and immigration enforcement. A mixed approach would have little to no effect on the price consumers pay for food, and farm income would be cut by less than 1%.
The report was conducted for the Farm Bureau by World Agricultural Economic and Environmental Services.
"Status quo is not a viable option for anyone involved in this issue, and as a nation, we expect better," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau.
"Over five years, an enforcement-only approach would lead to losses in farm income large enough to trigger large scale restructuring of the sector, higher food prices, and greater dependence on imported products," Stallman said. "With a reworked guest worker program, and by allowing skilled laborers to earn an adjustment of status, food prices remain stable and there are only marginal impacts on production."
The chance of immigration reform grew even more uncertain after House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, last week cast doubts that a bill can pass this year, saying House Republicans weren't moving a bill because of "widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last year, has proposed letting the law be enforced in 2017, after President Obama leaves the White House.
STORY: Boehner: Distrust of Obama drags down immigration bill
Follow this link:
Gay Rights Can Unlock Immigration Reform – Bloomberg
As Bloomberg View wrote last week, American views on immigration have been changing very, very quickly.
In 1986, the last time Congress passed comprehensive immigration legislation, easing the way to citizenship for several million undocumented immigrants, the public was in no mood to host newcomers. A Gallup poll that year showed 49 percent of Americans supported a decrease in immigration, while only 7 percent supported an increase. Another 35 percent endorsed the "current level" of immigration.
The change in views has been astonishingly rapid. Since dipping to 8 percent in the fearful wake of Sept. 11, support for increased immigration has risen remarkably, hitting 23 percent in the most recent Gallup poll in July 2013. In the same poll, support for decreased immigration, which was 50 percent in the wake of the economic meltdown in 2009, hit a record low of 35 percent. An April 2013 polling report by Public Opinion Strategies, a top Republican polling firm, stated: "It is clear that Americans' attitudes have shifted to be much more positive over time when it comes to the perceived impact of immigration." In November 2006, the firm found 64 percent of Americans saying immigration "hurts more than helps," while only 36 percent said it "helps more than hurts." By March 2013, the views were upside down -- 48 percent said it "helps more," while 40 percent said it "hurts more."
What's going on?
I asked a few pollsters and immigration experts, via e-mail, whether a surge in cosmopolitanism -- for lack of a better word -- might be driving greater acceptance of immigrants. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 80 percent of Americans lived in an urban area in 2010, and 40 million residents are foreign-born. It's been a while since we were defined by "American Gothic." As economist Bryan Caplan points out, support for immigration reform is weakest in places where immigrants are fewest. In other words, exposure to immigrants -- and perhaps to diverse populations generally -- appears to be closely related to support for immigration.
"For me, it's pretty stunning that we had the Great Recession without a backlash against immigrants," Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said. Of course, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia all passed anti-immigrant legislation even as border crossings from Mexico declined. But given how recent the economic crisis was, and how mediocre the economy has been since, support for immigrants is surprisingly strong. Greenberg points out that more than one-third of New York City residents are foreign-born; roughly 40 percent of Californians are. The U.S., he said, has "passed some tipping point on scale, density and familiarity" with immigrants. "Also, note that the undocumented used to concentrate around the border states, but with stronger border enforcement, they are much less likely to return to Mexico and have dispersed to metro areas around the country."
"The average American lives somewhere where the immigrant population is large or growing, they have personal connections, and the average American knows that immigrants are not stealing jobs or siphoning social services, they are working hard and contributing to America," wrote Matt Barreto, a pollster for Latino Decisions. "The DREAM movement really gave a public face to this cause, showing hard-working, assimilated young American immigrants who want a chance to continue their educations and be able to contribute more fully to their home country."
Asked about the current historical anomaly of strong public support for immigrants, Marshall Fitz, an expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, wrote: "Americans are much more comfortable with diversity than ever before, that is also an historical anomaly. But I think the reason is the sweeping nature of the demographic shifts. They have diminished (somewhat) the fear of the 'other.' Relatedly, millennials are growing up in a far more diverse society than we did and they don't even have to react to a demographic shift -- it's what they know. And the influence of millennials on cultural norms is significant."
One of the changing norms, as Peter Beinart explains, is belief in American exceptionalism. Only 27 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Americans agree that "the U.S. stands above all other countries." Among Americans age 65 and over, 50 percent agree.
"Think of it as somewhat similar to support for same-sex marriage," Barreto wrote of growing support for immigration. "Among younger folks, let's say under 35, things like gay rights and immigrant rights are not controversial, because they have grown up knowing more people who are gay or who are immigrants. So as the immigrant population increases and becomes more visible -- AND -- the overall U.S. population ages, the people who are 18 and over voicing their opinions in surveys are becoming more tolerant of diversity issues as a whole."
Visit link:
The Insiders: Immigration reform unlikely until 2015
There is a lot of speculation these days about Republicans intentions and motives regarding immigration reform. There is also a lot of blame directed at Republicans for not passing any immigration reform bills in the House, but in fact there are two reasons immigration reform isnt on a faster track. The first reason is Republicans and the second reason is Democrats.
Among Republicans, if you combine those who are hostile to just about any comprehensive immigration reform measure with those who are fearful that addressing the contentious issue could produce a problem in their primaries, you have a blocking position in the House. If you then add the Republican members who are open to immigration reform but think it isnt worth the trouble in an election year, you end up with a majority of the GOP. Most Republicans want to focus on the two issues that voters care most about Obamacare and the economy and that will be hard to change.
It is inaccurate to suggest that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has stopped or disengaged from a process that was going to produce comprehensive reform in the short term. I think that Republicans who are willing to work on immigration reform, especially using a piece-meal approach, probably represent a majority of the caucus. But those members of Congress, along with Boehner, know they cannot negotiate with those who dont support any immigration reform this year, whatever their reason for wanting to delay. Even trying to talk about the issue with visceral opponents of comprehensive reform is almost impossible. You cant reason with a blaring horn.
The chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), summed up the Republican position pretty clearly when he suggested that very little can happen on immigration reform until at least the 2014 primary season is over later this summer. He also made it clear that he believes the issue is important, even if voters arent demanding short-term action. He reminds us that Congress is tasked with dealing not just with those things that are urgent or constantly making headlines, but with all the issues that matter.
Then you have the Democrats, who are happy with the status quo of Republicans being on the back foot. In fact, the Democrats are so certain of Republican intransigence that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was able to taunt Republicans on Sundays Meet the Press, essentially daring them to pass an immigration reform law now that wont go into effect until after President Obama leaves office. Democrats masterfully orchestrated the passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate that has no chance in the House. Republican inactivity allows them to continue to demagogue on the issue to mostly Hispanic audiences, who rightly think policy reform is needed.
So with Republicans against or fearful of enacting reform and Democrats gleeful that Republican intransigence is a fact of life, you have a perfect prescription for nothing to happen. But Boehner knows his caucus, and he knows this issue is important. Hell likely let the committee work continue through the spring and summer and reach a decision around July on whether the House will move something to the floor in the fall.
Given the fear and loathing that surrounds this issue among Republicans in the House and Senate, the best political decision for Republicans may be to wait until after their majority in the House has been confirmed and they have (at the very least) strengthened their position in the Senate. Maybe immigration reform should be an issue left for 2015 after the 2014 midterms and before the 2016 presidential campaign kicks off.
Follow Ed on Twitter: @EdRogersDC
Read more from the original source:
Immigration Reform Not The Only Legislation That Could …
WASHINGTON (AP) Little more than a week after Groundhog Day, the evidence is mounting that lawmakers have all but wrapped up their most consequential work of 2014, at least until the results of the fall elections are known.
"We've got a lot of things on our plate," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said recently when asked what Congress will be busy with this year, but he predicted no breakthrough accomplishments on immigration, taxes or any other area.
"Why don't we just pack up and go home?" countered House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California after Boehner blamed President Barack Obama for lack of movement on immigration. "What we're supposed to do is legislate and not make up excuses as to why we don't."
Immigration legislation is hardly the only area where inaction is the likeliest outcome.
A Senate-passed bill has fallen into the congressional equivalent of a black hole in the House, where conservative critics cite a changing series of reasons for not wanting to take action.
Initially, they said they didn't want to vote on a bill because they oppose amnesty for immigrants living in the country illegally. Then they observed it would be a political mistake to shift focus away from their own opposition to the health care law, which unites them, and turn it onto an issue that divides them. Most recently, Boehner, who has said repeatedly he wants to pass an immigration bill, has joined others in citing a lack of trust with Obama as a reason for inaction.
If immigration legislation is moribund in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has made it clear he doesn't intend to seek passage of a second Obama priority, this one a bill to facilitate passage of trade deals with Europe and Asia.
"I'm against fast track," said the man who sets the Senate's agenda, referring to the measure Obama wants. "I think everyone would be well advised just to not push this right now."
The legislation is opposed by large segments of organized labor, the very unions that Democrats will be counting on to pour money and manpower into their bid to hold control of the Senate in the November election.
Republicans need to gain six seats to win a majority. They say they increasingly are bullish about their prospects, what with the country generally pessimistic about the future, Obama's favorability ratings well below the levels of his re-election campaign, and controversies afflicting the president's health law.
See more here: