WASHINGTON, D.C. – Whether Congressional Members like it or not, the unsettled immigration reform legislation will be right on top of a heap of issues that they will face upon their return September 5 from a month-long summer recess in August.

Already viewed by political pundits as a hot and fiercely contentious issue in the forthcoming November midterm election, the unresolved immigration issue will take the center stage when the Senate and the House judiciary committees try move it to a conference vote – as they will be pressured to do in the very short time they have before Nov. 4, and before the 109^th Congress expires by year’s end.

The debate – if it can be called that – has, however, been going on the last three weeks of August as a series of “field briefings” was held by Republican Congressional Members in selected cities, focusing mainly on provisions of the House border security bill [H.R. 4437] that they passed in December 2005.  Members of the House of Representatives seeking delay of immigration reform are framing the debate as a choice between border security or comprehensive immigration reform.

Security vs. Immigration Reform:

An Either/Or Choice Question?       

The briefings generally focused on beefing up border security as a priority in dealing with immigration problems, criticized attempts for comprehensive immigration reform as giving undeserved “amnesty” to those who broke the law by coming to the country illegally, and argued for a more thorough enforcement of existing laws, tougher employment restrictions and deportation rather than a path toward legalization for illegal immigrants.

The other side however argued: “A compilation of statistics and facts highlighting how our reliance on enforcement-only has failed to control undocumented immigration.”

While the House hearings had generated considerable local news coverage where election campaign-stomping legislators have lent their presence, they have not sparked the anti-illegal immigration “prairie fire” that planners had aimed for, according to reports. 

“The hearings mainly have been exercises in preaching to the choir, with most witnesses supportive of the House vision of tougher enforcement and tightened borders (HR 4437). There was sparse attendance by those who prefer a Senate-passed bill (S 2611),” one report stated.

While some Republicans took a different view, others dug deeper into their positions, according to reports.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R), for instance, speaking as one of the witnesses in a hearing in Pennsylvania presided by Senate Arlen Specter (R-Pa), in which the need for immigrant labor for a growing American economy was discussed, said his city’s economy “would collapse” if all illegal immigrants were deported.

In San Diego, however, where a briefing was held by House members at a U.S. Border Patrol station, the speeches focused mainly on expanding the border fence, hiring thousands of federal agents and imposing hard labor for illegal immigrants who commit crime  – provoking Democrats into accusing Republicans of diverting from an attempt to find a consensus on immigration.

 Contrary to what their planners had hoped for, the field briefings generally succeeded in beefing up more opposition to their draconian arguments and strengthening the opposing voices, according to an analysis.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, proponents of a more comprehensive approach  -- as championed by the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Senate bill [S. 2611] that passed in July – have also been active, mostly in the form of rebuttals against unproven assumptions about illegal immigrants usurping jobs and jacking up crime rates, and against hostile, xenophobic arguments of the anti-immigrant syndrome.

Recognizing the impossibility of eliminating the presence of 11 million illegal immigrants without doing havoc to the economy and civil rights, proponents and supporters of comprehensive approach prefer to give illegal immigrants a chance to come out, face the law and pursue a path to legalization and citizenship down the line.  While they also favor beefing up border security, they however oppose prioritizing measures for it while sidestepping immigration reform.

APA Advocates Help Found Coalition

That Bats For Comprehensive Bill

This approach, taken more widely by Democrats with a few Republicans, has been diligently pushed by civil rights and pro-immigrant advocacy organizations, notably by the National Immigration Forum, the Leadership Committee for Civil Rights, and other advocacy organizations including the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC).

“We continue to believe that the only way forward in the nation’s immigration debate is through bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are living and working in the United States; addresses the family immigration backlogs; and creates a path for the future immigrant workforce that allows them to come legally with full protections under the law,” the Coalition’s July 6 statement stressed.

This view is not only amplified by immigration watchdogs in Asian Pacific American advocacy organizations, but also by many supporters in the various segments of the APA community who believe in a comprehensive immigration reform policy that integrates family reunification and a path to citizenship.

“Congress will be remiss in its responsibility not to respond to the public clamor for a comprehensive immigration reform,” Jon Melegrito, national communication director of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), told Asian Fortune.  “It would also not suffice to simply limit itself to border security.”

Voices from newly formed coalitions among the Latino population – resulting from storms of protest demonstrations against the House bill – also added more passion to humane arguments for their right to remain in the country.  [At this writing, an undocumented Mexican mother and her U.S.-born citizen six-year old son are refusing to leave the sanctuary of her church in an attempt to evade deportation – an act that may inspire a trend toward avoiding deportation by seeking refuge from church sanctuary, and raises the question on how state and church would deal it.] 

Bush Supports Senate Bill

President George W. Bush, who right after his first election in 2000 recognized an opportunity to deal with the illegal immigrants problem and a potential for political bonanza from the Hispanic vote, revisited the issue with a proposal for a temporary workers program that would apply to undocumented immigrants.  He also agrees and supports the comprehensive approach of the Senate bill.

“Let’s get real here, there is no way that we can deport 11 million people even if we wanted to,” according to a paraphrase of his televised remarks few months ago.

But More Acrid Voices Rise

Acrid voices against illegal immigrants, including punitive, no-take- prisoner policy recommendations, have nonetheless continued to fill the airwaves and print outlets.

A most recent one was the endorsement by Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, of a New York Suffolk County’s plan to prohibit local government contractors from hiring illegal immigrants.

King, whose legislative district covers Suffolk County, was reported to have spoken at a press conference, arguing favorably for the plan, as, in his view, it would bolster security by penalizing illegal immigrants, as well as boost the economy.

King had also stated that people of "Middle Eastern and South Asian" descent [should] undergo additional security checks because of their ethnicity and religion.

Honda, Wu Slam Proposed Profiling

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Ca), Chair, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) condemned King’s remarks, writing:

“Profiling on the basis of ethnicity has proven not only discriminatory and unconstitutional but has not served the national security needs of the United States.  As a Japanese-American internee in World War II, I witnessed the irreparable harm that such policies can do to our country…America is the beacon of democracy to the rest of the world, and our enemies rejoice when we sink to their level.  Rather than persecuting Americans of Muslim and South Asian descent, we should strengthen our relationship with these communities to more effectively work together towards our shared goal of protecting our nation.”

So did Rep. David Wu (D-WA) CAPAC Executive Board Member, who also wrote a protest:

 “Racial profiling has plagued many of our nation's law enforcement authorities. Not only is this inappropriate practice a violation of civil rights, it takes away valuable and limited resources from protecting Americans from real threats to our safety."

But the anti-immigrant policy change message seems to have also aroused great appeal in others.

A mayor of a 31,000-strong hamlet perched on anthracite coal-laced Pennsylvania mountains, Hazleton Mayor Louis I. Barletta, an immigrant’s grandson, recently declared an act [passed by the City Council] to impose “$1,000 a day” fine to employers who hire illegal immigrants.

“I will get rid of the illegal people, they must leave,” he was reported to have announced.

APAs Urged to Act

While there are hardly Asian Pacific people among Hazleton’s few thousand immigrants [who are mostly Hispanic], the mayor’s message has a chilling effect on all immigrant communities across the nation.

The hard edge of some people’s view of immigrants continues to gain momentum and inspire visions of political capital especially at the time of election campaigns.  But it also inspires other innovative, if restrictive, ideas, such as one proposed by Republicans Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchinson (TX) and Rep. Mike Pence (IN), which would limit participation in the proposed guest worker program to citizens of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries.

Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director of AAJC, reacted, saying that it would “exclude workers from Asia and other parts of the world from the opportunity to participate in what would be a primary way to come work in the U.S.” 

                “The Hutchinson-Pence plan represents the worst of all possible worlds for the APA community,” she observed. “It would leave the 1.5 million undocumented immigrants from Asia unable to regularize their status in the U.S., unlike their Latino counterparts.”

                Traci Hong, AAJC Director for Immigration, said, “This would

take back the country to the Chinese Exclusion Act and National Origins Quota, when the US excluded immigrants from Asia and others parts of the world purely based on their national origin.”

                Both also observe that the plan does nothing to reduce the tremendous backlogs in the family reunify system. 

“This is particularly problematic for Asian American community because Asian countries suffer from some of the longest family immigration backlogs in the world.  For example, a US citizen parent who is petitioning for his or her son or daughter from the Philippines must wait approximately 14 years before he or she can legally emigrate to the U.S.,” Hong added.

She also called for APAs to act. “We urge the Asian American community to reach out to Sen. Hutchison and Rep. Pence, as well as their members of Congress, to explain the impact that this plan would have on our community,” she said, giving the legislators’ office numbers: Hutchison – 202-224-5922; Pence – 202-225-3021.

GOP Survey Shows Most

Favor Congress Action Now

Despite egregiously restrictive policy recommendations, the general public seems to show that as the debate goes, it has grown to appreciate the complexity of the immigration issue.

The Manhattan-Tarrance Survey, for instance, conducted June 12-15 by the Tarrance Group, a Republican polling survey, with collaboration from Manhattan Institute, a conservative institution, showed “overwhelming support (75%) for a policy that combines border and workplace enforcement with wider legal immigration channels and a path to citizenship for immigrants who pay taxes, pay fines, learn English, and avoid criminal activity; with 60% saying they would be more likely to support a candidate who supports this policy.”

Moreover, the survey indicated, “72% of the Republicans polled said it was extremely important (40%) or very important (72%) for Congress to solve the problem of illegal immigration this year.”

Two Views: Immigrant Impact on the Economy

One much debated aspect of the immigration issue is how illegal immigrants, and for that matter, a policy of encouraging legal immigration, impact the economy.

Tamar Jacoby, Senior Adviser of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, in a debate with Steven Camarota, Executive Director of Center for Immigration Studies, stated, “I say give the immigrants already coming into the country illegally a lawful path…”

She went on to cite three bases for her argument:

1) 500 prominent economists, including five Nobel laureates, [who] signed a letter saying immigration is a ‘net gain’ for Americans;

2) A survey of past heads of the American Economic Association and the Council of Economic Advisors found that 80 percent was convinced that immigration has a "very favorable impact" on economic growth; and

3) While the newcomers' contribution may be a small part of our $13 trillion economy—a total that includes inputs from labor, capital, appreciation, the return on foreign trade and investment, and more—between 1996 and 2003, immigrants filled nearly 60 percent of all new jobs.

“In other words, they made that job growth possible,” she concluded.

In remarks to Asian Fortune after a press briefing on comprehensive immigration reform June 26 at the Dirksen Senate Building, Jacoby said, “And that goes for Asians who have come here too, their work and productivity have contributed to boosting the American economy.”

On concerns regarding assimilation, she said, “Most striking of all, between a third and a half of second-generation Latinos and Asian Americans marry someone of a different ethnic group. If that isn't successful assimilation, I don't know what is.”

Camarota, one of the country’s most assiduous immigration policy analysts, however, disagrees with Jacoby’s favorable view of immigrants’ impact on jobs and the economy.

Interestingly -- and this point should perk up the ears of spokespersons in the APA community for a legal immigration policy that would facilitate family reunification -- he argued, “Legal immigration has roughly doubled in the last two decades. Yet we have more than twice as many illegals as in 1986. Most of the top illegal-alien-sending countries are also the top legal sending countries. Legal immigrants are the ones who often provide illegals with jobs and housing. The presence of an ever-larger legal immigrant population is the basis of the social network that draws in illegals [Italics by Asian Fortune].”

Ernie Cordero, a Filipino American who has a successful business in landscaping and building repair, can probably attest to both arguments.

Reacting to the panel discussion on immigration issues held at the Philippine Embassy, with Traci Hong of AAJC as one of the speakers, he remarked to Asian Fortune, “It’s true, we bring our relatives here and we work hard to pursue and maintain a higher standard of living.  But it’s also true – based on my observations in my line of work – that the persons that are sometimes hired may not necessarily be legal immigrants. But they are the ones who are in need of a job and are willing to work!”

Latest Census Shows Immigrants Increase

While the immigration debate continues to zigzag back and forth – and is predicted to continue up to the 2008 presidential election – the country has also continued to grow and change demographically.

According to a recent release, new data from the Census Bureau show that immigration continues to fill in the gaps in the U.S. labor force. Another instructive revelation is that while the majority of immigrants still settle in traditional “gateway” states of California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Texas, growing numbers are however also settling in “non-traditional” destinations like South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Immigrants from Latin America constitute a majority (57.3 percent) of the immigrants who arrived in the United States between 2000 and 2005. One quarter of recent arrivals came from Asia and about 9.6 percent from Europe, according to the report.

The report also stressed that the “continued growth of the immigrant population and its dispersion to new locales is not displacing or otherwise disadvantaging most native-born workers. Immigrants are going where there are job openings and economic opportunities.”

How about that.