NCLR BLASTS SENATE FOR FAILING TO MOVE IMMIGRATION BILL

Vows Not to Give Up on Immigration Reform

Washington, DC – The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., today expressed outrage at the Senate’s failure to move a comprehensive immigration reform bill forward.

“It is utterly unacceptable for the Senate to fail to address the issue of comprehensive immigration reform,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The country demands and deserves a solution to our broken immigration system, and it is unthinkable that the Senate would fail to move the debate forward.”

Murguía asserted that while much of the bill needs improvement, it also offers a great deal of hope. She highlighted the pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the “DREAM Act,” the reduction of backlogs for immigrant families, and the “AgJOBS” proposal. “Our opportunity to improve this bill and to enact the best possible reform rests with the United States Senate. They must not abdicate their duty to the American public,” she added.

“Like the many immigrants who came before them, those who are at the heart of the current debate have shown incredible courage and persistence in the face of adversity. They move forward despite enormous obstacles, and they do it with hope and faith in this great country. We share their desire and are inspired by their determination. Motivated by their example, we will continue to insist that the Senate pass the best possible immigration reform as soon as possible,” concluded Murguía.

State/Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws (CLEAR Act)

Overview

There have been several attempts to involve state and local police in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws. The “Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act” (CLEAR Act) was introduced in 2003 and reintroduced in 2005, and provisions of the CLEAR Act continue to be introduced as amendments to other bills. In general, these bills and amendments would give state and local police officers the authority to enforce all federal immigration laws; give financial incentives to states and localities to comply; criminalize all immigration law violations; and place the names of any individuals believed to be in violation of immigration laws in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.

While the safety and security of our communities and our country are of the utmost importance, new policies that would allow local police departments to enforce federal civil immigration law will hinder criminal investigations and have a serious negative impact on Latino communities. Immigrant advocates, legal experts, and many law enforcement agencies agree that the Department of Justice’s policy shift is in direct conflict with long-standing legal tradition; will inevitably result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations; and will undermine – rather than strengthen – effective enforcement and antiterrorism activities.

NCLR Position
NCLR strongly opposes efforts to make state and local police responsible for the enforcement of federal immigration laws. State and local law enforcement agencies should not enforce federal immigration laws, and these bills would be detrimental to the Latino community. They would erode the relationship between immigrant communities and law enforcement officers, would mean that fewer people report crimes, and would take scarce resources away from other police functions, leaving entire communities less safe. This type of legislation would also likely result in increased racial profiling and civil rights violations by state and local police officers.

SORRY, CHARLIE, THE CLEAR ACT IS STILL BAD LEGISLATION

Washington, DC – In response to an ad hominen attack today by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) reiterated its opposition to the CLEAR Act, legislation that will compel overworked, untrained law enforcement personnel into enforcing complex federal immigration laws, in addition to fulfilling their other duties.

“The CLEAR Act undermines the ability of law enforcement to do its job and compromises public safety. That stance has earned us yet another hit piece from Congressman Norwood in which he calls us ‘radical’ and ‘un-American.’ In a Dear Colleague letter today, Congressman Luis Gutierrez listed more than 100 law enforcement organizations and officials who also oppose the CLEAR Act for the same reasons we do. Surely Rep. Norwood doesn’t believe that they are ‘radical’ and ‘un-American,’ too.” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO.

“In a series of letters, we have patiently explained to Congressman Norwood who we are – an American institution founded nearly 40 years ago to help open the door to the American Dream to all Latinos – and educating him about our history, our network of community-based organizations serving millions every day of the year, the work we do in housing, health care, and education, and even what our name actually means. He has yet to give the courtesy of a reply or to respond to our request for a meeting, yet he continues to mischaracterize our organization and its work,” noted Murguía.

“Given recent news reports, we are not surprised by Congressman Norwood’s failure to acknowledge our request. With all due respect to Rep. Norwood, he has a record of attacking those who disagree with him,” continued Murguía.

Murguía cited an article in the Gainesville Times which quoted Norwood as stating at a hearing, “What I wanted was witnesses who agree with me, not disagree with me,” after a Congressional Research Service official testified that research does not support the Congressman’s view on the impact of immigrants. Rep. Norwood told the official that he planned to complain to her superiors.

“At the end of the day, Congressman Norwood can call us and everyone else who disagrees with him all the names he wants, but it doesn’t change the facts – the CLEAR Act is still bad legislation that will adversely affect the safety of not just the Latino community, but all Americans,” continued Murguía.

“Finally, it is our understanding that ethics rules prohibit House members from using taxpayer funds to carry out electioneering activities. We note in this context that Rep. Norwood’s press release, which was released on his congressional office letterhead, urges voters to threaten to ‘throw out’ members of Congress based on their votes on this issue. This has the appearance of a violation of House rules, and we therefore request that the appropriate body investigate. If it is confirmed that Rep. Norwood violated House rules, we urge him to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for this misuse of funds and issue a public apology,” concluded Murguía.

The bill was rescheduled yesterday, with enough votes to reopen debate but not enough to pass it (that is a guess!)

What is clear is that people are polarizing around this and that both sides are escalating the issue. It is hard to know whether this will diminish or increase the odds that something will pass. Sometimes escalated demands can make it easier to find a compromise, sometimes compromise becomes harder.

My own view is that we are asking the wrong questions about illegal immigration, and I think that our discussions here tend to focus on the wrong questions.

But have the emotions and the rhetoric escalated to the point where constructive discussion have become impossible?

As in Washington, people who become uncivil do their causes no good, as all they do is isolate themselves and provoke their opponents to similar incivility and isolation. And lurking not much beyond incivility is the emergence of anger and bigotry....

Just wondering whether a useful discourse might be possible?

Oceans

lets cut the bull and call a spade a spade, an undocumented immigrant is an ILLEGAL ALIEN who has comitted a CRIME by enterning this contry illegally. There is a legal way to get into this country, use it and you are welcome here, fail to use it and you are not welcome here.

Lonelywalker you sent me an email telling me that you are here legally and I applaud you for that you also said that you feel for your countrymen and I can understand that you do, but this country cannot continue to absorb and pay for the influx of illegal immigration. If you really feel for your countrymen, encourage them to enter this country legally and comply with our immigration laws instead of flaunting their illegal status and demanding rights not given to legal citizens.

gardenforge i agree with u in the sense that they should be here legally, thas is not in question.
all what i'm saying is there has to be a human way to do it.
and the legislations that u support are not human.
these legislations are intended to treat these people as animals.
therefore, as far as my limited judgment allow me to understand most of these legislations are an instrument of hate.

and hey just as a matter of politeness if i sent u an email is because whatever i wrote in that email should be private just for ur information
thank you

Miguel, amigo, we have a problem with this bill.

Forget for a moment the issue of 'legality' or 'illegality' and the attempt to reconcile them via some form of amnesty. That the illegal workers should be assimilated into our society and economy one way or another WILL happen. The battle is over how, and at what cost to various segments of the foreign workers and US worker force.

Here is the latest problem: slipped into the bill by Ken Salazar is a provision that states that English is either the 'common' language of the US, or the 'national' language of the US.

We have already read several instances where odd provisions were slipped in, including the one that at some point in the near-future US companies and employers will have to submit to the Feds data on ALL their employees.

I tried to read the damn bill and gave it up. It is just too big, too full of weird provisions, too full of unsupported fears, too full of hidden agenda, and too important to be considered as it now is being doing by the Congress.

I have come to the conclusion that necessary and desirable as a GOOD immigration/foreign worker bill is, that this bill and this ramming of it through Congress (if that were to happen) is not the way to do it. It needs, I think, to be started from scratch, perhaps drafted in the first place by an impartial panel of interested parties (including representatives of the 'illegal migrants') and submitted to the Congress for its consideration and amendment.

Most importantly, it would allow all parties to cool down, and actually have dialogue on the issues involved, and to explore alternatives without feeling that their lives are going to be turned upside down by a bill that most people actually know little about but fear much.

Look at how pointless and angry the discussion here on our two migrant labor threads has been! Can you imagine how better we would all be if the discussion had been respectful, exploratory, constructive?

Oceans

These people entered this country illegally, they should be sent back where they came from not rewarded for breaking our laws. I can't be very sympathetic to someone who breaks the law and then whines becuase they may have to suffer the consequences. They should have thought of that in the first place.

The people lobbying for the illegals complaining about not getting what they want. Wow, I couldn't see that one coming...

I feel for the people in Mexico that are living in slums.
I feel for the people of Darfur.
I feel for the single mother trying to feed her kids.

I dont feel for people coming in illegally.
I dont feel for the people killing other for whatever reason.
I dont feel for the single mother that goes into a grocery store that is caught stealing food.

There are other things that can be done without resorting to criminal acts.

Oceans you are gentleman with people like you I would debate the issue with more intelligence and politeness.
Sadly enough not everybody around here deserves my respect.
I absolutely agree with you, that we need to be more constructive and debate the issue suggesting solutions and not just criticizing each others
I'm sorry if i offend u in anyway.
For the others we will see, there are things to heavy you just can't stop them to reach ground.

Walker, thanks for the compliment.

No, I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I posted my hope for a better quality discussion.

The anger builds as these email discussions hit on sensitive subjects, and it is easy to start accusing others of being stupid, when all that is happening is disagreement over some issue. Labeling people is one form of insult. Another is denigrating their intelligence, or knowledge.

In my opinion, we are all students, all of us have a LOT to learn about the world, and we are all interested in some of the biggest problems facing our society.

And, yes, we all have our blind spots, our fears, lurking just beneath the surface, waiting to explode at the least provocation. Surely mastery lies in not succumbing to the lure of righteous anger.

If only we could see that really we are all really on the same 'side' -- the side of learning, of curiosity, of trying to make the world a better place. And if we work together, right here, we will be able to move forward -- and we will all come out ahead of where we were. We will all be energized, and not torn down by the bickering.

I see in everyone posting today the ability to make it so.


Oceans

Oceans5555 writes:

"Forget for a moment the issue of 'legality' or 'illegality' and the attempt to reconcile them via some form of amnesty. That the illegal workers should be assimilated into our society and economy one way or another WILL happen. The battle is over how, and at what cost to various segments of the foreign workers and US worker force."

I'm not so sure. The middle class in this country is being squeezed like never before, and illegals burdening a system that upper class already exploits to the hilt is not going to improve the mood of the largest group of taxpayers.

Horror of all horrors, on Meet the Press the other Sunday I found myself actually agreeing with Pat Buchanan because I know by experience that at least some of what he was saying was demonstrably true by my own experience.

I know for a fact that countries that many conservatives in America consider liberal socialist democracies have and enforce far stricter immigration policies than the U.S. In Iceland, for example, even an engineer from America wouldn't be allowed to work there. I suspect the *real* reason the Bush administration wants this bill this badly is because its core consituency needs to keep feeding its fix for cheap labor. In places like Iceland, that wouldn't wash-- it's locals first and foremost, and aliens to the back of the line.

Oceans5555 further says:

"Here is the latest problem: slipped into the bill by Ken Salazar is a provision that states that English is either the 'common' language of the US, or the 'national' language of the US."

Then you have situations with language. As an engineer, I often have to draw up complex assembly drawings and annotate them in such a manner that people with fewer skills can assemble the product from them. Should I have to become fluent in Espanol at my own expense, taking time away from keeping up with the explosion of new technology?

It's a complicate issue, to be sure, and one that could probably be worked through with cooler heads and compromise. Still, certain levels of expectations on the part of illegals, I feel, is going to have to change, just as is the expectations of the Bush administration and its patrons. The country has already been though enough schisms in the past few years.

-Kerry O.

Kerry, can you say more about what expectations you think might have to change? For the illegal migrants? For the patrons of Bush?

Thanks.

Oceans

Oceans5555 writes:

"Kerry, can you say more about what expectations you think might have to change? For the illegal migrants? For the patrons of Bush?"

I can, but I'm decline. When this sort of slander...

"Sheesh! Ehere is that throwing up on your hemp shoes emoticon? Don't you have to protest at some soldier's funeral somewhere?"....

is tolerated, what's the point of participating? Of throwing good thoughts after vile ones?

Who is John Galt?


-Kerry O.

Dont make me hijack this thread. Im getting a lesson in Politics from a master!!!

which master the bushy guy from washington????

No JJ, in the Iraq thread! LMAO

cool

When we first began discussing "the bill" here at JSH, I made the plea for All, to be good citizens and read the bill, before making a determination to vote for it.

I specifically indicated that one of the greatest potential risks of such a bill, was others, tacking on their hidden agendas. This
has been such a common practice, that many are beginning to withhold their opinion, or deferring the power they have to the representative who will be voting. This inevitably leaves the representatives to vote according to their own beliefs on the issue, or siding with those who have voiced an opinion, solely based on their own experience, and not on the bill itself.

I was in the bank at the time I saw the headliner, setting aside the bill for now. I literally (nearly) shouted, HORRAY! and the teller at the time jumped. I explained my outburst, and they began to question me. It's amazing how many are not aware of the situation, but hold an opinion non-the-less.

I too tried reading the bill, or at least the portion that was available to me, as the rest was considered an unpublishable work in progress. The number of pages not posted was incredible, and 'unfinished'. I immediately wrote to my reps, and to friends, who I hope followed suit. I did NOT want such a bill to be considered. So Fanta, in that post that so honorably got people involved, I did in fact do as I said, I did write, but I did not push for this legislation as so many others did.

Oceans, has the voice of reason, and the reasoning can not be denied. When he said to forget for a moment the legal or illegal issue, what he was saying was to put aside the bias that we all tend to have, based on our own experience, and to open our minds to what affect a bill, ANY bill of this nature will have, not just for now, but for the long term.

As it stands, it is a jumble a puzzle pieces, taken from many different pictures and can never be put together for the single purpose it's design was meant to have.

I would so love to have open discussion. If one has an opinion, and that opinion is based on a personal experience, it MUST be up to that person to recognize, that a bill of this nature, may not specifically address YOUR experience. On the other, to vote for any bill, just because it reconciles one thing that you perceive as fault, does not make the bill correct or adequit.