Politics as Usual: Senate Amendments Make Bad Policy, but Great Theater


Photo by Floyd B. Bariscale.

It’s time to take a deep breath and recognize that you can rarely take Senate votes at face value when it comes to immigration. The amount of posturing and political preening that goes on is directly proportionate to how close we really are to pushing a substantive immigration proposal. So, what have we seen this week? Senator Schumer announces that there will be a comprehensive immigration reform bill by Labor Day. That’s good policy. The Council on Foreign Relations says comprehensive immigration reform is vital to our nation’s interests. Also good policy. Enforcement only amendments win on the Senate floor—bad policy, but great political theater. Unfortunately, political theater is often hard for politician to resist when they are dealing with complex issues that defy simple solutions.

So what happened so far? Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), succeeded in getting the Senate to support his amendment to complete the 700-mile Bush-authorized border fence by the end of 2010. The Senate has repeatedly voted to fund the border fence, because it is easy to vote for—especially when it’s clear that it’s impossible for DHS to complete. Thus, despite years of funding for the fence, DHS has only managed to build 330 miles of pedestrian fencing and 302 miles of vehicle fence on the 2100-mile US-Mexican border, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Any expert will tell you that additional fencing is not a realistic solution. Only about half of undocumented immigrants illegally cross the border, and fencing does little to slow them down. To quote Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, on this costly boondoggle, “You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That’s the way the border works.”

Another pet amendment, offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), makes E-verify (an electronic employment verification system) permanent and requires any federal contractor to use this particular system to ensure that employees have legal immigration status to work in the United States. Immigration advocates lament the weaknesses of the E-Verify program, which makes use of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) and DHS’s databases, because of the high probability for database errors and misuse of the system by employers which could cost U.S. citizens and legal workers their jobs. While many believe E-Verify to be a magic bullet solution to illegal immigration, it is not, and outside of comprehensive reform, it will do little to resolve the problem. So again, lots of drama, but questionable enforcement impact.

More political theater that probably won’t last the summer is an amendment offered by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) that passed by voice vote. Vitter’s amendment prohibits the use of money in the 2010 budget to change a Bush-era rule on SSA No-Match letters. Currently, when the SSA receives a SSN from an employer on a W-2 Form that doesn’t match their records, they send the employer a “No-Match” letter so that employers and workers can rectify their records to make sure everyone is properly credited with their earnings. A No-Match letter doesn’t reveal anything about a person’s immigration status, whether or not the person is a U.S. citizens, legal immigrants or undocumented. However, a poorly-designed Bush-era rule would have allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hijack the SSA’s well-intentioned program to enforce immigration law. The rule is currently blocked by a court order. DHS announced yesterday that it plans to rescind the rule. People are still scratching their heads to see if Vitter’s amendment has any actual impact. But Vitter’s intention was never to have a meaningful impact, it was to make a desperate last ditch attempt to implement the rule.

So, take these votes with a grain of salt. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned that grown men and women are going for the dramatic over the sensible. Nor does it mean that people who care about these issues should let down their guard. The fact that so many Senators were willing to ignore facts and vote for these amendments is indeed disturbing. It does mean, however, that we can’t view these votes in isolation. Comprehensive immigration reform is still going to move forward. Let’s just hope that when comprehensive immigration reform is actually on the floor, the sensible things we saw this week will prevail over the political theater.

email

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed

2 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dave says:

    the no-match amendments are not completely bad. they do aim to make employers more accountable about who works for them which is a good thing.
    however i disagree with the timing of the introduction of the no-match letters and this is why:
    1. we don’t have the infrastructure to support them- the ssa and dhs don’t have databases good enough to support the amendment- it could lead to legal immigrants and American citizens losing their jobs during a time in our country’s history when unemployment is already so high. if sent this ‘no-match’ letter an individual would be able to prove that they do have the right to work, but thats often quite complicated, more difficult and time consuming than the utterance “provide proof” suggests.
    2. Potentially increasing the number of unemployed workers through people who would become layed-off because they couldn’t provide the match sought in their no-match letter is financial suicide in the current economic climate. We need everyone working and generating a cash flow to heal our sick economy.
    3. There seems to be an undertone here that is consistent with the political psyche of the republican party. This undertone is consistent with their nativist position on jobs. They want to do everything in their power to give jobs to american citizens, while admirable, they don’t realize that american citizens are unwilling to take many jobs that the illegals take. This would create more jobs for american citizens, but those are jobs that they would be unwilling to work and it would thereby create a gaping hole in the economy and job market. There probably aren’t that many investment banker or hedge-fund managers who are illegal.
    4. Coupled with the other amendments- this seems to be no more than political theater- with republicans throwing everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to combat comprehensive immigration reform.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 × seven =

Top