The U.S. Senate has managed to pass an immigration reform bill. Now it goes to the House of Representatives, where conservative Republicans, obstructionists, anti-immigration zealots, John Boehner and his band of meanies will undoubtedly do everything they can to stymie it. But there is, in fact, a way to get the bill through, even without the “majority of the majority” that Boehner is insisting on.  The strategy is called a discharge petition.

At the Maddow Blog, Steve Benen explains the discharge petition this way:

As a rule, the only bills that reach the House floor for a vote are the ones House leaders allow to reach the floor. But there’s an exception: if 218 members sign a discharge petition, their preferred legislation is brought up for a vote whether the majority party’s leadership likes it or not.

In terms of specific numbers, there are 201 Democrats in the House caucus. If literally all of them are prepared to support the bipartisan Senate bill, they would need 17 House Republicans — just 7% of the 231 GOP House members — to join them on the discharge petition. If, say, 10 conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats from Southern states balked, they would need 27 Republicans to break party ranks.

Just last week, we were told they were as many as 40 House Republicans who consider themselves moderates, unhappy with their party’s far-right direction. Is there a chance half of these alleged centrists might sign a discharge petition and get immigration reform done? Sure there is.

I’m usually not a fan of legislative and procedural tricks, but for this worthy cause—immigration reform—I’d made an exception.  It’s hard to be against the tactic that enabled the 1964 Civil Rights Act to pass, right?

Unfortunately, people smarter than me are pessimistic about the chances of a discharge petition this time around. Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum says:

I’m not a believer. Here’s why: it actually makes sense. If Republicans really do want to pass immigration reform just to get it over and done with, but they want to do it without getting their fingerprints all over it, the discharge petition is easily their best bet. As Steve says, all it requires is 20 or 30 Republicans in safe seats to vote for it, while the entire rest of the caucus gets to continue railing against it while secretly breathing a sigh of relief. That’s totally logical.

And that’s why it won’t happen. Logic is simply not the GOP’s strong suit these days, and frankly, neither is Machiavellian maneuvering. The only thing they know how to do is yell and scream and hold votes on endless doomed repetitions of bills designed to demonstrate their ideological purity.

I can only hope that Drum is wrong.

The post How to pass immigration reform, without a majority of the majority appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Right-wing politicians, their media allies—and probably somebody at work or in your family—are peddling a lot of bull about immigration reform, a topic that is once again heating up in Congress. To counter the myths and misinformation, the progressive Media Matters has created a handy one-pager of counter-talking points. Here are some of the highlights. You can try them out the next time your BS detector red-lines and your blood starts to boil, but there’s no guarantee that facts will make a difference. Of course, you knew that.

BS statement #1: “Legalization is amnesty.”
Not really. We’re talking about giving people the chance to earn citizenship — after waiting years and meeting multiple requirements, like learning English and passing a background check. It’s in all our interests to give them that opportunity to continue contributing to America.

And, by the way, politicians who say we can deport 11 million people aren’t being honest. It doesn’t make financial sense either: it would cost us a quarter of a trillion dollars and cost our economy billions.

It’s also worth noting that President George W. Bush supported created a road to citizenship, and now, a bipartisan group of senators is leading the way with a proposal that includes earned citizenship for immigrants.

BS statement #2: “The Southwestern border is less secure than before.”
Fox News recently [April 2013] aired a report using skewed time periods and statistics to “prove” that immigration arrests at the border are at an all-time high. In fact, crime along the border is down, illegal border crossing under President Obama are at historic lows, and border security benchmarks have been met or even exceeded in some places.

Why? The border is more secure than ever, partially because federal government has ramped up enforcement resources in recent years—to the tune of $18 billion per year. At the same time, Mexico’s economy has been growing at a good rate for the past decade — better than America’s — giving people less reason to leave and immigrate to the U.S.

BS statement #3: “Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes.”

Not true. First of all, everyone pays sales taxes, state and local taxes, and property taxes. Many Immigrants say that they would love to be in the system and pay regular taxes like any other American citizen. That is their dream.

In addition, many do also manage to pay income and payroll taxes, paying nearly $15 billion into Social Security each year, though they cannot collect benefits.
BS statement #4:  “Immigrants will take jobs away from American workers.”

We’ve heard that one many times before—with every wave of new immigration. The Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Chinese. This is merely the latest incarnation of an old, disproven argument.

Research shows clearly that immigrant workers help grow the economy overall, leading to lower unemployment and higher wages for those of us already here. That’s partly because immigrants and workers born in the U.S. generally don’t compete for the same jobs. Even with highly skilled workers, higher immigration increases the demand for workers, stimulates investment, and promotes specialization for many workers already in the labor force.

Most importantly, fair and practical immigration reform will allow us to crack down on businesses that undercut American workers by exploiting cheap immigrant labor off the books. That levels the playing field for honest businesses that play by the rules and pay their workers decently.

Because immigrants are also consumers and taxpayers, comprehensive immigration reform would be good for the economy. That’s common sense — the more people we have buying food, clothing, housing, and cars, the more businesses need to hire to keep up.
BS statement #5: “Illegal immigrants come to the United States to take advantage of government welfare.”

Okay, let’s get this straight, people: Federal programs like food stamps have always excluded undocumented immigrants, and the leading immigration reform proposals on the table do not even give immigrants with legal status access to federal public programs.

Ask anyone in your own family why they came to America [and someone in every American citizen’s history was, in fact, an immigrant, unless you are a Native American, and that’s a whole different story.] People come to America for the opportunity to work to get ahead, to make life better for themselves and their families. Most families moved here in the past for the same reason that American immigrants move here today — to seek freedom and a better life for their children.
B.S. statement #6: “The Obama Administration is trying to promote food stamps to illegal immigrants.”

To quote Al Gore: “Sigh.” Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for food stamps. People who have immigrated legally make up less than 4% of food stamp users.

Right-wing Obama-haters and fear mongers have this one so wrong that it’s almost comic. They are referring to a program that only provides information, not food stamps. It provides outreach information on benefits that are already available to people who’ve been in the country legally for five years. If people are eligible for a program, they should be able to access it.

The funny part is that the program they’re ranting about was started under…wait for it…President George W. Bush.

BS statement #7:  “Illegal immigrants are criminals and commit more violent crimes than US citizens.”

Let’s review: Immigrants have the lowest crime rates of any demographic group, and compared to people born in the U.S., immigrants are less likely to end up in prison — a fact that even anti-immigrant groups have acknowledged.

Many law enforcement officials say cooperation from our immigrant communities helps keep our neighborhoods safer — and that anti-immigrant state laws actually do the opposite by breeding suspicion and fear among members of the community who’ve done nothing wrong.

Let me know if the facts work. And don’t bullshit me.

The post Activate your BS detector: You’re gonna need it for the immigration-reform debate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

While Congress stalls over immigration reform, some states are making their own moves. That’s especially interesting because one more typically associates “states’ rights” with anti-progress laws, especially regarding individual rights. The worst of these, in recent memory, is Arizona’s SB 1070, which required law enforcement officers to stop anyone they suspected of being an illegal immigrant and to demand to see their identification. But Arizona’s xenophobic, backward move may turn out to be, in the longer run, a good thing: not for immigrants, and not for Arizona’s image and economy, of course, but as a poster-child for bad legislation from which other states can recoil.

Opting out. Is that a good thing?

Some recent immigration moves by states are less about drafting their own immigration laws and more about opting out of a federal program called Secure Communities, which is designed to detain and deport illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes. According to the New York Times:

Under the program, the fingerprints of every person booked by the police are checked against Department of Homeland Security databases for immigration violations. That is in addition to routine checks against the F.B.I.’s criminal databases.”  State officials and federal lawmakers have questioned the program, saying that Homeland Security officials conveyed misleading information about whether participation was mandatory or whether states could opt out.

Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has said that the program is, indeed, mandatory. It’s currently operating in 1,200 communities and is scheduled to go in force everywhere in 2013. The program has been a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement policy. An estimated 800,000 deportations have taken place since the program started in Texas in 2008. But Secure Communities has encountered criticisms from both left and right: Progressives view the program as unnecessarily punitive. Members of the Latino community regularly object to its provisions. At the same time, conservative Republicans complain that it’s not tough enough.

At the state level, some leaders complain that Secure Communities doesn’t deport convicted criminals as advertised and that, under its rules, a disturbing number of documented immigrants with no crime history have been swept up and deported. So, they’re opting out or creating alternate rules for their state’s law enforcement agencies.

Examples: Illinois Governor Pat Quinn recently announced that he was pulling his state out of the controversial Secure Communities program. In New York, 38 legislators sent a letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo urging him to withdraw from the program, calling it “destructive.” In California, where Secure Communities operates in all communities, the legislature is considering a bill that would allow counties or local law enforcement agencies to decide for themselves whether to participate.

But is opting out a good thing? Is it legal? That question is already being tested by states whose legislatures want to opt out of the Affordable Care Act—healthcare reform. If states can unilaterally decide that federal laws don’t apply to them, the existence of a federal system is in serious jeopardy. Of course, the motivations behind nullifying the federal healthcare reform act are [in this writer’s opinion] not about objecting to an immoral or unconscionable law: They are about defeating anything proposed by President Obama. The potential breakup of the federal system is merely collateral damage. [Or is it? See: Tenthers, Texas threatens to secede, etc.] Is the same anti-Obama motivation at play in the objections to Secure Communities, or is there demonstrable evidence that the program is ineffective at best, or at worst, unfair and unjust? And even if it is, can a state refuse to enforce a federal law that it disagrees with? Former Alabama Governor George Wallace tried that when the federal government ordered the racial integration of the University of Alabama. It took the National Guard to force him to comply. And that was ugly.

Steps in a better direction

On a more positive note, an article on Progressive States Network (PSN)  rounds up recent state-led  immigration developments that offer hope for more fair and humane treatment for immigrants:

For example, Maryland Governor O’Malley signed legislation granting in-state tuition to qualifying undocumented students at the state’s four year institutions. In doing so, Maryland becomes the 11th state to offer increased educational access and opportunity to talented and motivated immigrant students, says PSN. In addition,

it was also another bad week for Arizona-style copycat measures. Both of Florida’s immigration enforcement bills died as their session came to a close.. In Maine, a copycat version of Arizona’s law was withdrawn by its sponsor, a clear sign that lawmakers are starting to consider the consequences of pursuing similar anti-immigrant bills that are nothing more than desperate stabs at political opportunism.

Finally, in Utah a federal judge blocked implementation of the state’s recently passed immigration enforcement bill on Tuesday, just fourteen hours after the law took effect. The ruling, following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, deals yet another blow to questions regarding the constitutionality of immigration bills modeled after Arizona’s controversial SB 1070.

The post States lead on immigration, sort of appeared first on Occasional Planet.