The new Congress has brought with it a rather significant shift in political attitudes toward a comprehensive immigration reform package. Before the November elections, immigration was not on the radar screen. Targeted bills were receiving little attention, and comprehensive solutions were more or less dead on arrival. But in the wake of the President’s re-election, there were open discussions about the margins by which Hispanic voters supported Democrats. Going back to the election of 2000, President Bush received 31 percent of the Hispanic vote.
That number grew to 44 percent in 2004. In 2008, President Obama received 67 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008 and 71 percent last year. The growing gap between Republican and Democratic votes is magnified by the fact that the Latino population represents a growing share of the electorate.
Several commenters opined that unless their party could combat the loss of support from the Hispanic community, the party might be relegated to a permanent minority. That might be an overstatement. But what has occurred is a renewed focus on immigration by Congress.
In recent weeks, proposals in both the House and Senate have been presented. As of this writing, neither has been put in the form of legislation that has been introduced. The discussion points, however, do provide some encouragement for agriculture, including dairy farmers.
The Senate’s efforts thus far have been led by “the gang of eight,” a group of four Democrats and four Republicans. Their proposal includes the following key elements. First, a “tough but fair path to citizenship” tied to securing the borders and an effective tracking system to ensure legal immigrants leave the country when their visas expire.
Second, a reformed immigration system premised on building the economy and strengthening families. Third, creation of an effective employment verification system. Fourth, improving the process for admitting future workers.
In the House of Representatives, the Judiciary Committee has begun a series of hearings on immigration. In the first of the hearings, discussion was focused on what should be done with the undocumented aliens currently in the U.S.
It appears that, for the time being, that single issue will be the most contentious point to be dealt with. There will be those that view any pathway to citizenship for those persons as granting “amnesty” to those who willfully violated the law. Similarly, there will be legislators who will be reluctant to support any bill that does not offer lawful status to undocumented workers.
Also in the House, a group of members from both parties are working on their own comprehensive immigration proposal. While few details have been released, the claim is that the House legislation is more developed than the discussion paper circulated by the Senate.
Since the House proposal has not yet been released, agricultural employers have only the Senate proposal to review. Its provisions for agriculture are encouraging.
With respect to those workers already in the country, the proposal calls for “a tough, fair and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that is contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.” The take-away: Existing workers will likely have an opportunity to remain in the country.
Further, the Senate proposal carves out a program exclusively for agricultural workers. “[I]ndividuals who have been working without legal status in the U.S. agricultural industry ... who commit to the long-term stability of our nation’s agricultural industries ... will earn a path to citizenship through a different process under our new agricultural worker program.”
For future workers, the Senate proposal would create a new program “to meet the needs of America’s agricultural industry, including dairy, to find agricultural workers when American workers are not available to fill open positions.”
It is notable that the proposal explicitly mentions dairy. This seems to be an implicit recognition that the current immigration visas for seasonal workers, to the extent they address the needs of some agricultural employers, are simply inadequate for the dairy farmer.
In addition, the explicit provision for the agriculture sector should address the concerns of those groups that have supported AgJOBS, legislation that has been introduced in previous Congresses to address the needs for farm workers.
The Senate proposal also includes a call for improved employment verification for employers. The proposal outlines “a fast and reliable method to confirm whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the U.S.” that prevents identity theft and hiring of unauthorized workers.
Without providing specifics, the framework would include a “non-forgeable electronic means” of proving the identity and work authorization of workers.
The current E-Verify system still has its shortcomings and is not mandatory for most employers. The program described in the Senate proposal appears to call for improvement of this existing database or, perhaps, creation of an entirely different system. As with any legislation, however, the devil will be in the details.
In the coming weeks, it should be expected that some form of a comprehensive bill will be introduced in each house. Remember that the Senate has a Democrat majority, while the House is led by Republicans. Both pieces of legislation will be authored and have initial sponsors from both parties.
That is the only way such a monumental undertaking has any chance of success. In addition, the extent to which each bill diverges from the other will have a significant impact on how long this process will take before floor debate and a vote occurs.
The president has made comprehensive reform a priority, and is urging Congress to act quickly on the issue. While the Senate appears to be headed down this expedited road, the first hearing in the House Judiciary Committee and comments from Speaker John Boehner point toward a slower approach.
In fact, some comments during the Judiciary Committee’s hearing suggest that some members of the majority are still in favor of a piecemeal approach to immigration rather than a comprehensive approach. But the likelihood that several smaller stand-alone bills would be taken up by the Senate appears slim.
Nevertheless, any proposal will have to address issues including whether current undocumented workers will be offered a pathway to citizenship and specifics on how border security would be tied to any visas offered to currently undocumented workers and the scope of any new visa programs. In the current fiscal situation, the cost of all such programs will also need to be considered.
Returning to the issue of Hispanic voter support for the two parties, President Bush received 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. It was in that period that Republican Ted Kennedy and Republican John McCain proposed a comprehensive immigration bill, which President Bush supported. That bill died in the House of Representatives. We will see if this year’s bipartisan efforts fare any better. PD
Ryan Miltner
Attorney
The Miltner Law Firm
