Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Over the past century, a handful of people have walked across the United States for a variety of different causes.  The struggle for comprehensive immigration reform has finally spawned a walk that will take four individuals on a journey across the United States beginning on March 10, 2012.  At high noon, Jonatan Martinez, Lucas Da Silva, Nico Gonzalez and Raymi Gutierrez will embark on a 3,000-mile walk from the Golden Gate Bridge to Washington D.C.  The Campaign for an American Dream (CAD) was developed as a means of creating “dialogue around the passage of the DREAM Act and immigration reform with the values of equality, unity, and diversity.”  I call on everyone who believes in the need for immigration reform to sign-on to support this cause, to contribute to it and to follow the walkers along their journey.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been a long time coming and, as the days and years pass us by, the struggle to live a normal life becomes more difficult.  This is especially noticeable with the passage of xenophobic state-based restrictions.  In spite of the struggles, many are coming up with creative and courageous ways to bring the need for immigration reform to the forefront.  Over two years ago, a group of brave students (Carlos Roa, Felipe Matos, Gaby Pacheco, and Juan Rodriguez) walked from Miami to Washington D.C. in their Trail of Dreams.  Across the U.S., numerous undocumented persons are risking their own freedoms as a means of drawing attention to their plight.  They are becoming more and more outspoken against state anti-immigrant policies and the need for congress to act now.

…Talking the Talk

The CAD walk will also spread valuable dialogue amongst many communities across the U.S.  The walkers intend to dispel myths about immigrants and why we need CIR.  The kick-off event will feature a speech by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and advocate Jose Antonio Vargas.  Other thought-provoking discussions are planned along the way.  This is not only about the symbolic walk across the country but also to bring the conversation to many communities.

On the CAD 2012 website, you can read about each of the walkers and hear their personal stories.  Lucas Da Silva explains why he is putting himself out there for this cause:

I stand with confidence of a better future today because I have chosen

to shed my fear and take up arms for the families and youth that live in

fear and hide in the shadows. I cannot sit idly by as we are oppressed by

the current immigration laws that are separating our families and destroying

the hopes of our youth. Tired of lying, hiding, running, and crying, I choose

to fight for the people that suffer.

Along with the website, you can also track the CAD on Facebook.

Written by: Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

I have participated in several meetings with Congressional staffers about immigration policy since 2006.  I have had the same thoughts and questions about these interactions every time.  I hoped to make some minimal impact, naïve as that may seem.  Afterwards, I mainly focused on the question of whether or not I had just wasted my time?  Was this person truly engaged?  Did they make some note of the issues discussed?  Would they share anything meaningful with their member of Congress?  Most importantly, did my interaction with this politician’s representative engender any trust?

I suspect that interactions and agreements among politicians and candidates are somewhat similar.  If they are, you have to wonder what goes on behind the scenes to garner endorsements.

Following the New Hampshire Republican primary, two separate endorsements of candidate Mitt Romney caught my attention.  On January 11^th, the Romney campaign announced that Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach endorsed his campaign, welcomed him to the team, and looked forward to working with him.  On that same day, it was reported that the Romney campaign was running Spanish-language campaign advertisements in south Florida featuring Congressional Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart and former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

It is hard to imagine how the Romney campaign managed to pull this off.  On one hand, you have three of only eight House Republicans who voted for the December 2010 version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 5281).  On the other, you have a politician that has opposed the DREAM Act at every turn, labeling it an “amnesty.”  Politician Kobach has even taken the extreme position of labeling Representative Lamar Smith’s draconian, E-Verify mandate bill, H.R. 2164, as yet another amnesty.

It would be interesting to know more about how these two diverse endorsements came together.  Did these three Florida Republicans know about the pending Kobach endorsement?  If they knew their endorsement would run concurrently with Kobach’s, exactly how did this impact their respective decisions to endorse Romney and participate in the Spanish language ad?

Regardless if these Florida Republicans knew or did not know, it is hard to imagine how one can reconcile policy differences as distinct from each other as the cold winter streets of Topeka, Kansas, and the sun-splashed beaches of Miami.  Candidate Romney has promised to veto the DREAM Act and fully endorsed Kobach’s policies.  These policy positions stand in stark contrast to those supported by these Florida Republicans and a majority of Republicans, as expressed in a recent Fox News poll.

We may never know what happened or why, but something generated mutual trust among an unlikely group of allies.  Given the incomparable divide on immigration policies, time will tell which side will win out over the other in a prospective Romney Administration.

By Lori Chesser, AILA Media Committee

In the Catholic tradition, December 28 is the feast of the Holy Innocents. These are the babies that were killed by Herod’s soldiers when he learned of the birth of a new “king” in Bethlehem. Jesus escaped because an angel came to Joseph in a dream telling him to flee to Egypt.

I realized hearing the story again this year that our current immigration policy has resulted in innocents paying the price for the failure of Congress to make reasonable changes in the last 20+ years.

Who are these “innocents”?  They include first, the “DREAMers”:  Those that were brought here by their parents and have known only U.S. culture and education for most of their lives. They did nothing to create their situation and Congress will do nothing to alleviate it.

Second, the victims of human trafficking:  Those who are eligible for T or U visas, but are deported because law enforcement is either unaware or unwilling to recognize their plight.  While Postville is the most obvious example, countless other enforcement efforts prosecute victims.

Third, U.S. citizens living in fear of a family member’s deportation:  Those whose relatives cannot immigrate legally because of the outdated and arbitrarily-limited system.

Finally, the story of the Holy Innocents also sheds light on the failure to make a reasonable policy decision about those who are not “innocent” because they did make a mistake in entering or overstaying, but are otherwise fully integrated in our communities and way of life.  The Holy Innocents were killed because Herod felt threatened and did not want to take time to distinguish who was the real threat.  It was the ultimate “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

Similarly, there is no doubt that some people in the U.S. unauthorized should be shown the door and not allowed to return.  But many others are no threat and are instead a benefit to our society, culture and economy, not to mention humans deserving respect as such.

Although it may be hard for us in the land of plenty to imagine, we may have made the same choices given the same situation.  In fact, the right to immigrate for survival was exercised by Joseph to save the baby Jesus and by the relatives of the Old Testament Joseph coming to Egypt during the great famine.  It was this latter migration that eventually resulted in another slaughter of innocents by King Ramses when the Hebrews grew too numerous.  Moses was spared by the quick thinking of his mother, and later led his people to freedom as chronicled in the Book of Exodus.

Members of Congress should reflect on this story too, because it shows the dire results of failing to make just policies.  If you haven’t read it, let’s just say it didn’t work out so well for the Egyptians.

No matter our beliefs and faith traditions, these stories are timeless and instructive because they communicate truths about human nature and justice.  Let’s help our leaders remember them.

When it comes to immigration, 2011 will be remembered as the year Alabama enacted HB56, the most mean spirited state immigration law in U.S. history. It targets Latinos and other people of color and effectively mandates racial profiling by state law enforcement agents. Since it went into effect last Fall, Alabamans have been victimized by due process violations, acute shortages of essential workers, and the creation of a climate of fear which has led many Latinos—legal and illegal—to flee the state. The media has been full of graphic images of produce rotting in unattended Alabama fields and idle machinery abandoned amid the flight of terrified workers. Alabama officials have been repeatedly embarrassed by the shocking arrests of foreign auto executives detained by local law enforcement for failure to produce immigration papers. As 2011 draws to a close, Alabama politicians, including Governor Robert Bentley, who signed HB56 into law, are seriously considering dropping its most draconian sections.

If Alabama’s HB56 dominated the immigration developments in 2011, Arizona’s SB1070 will be sure to dominate in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Obama Administration’s constitutional challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, enacted in 2010 but temporarily blocked by the courts. The effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immigration policy—and beyond—should not be underestimated. Should the Court strike down SB1070 it will reaffirm, in a loud and clear voice, that immigration policy is exclusively a federal matter, inextricably tied to the idea of the United States as a sovereign nation. However, should the Court uphold SB1070 other states will certainly follow Arizona’s and Alabama’s lead, resulting in a disparate patchwork of state immigration laws throughout America. The challenge then may no longer be limited to the federal government’s plenary power to regulate immigration, but to the very idea of the United States as an indivisible nation. Stay tuned.

2011 will also be remembered as the year of immigration enforcement. Nearly half a million people were deported from the U.S., undercutting those that claim the Administration has not enforced the law. To the contrary, President Obama—for better or worse—has deported more illegal aliens than any president before him, including his predecessor, George W. Bush. But amid all the removals in 2011, Obama tried a new, potentially very effective tool—common sense immigration enforcement. In a policy announced in June, the Administration directed ICE to focus its energy on the deportation of violent criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. And while Obama cannot grant citizenship to any undocumented immigrant, he can certainly direct immigration agents to use their common sense in enforcing the law.

As 2011 draws to a close the big question remains: When, if ever, will Congress overhaul America’s broken immigration system; or even pass the DREAM Act, which would help promising undocumented youth earn their way to lawful status. But 2012 is an election year, and the reality is that the politicians in Washington will not touch an issue as explosive as immigration reform.

In the meantime, Americans can only hope that whomever they send to Washington in November will roll up their sleeves and get to work on an immigration policy that creates American jobs, protects American families, restores due process, and ensures America’s competitiveness in a global economy.

It’s a little unnerving when the Grinch tweets you just before Christmas.

It started Wednesday when I read a shocking article in the New York Times about an undocumented immigrant who suffers from a life threatening kidney disease and requires dialysis.  Because of a bizarre legal anomaly the government will cover the cost of his dialysis—$75,000 a year—but not the cost of a kidney transplant—$100,000—which would make the dialysis unnecessary and save hundreds of thousands of dollars over time.

The article quoted Rep. Dana T. Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who opposes giving any medical aide to undocumented immigrants.  While I believe his position is extreme, indeed self-defeating, Rohrabacher is obviously entitled to his view. But what was appalling was the mean spiritedness with which he expressed it. “If they’re dead” Rohrabacher said, “I don’t have an objection to their organs being used.”  He added, “If they’re alive, they shouldn’t be here no matter what.”

Was the Congressman really saying that the only worthwhile illegal immigrant is a dead one?   I certainly hope not, but given the ugly language of the anti-immigrant restrictionists including, sadly, some members of Congress, it wouldn’t surprise me.

I tried to put the whole thing out of my mind.  But later that evening, while catching up on my Twitter feed, the following tweet about Rohrabacher’s callous comment popped up from America’s Voice.

 Award 4 the most heartless statement in the face of human suffering 2 @DanaRohrabacher http://bit.ly/vi4FjV

I realized I wasn’t alone.  Others were shocked by the cold-bloodedness of Rohrabacher’s remark.  But it was late at night, so I just retweeted the AV’s tweet and went to bed.  I slept well, figuring the issue of Rohrabacher’s insensitivity in the face of human affliction had been settled on the social network.

I was wrong.

When I awoke the next morning I discovered that just after midnight Rohrabacher had sent me the following tweet:

 glad benevolent people like U willing to reduce health&ed benefits to your own families for illegals rather than tax us

Then, about an hour later, he tweeted again,

U mean our own people suffering because not enough to care for them…or illegals on whom u’d spend our limited $?

His tweets included a nice picture of Rohrabacher leaning against a railing in front of a bay. “Well”, I thought, “at least he’s more discrete than Anthony Weiner.”  In any event, I immediately tweeted Rohrabacher back, hoping to favorably inform his views on immigration and impress upon him that he should become an advocate for comprehensive reform.  But it’s tough to do that in 140 characters or less.  So I tweeted:

I mean #immigration reform will create jobs and increase wages for #Americans, Y dont you understand that?

To which the Congressman tweeted back:

R U kidding? Permitting illegals to stay& work draws tens of millions more, bidding down wages, draining health&ed funds

At this point I figured Rohrabacher needed some facts and figures; something other than the half-baked restrictionist talking points he has apparently been reading.  My return tweet referred him to a joint report published in early 2010 by the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress entitled Raising the Floor for American Workers which makes it crystal clear that immigration reform, including a pathway to lawful compliance for the millions of undocumented foreign nationals, will boost the economy to the benefit of all Americans:

W all due respect Congressman, ur wrong; CIR will add 1.7t to GDP, in tax rev; and 1m jobs; read IPC report

But Rohrabacher would have none of it—apparently not wanting the facts to get in the way of his views.  He tweeted:

thanks 4 the respect, but if U believe that legalizing those here and drawing tens of millions more is good for US Ur dreaming

Dreaming?  I guess I am.  As are a lot of other people—including thousands of undocumented immigrant youth who long to give back to the only country they know and have struggled against all odds to enrich.  So I tweeted,

Mabye I’m dreaming–like many others–but the current situation is a nightmare; America needs solutions not empty talk.

But the Congressman, determined to have the last tweet, responded,

if Ur so-called solution is legalizing the status of illegals give me empty talk, Ur solution will bring more & make it worse

I’m not sure what to make of my ongoing twitter conversation with Congressman Rohrabacher.  Sure, it’s tempting write him off as a heartless old Grinch.  But I’m not going to do that.  After all, this is the holiday season, a time of reflection, renewal, and goodwill towards others. I want to believe that if Rohrabacher allows himself to see the injustice and pain caused by America’s broken immigration system then his heart, like the mean old Grinch’s, just might grow three full sizes. Maybe then he won’t long to steal Christmas from the most vulnerable among us.

In the meantime I’m going to go check my Twitter feed.  Who knows? Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge is following me.

I’d like to think that Newt Gingrich, the current GOP front runner, has come out squarely in favor of a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Not because I support his presidential candidacy, but because rejection of mass deportation as a solution to America’s broken immigration system raises the level of the national debate about immigration. At least he’s not ginning up the same old sound bites about securing the border and building fences.

But, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, Gingrich’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to fix the broken immigration system. In fact, his idea would lead to the mass deportation of millions of people and the demise of scores of American families.

The cornerstone of Gingrich’s plan is the so-called “citizen review panels” which would consider whether an undocumented immigrant’s personal circumstances merit a reprieve from deportation. Gingrich likens the idea to the draft review boards of the World War II era.

But listening carefully to Gingrich it becomes clear that under his plan very few undocumented immigrants would even qualify to go before the review panels. Only those that have been in the U.S. for more than 25 years would be considered, even if they have compelling equities such as U.S. citizen relatives, a record of paying taxes, good moral character, and a consistent work history.

A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that of the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., only 35% have been in the U.S. 15 years or more—even less have been in the country for more than 25 years. That’s more than 7.8 million people who, according to Gingrich, would be targeted for what he calls “dramatically easier” deportation. It’s not clear what Gingrich means by that ominous phrase, but I imagine it doesn’t include much due process and fairness.

Yet Gingrich’s proposal shines when compared to Mitt Romney’s. Romney suggests that undocumented immigrants, all 12 million of them, should turn themselves in, be given a transition period to get their affairs in order, and self-deport. It’s obvious that Romney hasn’t a clue when it comes to fixing the broken immigration system. Romney bases his proposal on the idea that the undocumented—many of whom have close family ties to America—can simply go home, get in line, and return legally. He obviously doesn’t understand—or worse, doesn’t care—that the broken immigration law includes a myriad of daunting legal obstacles which prevent undocumented immigrants from returning to America and their families for at least a decade or more. His proposal is as ridiculous as it is unworkable.

On the other hand, Romney and Gingrich both argue forcefully for an immigration policy that will attract the best and brightest to America—the innovators, entrepreneurs, and scientists. On this point—although neither would likely admit it—both GOP front runners agree with President Obama. Recalling a time when America opened its doors to highly skilled immigrants to shore up its competitive edge, President Obama has called for innovation, education, and rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. This  necessarily implies an immigration policy that keeps America open for business.

But what neither Gingrich nor Romney seems to get is that high skilled professionals and creative entrepreneurs won’t come to the U.S. if we do not fashion an immigration policy that restores and protects due process. Just ask the scores of business people and scientists who have been stymied by an overly restrictive immigration bureaucracy or targeted for special registration and prolonged security checks over the past decade. (Note: you may need to contact them via email or Skype because many have immigrated to other, more welcoming, countries).

The subtext of the current immigration debate is that undocumented immigrants won’t do what they should to gain lawful immigration status. This assumes that compliance with the immigration law is as easy as filling out a passport application at a local  post office. What none of the candidates seem to understand is that under the current law there is simply no way for most unauthorized immigrants to comply, as much as they might want to, whether they remain the U.S. or go back to their native countries.

Nevertheless, Gingrich’s proposal, as deeply flawed as it is, recognizes that wholesale removal of 12 million is not a solution.  And, if nothing else, that position is a welcome addition to a Republican immigration debate that has thus far been limited to little more than sound bites about border security, boots on the ground, and fences.

Remember Pete Wilson? JD Hayworth? Tom Tancredo?

That’s what I thought.

These guys are a few of the politicians whose anti-immigrant agenda played a big part in the demise of their political fortunes.  And the list continues to grow.  Just ask former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s SB1070, the “show me your papers” law, who was thrown out of office last month by his own constituents.

So it comes as no big surprise that some of the most conservative voters in the country—Iowa caucus-goers—are, according to a report in NPR, “open to policies that help foreign-born young people educated in the U.S. to enter the workforce, as well as those that help companies hire seasonal and permanent employees for vacant jobs Americans are not filling.”  They also strongly support increasing opportunities for highly-skilled legal immigrants and entrepreneurs to come to the United States.

When you look at these numbers you begin to understand why GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich declared his support for a more humane immigration policy—one which includes a pathway to lawful compliance for the millions of undocumented foreign nationals in the US.

Unlike Mitt Romney, his chief rival for the nomination who continues to pander to the restrictionist fringe, Gingrich’s remarks on immigration have been deftly aimed at the centerist—dare I say more reasonable—Republican voters.  Gingrich understands that America’s economic and social future depends on an immigration policy which attracts the best and brightest to America’s shores and which includes a common sense, humane approach to bringing the scores of undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the sunshine of American life.  In a GOP primary that has offered little more than inane blabber about “amnesty”, “fences”, and “boots on the ground”, Gingrich offers a refreshing perspective.   Though his proposal is still very flawed, he is challenging his party and Republican voters to consider solutions to the nation’s immigration problems rather than pat sound bites.

How then does this explain the Rick Perry’s fall in the polls? Didn’t his moderate approach to immigration, including his support for instate tuition for undocumented immigrants, severely damage his presidential campaign?

No, not so much.

The collapse of Perry’s candidacy has more to do with his debate gaffes and other missteps, not his stance on immigration. Simply put, Perry lost his front runner status because he was not ready for prime time, not because of any one particular issue.

The Iowa poll shows that Americans—liberal, moderate, and conservative—overwhelmingly support a common sense approach to immigration.  This is consistent scores of other studies conducted by pollsters over the years.  American voters long for a modernized immigration system that will create jobs for American workers, protect American families, and restore American due process and fairness.

Politicians who choose to ignore this do so at their own peril.

You can’t make this stuff up.

A foreign executive from Mercedes-Benz gets arrested in Alabama and charged criminally under the state’s new immigration law. Was he alien smuggling? Drug trafficking? Committing a violent crime?

Nope. He left his visa in his hotel room.

Under Alabama’s new immigration law that’s a crime. The 46-year-old German manager—or, as they call him in Alabama, the suspected criminal—was quickly thrown into jail by local police when he couldn’t produce his immigration papers after he was stopped on his way to the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama. Imagine the scene at the Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Germany as the top brass scurried about trying to find someone to post bail for the luckless manager who suddenly found himself sitting in some rural Alabama lock-up.

Much has been written about the horror of Alabama’s hate-infested immigration law and how it has wreaked havoc upon the state. There was the heart wrenching report of the 4^th grade Latina girl who was asked by her teacher to produce her immigration papers, the photos of ripe produce left to rot in worker-less Alabama fields, and the media reports of the difficult and dirty jobs left open by the flight of undocumented workers.

And despite the unquestionable havoc the law has wreaked upon the good citizens of Alabama, the lobbyists and politicians who enacted it have had the audacity to suggest that the chilling due process violations, the acute shortages of essential workers, and the climate of fear it has created  throughout the state is merely a temporary bump on the road to an illegal alien free Alabama. But the fundamental economic assumption upon which they have pushed their mean spirited law—that U.S. workers will fill the void created by the fleeing immigrants—has proven false. In fact, as was reported recently in Bloomberg Businessweek, the exact opposite is true. In the wake of the mass exodus of undocumented immigrants from Alabama, many difficult, unpleasant jobs—the tough and dirty ones like picking vegetables, gutting fish, washing dishes, and cleaning beds—remain open in Alabama, unfilled by American workers.

In this economy—or in any economy for that matter—most states do whatever it takes to attract economic development. That’s why, back in 1993 when Mercedes-Benz announced it would open a plant to build sport utility vehicles in their state, Alabama officials rejoiced. Since then other foreign automakers have followed suit including Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, fueling Alabama’s economic growth.

But would Mercedes-Benz or any other foreign company make that same decision today? What were the Alabama politicians thinking when they enacted this law? Did they really think they would secure Alabama’s economic future by passing a spiteful immigration law which, among other things, so easily puts a foreign corporate manager at risk of arrest and prosecution during a business trip?

Alabama development officials beckon employers to the state with an online brochure promising a “favorable business climate”, “effective workforce training”, “attractive tax incentives”, and “excellent logistics”.

What about “reasonable bail”?

By: Ally Bolour, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Two seemingly unrelated events happened recently that reaffirmed my belief in legal immigration.

First, I attended a panel discussion on Secure Communities co-sponsored by the American Immigration Council and my alma mater, Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, during which there was a pointed yet civil exchange between LA County Sheriff Baca and Chris Newman, Legal Programs Director at National Day Laborer Organizing Network on the net value of Secure Communities. The positions taken on either side did not surprise me. What grabbed my attention was the passion with which Chris Newman presented his arguments. He immediately put the Sheriff on the defensive over some remarks he had made a few weeks back on whether undocumented workers had civil rights. To his credit, not only did the Sheriff backtrack on the civil rights issue, but he also used the occasion to express his frustration with our broken immigration laws. In that moment, I saw this older career politician and law enforcement officer at a loss for words trying to defend a program that is simply indefensible. I also saw Chris Newman – this WASP’ish looking young guy – so eloquently express his vision for America and how he didn’t want to see the Arizonafication of this country. He talked about how young kids in Arizona fear the Sheriff there and law enforcement in general. Chris reasoned that the fear was a direct result of failed immigration policies and over the top rhetoric and outright lies of government officials like Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona. He invited the audience to watch the Reagan/Bush Debate of 1980 on immigration to see firsthand how much the debate has shifted during the past 30 years.

Second, my little nephew, Sam – now 25 – told me about his new job as an engineer contracted by the State of California. He was excited about his job duties and also his salary, which needless to say is more than what I make as an immigration attorney. I am so proud of him – and proud of this country which made his rise possible. Sam is a graduate of UC Berkeley and is now attending a USC graduate program. Yes, he is a natural born citizen, but many of his friends are not. I would much rather see his friends – documented or not – be able to contribute to our society in the same positive way as Sam is, rather than being marginalized and dehumanized. At the end of the day, Sam will pay into the State coffers and his friends on the fringes will be more attenuated. We need to provide an avenue for these students to contribute to our economy and to give back to the society that raised and educated them to benefit all Americans.

Later, I dutifully searched for the 1980 debate between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. While watching the clip on YouTube, I was overwhelmed by memories of that year, when I was still in high school and my biggest frustration was with my physics teacher whom I was convinced hated me. Immigration was not on my radar.

During the debate, one of the questions posed to Messrs Reagan and Bush was eerily similar to the one posed to Gov. Rick Perry in Orlando earlier in September. The issue has not changed. I was surprised however when I heard the responses. Equally as amazing was that there was no shock and horror from the audience for the position the two men took. Here are the excerpts from the 1980 debate:

Question:

Do you think the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend Texas public schools for free or do you think their parents should pay for their education?

Answers:

George H. W. Bush: “I’d like to see something done about the illegal alien problem that would be so sensitive and so understanding about labor needs and human needs where that problem wouldn’t come up….but today if those people are here, I would reluctantly say that they should get whatever society is willing to give to their neighbors…but the problem has to be solved. Because as we’ve made as illegal, sometimes the labor that I’d like to see as legal, we’ve created two things: we’ve created this society of decent honorable family loving people who are in violation of the law and secondly we’re exasperating our relations with Mexico. The edge of your question is much more fundamental than whether they can attend Houston schools. If they’re living here, I don’t want to see a whole set of 6 and 8 year old kids being made – totally uneducated and made to feel that they’re living outside the law – that’s fundamental. These are good people…strong people … part of my family.”

Ronald Reagan: “I think that the time has come for the U.S. and our neighbors, particularly with our neighbor to the south, to have a better understanding and a better relation that we’ve ever had. I think we haven’t been sensitive enough to our size and our power. They have a problem of about 40-50% unemployment. Now this cannot continue without the possibility of rising trouble below the border where we could end up having a hostile and strange neighbor on our border. Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then while they’re working, and earning here, then they pay taxes here and when they want to go back, they can go back…and open the border both ways by understanding their problem.”

After listening to the two debates and then reflecting on Sam’s friends, I am reinvigorated and ready to continue the fight for reform. You see, this is personal for me. I was part of that young immigrant generation that those Republican presidential candidates were trying to protect. Their responses directly affected my life in the same way that today’s immigration debate is affecting millions of lives. Call me a conservative if you must – but I want the same opportunities for all the young people out there today, documented or otherwise, because we’re all in this pot together!

House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) is in a position to do great things for America.   For the good of our country,  he can rise above the partisan rancor that paralyzes Washington,  roll up his sleeves, get to work, and fashion an immigration overhaul that will protect American workers, help keep U.S. businesses competitive in a global economy, reunite families, and restore due process.

Or not.

Unfortunately Smith has chosen the latter.  Rather than seize the moment and perhaps write his name into the history books as a statesman, Smith has introduced the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” a bill that offers a lot of red meat to the anti-immigrant restrictionists but is devoid of a single solution.  I’m not exactly sure what the bill’s title means, but it shortens nicely to HALT!—a command which conjures up the terrifying image of a trigger happy SS officer ordering a fleeing prisoner to…well…HALT!

Smith introduced HALT! as a reaction to the prosecutorial discretion memo issued by ICE Director John Morton last month.  HALT! seeks to prevent the Obama Administration—the bill is actually written to sunset  precisely at the end of the  President’s first term—from focusing immigration enforcement resources on those who would do the country harm: violent offenders and terrorists.  If enacted into law, HALT! would eliminate vital protections Congress legislated for victims of domestic violence; suspend the President’s power to designate Temporary Protected Status for countries like Haiti  and the Sudan  where  environmental  and  human disasters have wreaked havoc.  The bill would even prevent the government from granting a temporary visit to those injured in war, such as a child bomb victim in Iraq urgently in need of medical care like prosthetic limbs.

In fact, HALT! would actually make it more difficult to keep America safe because it forces ICE to go after every low-priority individual instead of pursuing those who threaten our communities and homeland security.  In sharp contrast, Morton’s prosecutorial discretion memo provides the field with an architecture for smart enforcement.

Thankfully HALT has no chance of becoming law.  Even Smith knows that.  But it’s disgraceful that he uses his position as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee to promote anti-immigrant talking points rather than sound immigration policy.