Immigration Reform Caucus

Blue Dogs Want Immigration Debate

 

Congressional Quarterly | By Alex Wayne

February 22, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. — House Democratic leaders face growing pressure from their caucus to debate immigration changes this year, despite the roiling politics of the issue and the failure of legislation last summer in the Senate.

Some conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats are pressing for debate on a bill (HR 4088) introduced in November that would crack down on illegal immigrants and their employers.
The Blue Dogs are supported by many Republicans, who could decide as soon as this week whether to try to force Democratic leaders’ hands by circulating a discharge petition to bring the bill, sponsored by Heath Shuler, D-N.C., to the floor.
Discharge petitions are rare and face long odds of succeeding. But talk of such a move boosts the immigration debate’s profile in an election year, when the issue could be problematic for both parties.

The Blue Dogs and their GOP allies are pitted against Hispanic, liberal and farm-state Democrats who want Congress to at least temporarily legalize millions of working illegal immigrants already in the country — especially students and farmworkers — and expand visa limits to allow the entry of more foreign labor, especially seasonal workers needed this summer.

A discharge petition would require 218 signatures to succeed; the Shuler bill now has 136 cosponsors, up from 89 when it was introduced Nov. 6. Forty-six of the cosponsors are Democrats, including senior Blue Dogs like the group’s co-chairman, Allen Boyd of Florida, and Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon of Tennessee.

Andrew Whalen, a spokesman for Shuler, said the congressman met with Democratic leaders the week before the Presidents Day recess and asked them to advance his bill.

Preparations for Battle
Though Democratic and Republican leadership aides say nothing is certain, some immigration interest groups and activists are girding for a floor debate. “Things are looking good at the moment; the signs are pointing in that direction,” said Rosemary Jenks, government affairs director for NumbersUSA, a group that advocates reduced immigration.
“There have been discussions ongoing surrounding the immigration debate and what bills — under what format and whether they’d be bundled or whether they’d be separate — to move to the floor,” a House Democratic leadership aide said.

Marshall Fitz, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which backs liberalized immigration policy, said he thinks House Democratic leaders still hope to avoid a “full-throated” debate on immigration because the issue is so divisive.

Last summer’s bipartisan effort to pass a broad immigration overhaul that would have established a process to legalize undocumented immigrants, while also increasing border security and immigration enforcement, collapsed amid conservative opposition. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the leaders of that effort, now says as a presidential candidate that Congress should focus on gaining control of the border and ports of entry before deciding what to do with the country’s illegal population.

A similar sentiment is behind Shuler’s bill. It would authorize 8,000 new agents for the Border Patrol over five years and bigger budgets for investigating human trafficking and cross-border smuggling.

The measure calls for new technology and equipment to enhance border security, including body armor, helicopters, drone aircraft and sensors to create a “virtual fence.”

The bill would allow governors of border states to declare border security emergencies, drawing additional Border Patrol agents and federal aid, and would require the construction of 8,000 more prison beds for detained illegal immigrants.

Within one year of the bill’s enactment, the federal government, its contractors and businesses employing more than 250 people would have to begin verifying their employees’ eligibility to work, using a federal system. Smaller businesses would have up to four years to join the verification system.

Tough Road
Passage of Shuler’s bill through normal procedures would be difficult; because it is far-reaching, it has been referred to eight different committees. In addition, many Democrats would not support the legislation because of what it lacks: provisions aimed at helping the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the country become legal residents.

That has raised the prospect of a discharge petition. Were Republicans to gain the signatures of a majority of the House on a petition, Shuler’s bill would go straight to the floor for a vote.

Before that happened, however, Democratic leaders would likely pressure their members not to sign the petition, and as a last resort, intervene to avoid an embarrassing vote by putting the bill on the floor themselves under a rule dictating terms of the debate.

“Clearly that would be, I think, horrible from a Democratic leadership perspective to see a bill like that, that is so internally divisive, be a vehicle for the minority party to essentially take over the floor,” Fitz said.

One House GOP aide said that a group of Republicans who have been working on immigration issues is due to report back to Republican leaders on Feb. 26 with a recommendation on how to proceed.

“It’s probably likely that members will start being urged to sign a discharge petition to bring the [Shuler] bill forward, but it remains to be seen,” the aide said.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has drafted its own immigration proposal that could be offered to Shuler’s bill as an amendment. It would allow illegal immigrants to apply for five-year visas to live and work in the country, and increase limits on various kinds of work visas.