Sensenbrenner Bill
In the last three months, we’ve witnessed a contentious debate over border protection and illegal immigration. In December, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, an anti-immigrant measure that has evoked unparalleled scrutiny and visceral responses. Laura Cavanaugh examines what the bill proposes and talks to supporters on both sides of the fence.
Just before Christmas, the U.S. House of Representatives passed one of the toughest border security measures in more than a decade. On Dec. 16, 2005, the House voted 239-182 to pass “The Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act.” While critics have deemed the measure nativist and glaringly anti-immigrant, proponents call it long overdue.
The controversial H.R. 4437 tackled illegal immigration in the name of national security and financial self-preservation. Co-authors Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. and Peter King R-N.Y., defended their bill as an earnest attempt to regain operational control of the country’s borders and re-establish respect for immigration laws.
“Those breaking the law will be held accountable,” said Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, “whether they are smugglers cruelly trafficking in human beings, employers hiring illegal workers or alien gang members terrorizing communities.”
But the Sensenbrenner Bill targets more than gang members and smugglers, or coyotes. It makes it a federal crime and an aggravated felony to simply be in the United States illegally. H.R. 4437 differs from past laws because it would criminalize current undocumented workers living in this country, making them subject to deportation and imprisonment. It would also effectively deny any legal path for them to gain legal status.
Filled with a laundry list of nativist provisions, H.R. 4437 broadens the definition of smuggling, harboring and transporting to include people who have casual contact with immigrants. It includes anyone who shields or supports illegals, including priests, nurses, job counselors and English teachers. Anyone who “assists” or “directs” an illegal immigrant to reside in the United States could face up to five years in prison.
The National Council of La Raza is concerned that the bill would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens who have incidental contact with illegals – a church offering shelter, a soccer mom who drives a neighbor or a live-in nanny to the store or a landscaper who drives his workers to jobs. But Congressman King claims these provisions have never been used against well-intentioned church groups or immigrant advocates.
While King dismisses the notion that a law would be used to jail or fine people in the aforementioned scenarios, human rights organizations fear it could grant tremendous latitude to lawmakers.
As it stands, the Sensenbrenner Bill explicitly grants sweeping powers to law enforcers. It would deputize state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. Police would be free to question, demand “papers” and detain people who cannot prove they have legal status. The measure might also impact U.S. citizens who do not carry proof of citizenship with them at all times.
“It’s basically saying we don’t want you here. You’re not welcome. We’re going to make your life so miserable that you’re going to have to go back.” said Angela Sanbrano, Executive Director of CARECEN, an advocacy group for immigrant rights.
Rep. Elton Gallegly sees no shame in that. The California republican who represents Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties voted for the measure. He urges the government to remove all incentives that make crossing the border so attractive.
“We provide a big welcome sign and all these inducements to come here,” said Gallegly, “We send them a message saying, ‘if you can get here, this is what we’ll give you.’”
Sanbrano calls it a hateful and mean-spirited bill that casts a tremendously wide net. It would instantly transform an estimated 11 million migrant workers and their families into felons.
“It’s the first time in the history of the United States that this is happening, criminalizing the very workers that built this country,” Sanbrano lamented.
Odilia Romero also opposes the bill. She is the coordinator of an L.A.-based organization that supports indigenous people from Mexico. Romero insists migrants are what keep the U.S. economy thriving.
“How can you make us criminals when we are the hands that feed you,” questioned Romero, “We pick up the tomatoes, we clean the dishes, we take care of your kids so that they can become better citizens in the world.”
The National Council of La Raza’s Michele Waslin fears the measure would only drive undocumented workers further underground and subject them to even more exploitation. Critics say if H.R. 4437 were to be adopted by the Senate and implemented, it would not only devastate immigrants, but also the American economy.
America’s business sector worries about the potential fallout because the House bill makes no provisions for people to earn citizenship who are already in the country illegally. Currently, immigrants fuel the nation’s economy through their labor in the agriculture, manufacturing, construction and service sectors.
An estimated 70 percent of the current agriculture work force is illegal, which is why that sector would be the hardest hit. Richard Quandt, president of the Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association says farmers rely on immigrant labor because native-born Americans won’t take the low-paying and physically demanding jobs.
“It’s mostly people from other countries that will work,” said Quandt, “They’re motivated to achieve economic self-reliance.”
And with millions of Baby Boomers on course to retire over the next four years, Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warns that an immigrant legalization program is essential to prevent a worker shortage crisis.
H.R. 4437 would also impact employers considerably. It would increase penalties for people who knowingly hire or give work to an illegal worker. The bill would also place the onus on employers to electronically verify status, essentially acting like the government’s immigration police. Employers would be responsible for weeding out illegal immigrants from the workforce.
Opponents argue that the Sensenbrenner Bill only focuses on enforcement, denouncing the fact that it does nothing to resolve the nation’s immigration problems. Former Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp says H.R. 4437 is so overreaching that it could become the 21st century version of Proposition 187. Californians remember former Gov. Pete Wilson’s mid-1990s effort to deny public benefits to illegal aliens. Most Californians voted for it, yet the courts struck it down.
“The rationale is simple: If illegal immigrants cannot work or receive benefits in this country, they will not stay,” explained Rep. Elton Gallegly.
House conservatives like Gallegly assert that illegals place a huge strain on social services. The California congressman points to a common and costly practice of using hospital emergency rooms as medical clinics. He says purging the drain on social services just makes financial sense.
“How does it hurt someone when you eliminate 1,000 people who run up thousands of dollars in bills?” Gallegly asked.
He also attributes chronic overcrowding in schools and prisons to the immigrant population.
“Our jails are full right now, and 30 to 40 percent of those people don’t have a right to be here,” said Gallegly.
But Angela Sanbrano suggests a different approach — investing in the countries of origin, whose squalid and desperate conditions are forcing people to flee.
“Perhaps they should consider investing in Mexico and Latin America so that immigration is seen as an option and not as a necessity for survival,” said Sanbrano.
Congressman Peter King, co-author and chairman of the House’s Homeland Security Committee, defends the need for such stringent provisions. He claims the number of non-Mexican illegals in the United States has more than quadrupled in the past three years.
“The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 made it clearer than ever that border security is homeland security,” King asserted. “Yet millions of illegal aliens enter our country every year.”
The current legislation seeks maximum protection by militarizing the border. It mandates the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico perimeter. It would include lighting and high-tech security cameras in areas that have the highest number of immigrant deaths, illegal border crossings and drug smuggling.
The Sensenbrenner Bill would also eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery system, which admits 50,000 foreigners every year, primarily from Third World countries.
The House sent H.R. 4437 to the Senate attached to an Iraq funding bill in order to improve its chances of enactment. Yet it appears that the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform will insist on guest worker and temporary worker programs. That fundamental aspect is in direct contrast with the bill passed in the House.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have proposed a program that would allow some illegal immigrants to stay in the country provided they pay a fine. Undocumented workers could apply for temporary work permits provided they paid a $2,000 penalty, passed an English language test and cleared a criminal background check. After six years, the immigrants and their families could apply for permanent resident status. Five years later, they could apply for citizenship.
Sen. Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., are spearheading a competing proposal. Their temporary worker program would require people now in the country illegally to return home first before being able to apply for a guest worker visa.
President Bush has encouraged legislation that would include a guest worker proposal. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-PA, is crafting his own bill, one that will compel staunch backers of immigration enforcement to ultimately accept an amnesty program. The Senate expects to pass its own immigration bill in March.
Finally, the divergent bills from each chamber of Congress will go into a joint Conference Committee where negotiators will create a compromise bill. Then it will go back to both chambers for a final vote.
SOURCES
“House approves contentious border bill; Measure would build new fences and make illegal immigration a felony,” Fresno Bee (California), December 17, 2005; Michael Doyle Bee Washington Bureau
“Parishioners Fast to Protest Migrant Bill; Dolores Mission Church fears pending federal legislation targets those who aid illegal workers,” Los Angeles Times, February 2, 2006; Arin Gencer, Times Staff Writer
“Controversial immigration bill moves into Senate,” Santa Maria Times, January 8, 2006; Stan Oklobdzija
“Lawmakers foresee battle looming over immigration,” Contra Costa Times (California), January 27, 2006; Nathaniel Hoffman
“Latino leaders mobilize opposition to ‘racist’ anti-immigration bill,” The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA.), January 13, 2006; Sharon McNary
“Coalition vows to defeat harsh immigration bill,” Reuters, January 19, 2006; Alan Elsner
“Groups support immigration reform bill,” Associated Press, January 19, 2006; AP
“Resolve to fix immigration A fence has been tried before, and it failed,” The Dallas Morning News, January 6, 2006; John Redmond
“Nonprofits fear bill will shut down labor centers,” The Washington Times, January 4, 2006; Keyonna Summers
“McCain immigration plan attraction support,” Tucson Citizen, January 20, 2006, AP
“Immigrant advocates denounce GOP bill as extreme,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 15, 2005; Eunice Moscoso
Immigration bill hurts more than it helps, The Denver Post, January 10, 2006; Cindy Rodriguez
“House hears from grassroots; Is the Senate Listening,” Townhall.com, December 26, 2005, Phyllis Schlafly
“No need for mass deportation”, Las Vegas Sun, January 22, 2006 (editorial)
Interviews or statements from:
Michele Waslin, National Council of La Raza
Angela Sanbrano, Executive Director of CARECEN
U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (as well as excerpts from Santa Maria Times)
Odilia Romero
Websites:
