Dallas-Fort Worth Immigration Lawyer

The Dallas Morning News has an enlightened attitude on immigration, especially for a generally conservative newspaper. An editorial today bemoans the presidential candidates' failure to clearly speak out on immigration issues and concludes with these excellent proposals:

This newspaper wants a president who pledges to address comprehensive immigration reform – including border security – without delay.

This package must include tough measures for workplace enforcement, penalties for employers who skirt the law, a guest-worker program that responds to employers' needs for cheap labor and a pathway to regularization for existing immigrants who come forward and agree to abide by the law.

The candidate who confronts this issue head-on will go a long way toward demonstrating his readiness to lead our nation.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 11:07 AM | Permalink

The New York Times this week ran a wonderfully direct and provocative editorial about the shameful way our country treats immigrants, and about the cowardice of today's politicians. I encourage you to read the entire editorial. Here are some brief excerpts:

Someday, the country will recognize the true cost of its war on illegal immigration. We don’t mean dollars, though those are being squandered by the billions. The true cost is to the national identity: the sense of who we are and what we value. It will hit us once the enforcement fever breaks, when we look at what has been done and no longer recognize the country that did it.



A nation of immigrants is holding another nation of immigrants in bondage, exploiting its labor while ignoring its suffering, condemning its lawlessness while sealing off a path to living lawfully. The evidence is all around that something pragmatic and welcoming at the American core has been eclipsed, or is slipping away.



There are few national figures standing firm against restrictionism. Senator Edward Kennedy has bravely done so for four decades, but his Senate colleagues who are running for president seem by comparison to be in hiding. John McCain supported sensible reform, but whenever he mentions it, his party starts braying and he leaves the room. Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost her voice on this issue more than once. Barack Obama, gliding above the ugliness, might someday test his vision of a new politics against restrictionist hatred, but he has not yet done so. The American public’s moderation on immigration reform, confirmed in poll after poll, begs the candidates to confront the issue with courage and a plan. But they have been vague and discreet when they should be forceful and unflinching.



Every time this country has singled out a group of newly arrived immigrants for unjust punishment, the shame has echoed through history. Think of the Chinese and Irish, Catholics and Americans of Japanese ancestry. Children someday will study the Great Immigration Panic of the early 2000s, which harmed countless lives, wasted billions of dollars and mocked the nation’s most deeply held values.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 06:05 PM | Permalink

The Wall Street Journal published an interesting editorial a few days ago about the need for increasing the number of H-1B visas allowable each year. Here are excerpts:

Bill Gates appeared before Congress again last week to make a simple point to simpler pols: The ridiculously low annual cap on H-1B visas for foreign professionals is undermining the ability of U.S. companies to compete in a global marketplace.



"Congress's failure to pass high-skill immigration reform has exacerbated an already grave situation," said the Microsoft chairman. "The current base cap of 65,000 H-1B visas is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to the U.S. economy's demand for skilled workers."



The Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than two million job openings in science, technology, engineering and math fields. But the number of Americans graduating with degrees in those disciplines is falling. Meanwhile, visa quotas make it increasingly difficult for U.S. companies to hire foreign-born graduates of our own universities. Last year, as in prior years, the supply of H-1B visas was exhausted on the first day petitions could be filed.



Mr. Gates said his software company exemplifies this phenomenon. "Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities," he told lawmakers. "If we increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S. companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely grow as well."



The preponderance of evidence continues to show that businesses are having difficulty filling skilled positions in the U.S. By blocking their access to foreign talent, Congress isn't protecting U.S. jobs but is providing incentives to outsource. If lawmakers can't bring themselves to eliminate the H-1B visa cap, they might at least raise it to a level that doesn't handicap U.S. companies.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 11:56 AM | Permalink

As another result of the federal government's refusal to take any action regrading immigration reform, more and more local jurisdictions are attempting their own solutions -- usually with poor results and unintended consequences.

The Dallas Morning News reports today that Republican candidates for County Sheriff are incorporating strict immigration enforcement policies into their campaigns, while Democratic candidates are mostly silent on the issue. Here are excerpts:

Sheriff's hopefuls want jail to check for illegal immigrants Dallas County: Most from GOP say jail could detect suspects who are in country illegally

The Dallas County Sheriff's Department isn't doing enough to identify illegal immigrants in the jail, according to some Republican candidates for sheriff.

Illegal immigration, a hot topic locally and nationally, has become an issue in the race for sheriff. Several candidates are addressing it in their campaigns. One of them, Mesquite police Lt. Charlie Richmond, has made it his top issue.

He and fellow Republican candidates Catherine Smit and Jim Bowles say they would apply for special training from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that would allow jailers to question inmates about their immigration status and detain them for federal authorities.

But former Irving Police Chief Lowell Cannaday said he would prefer to use a model used in Irving in which jailers call ICE at all hours of the day when they suspect an inmate is in the country illegally.

Most of the Democrats in the race don't support such measures.

Sheriff Lupe Valdez, who is running for re-election, says she has no plans to change the current arrangement in which a couple of ICE agents periodically visit the Lew Sterrett Justice Center to question inmates.

All of the Democratic candidates for sheriff except for Lancaster school Police Chief Sam Allen agree that the department is doing all it can and that immigration enforcement is a job best left to the federal government.

When ICE agents determine an inmate is a noncitizen who is deportable, they place a hold or detainer on him so he can be turned over to federal authorities once his local criminal charges are resolved.

That means the inmates must sit in the jail until ICE can pick them up. Between 180 and 230 Dallas County prisoners are released to ICE's custody every month, said Ron Stretcher, the county's criminal justice director.

He said he has not studied the impact of the detainers on the jails' population but that he plans to do so.

"Anytime you place holds or detainers, it's critical that we get a quick response," Mr. Stretcher said, referring to ICE's ability to take custody of inmates.

Mr. Cannaday said some defense attorneys will bond out their clients when they know ICE agents are not inside the jail. He said illegal immigrants must be screened when they are booked into the jail.

Inmates who are booked into the Dallas County jails currently must fill out a form that asks for their country of birth. But jail guards do not use that information to screen for illegal immigrants.

It's an election year, and the question of identifying illegal immigrants in jails has arisen in the Harris County sheriff's race as well.

Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas, who is running for re-election, wants his jailers to receive the ICE training to determine the immigration status of noncitizens.

Ms. Smit, the Cockrell Hill police chief who is running as a Republican, said she would work with other law enforcement agencies in the county to develop a coordinated strategy for tackling the problem.

"Every prisoner who comes into intake should be questioned at book-in so ICE agents have an opportunity to get to them before they bond out," she said.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 11:35 AM | Permalink

The Dallas Morning News ran an article today detailing a problem that I and many other interested people have been complaining about for quite some time -- the inexcusable delays in granting citizenship to qualified immigrant applicants. Some of us who are quick to attribute sinister motives to politicians note that a majority of new citizens vote Democratic, and the current administration is Republican. And of course this just happens to be an election year. So the fewer new citizens, the fewer votes for Democratic candidates? The article is well worth reading in full. Here are excerpts:

The unprecedented 1.4 million surge in U.S. citizenship applicants won't translate into an equal number of new voters come November's presidential election because of a processing backlog.

But U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials said Monday that the agency is hiring more staff and pressing the FBI for more efficient background checks and that delays of weeks just to open mail are behind them.

"Anytime we have a surge in citizenship, it is a good thing," said Emilio Gonzalez, director of the agency's Dallas office. "We are working as best we can."

Mr. Gonzalez and his agency have been assailed by critics who charge that the Republican administration wants to suppress the votes of new citizens likely to vote for a Democrat.

"If they don't have the opportunity to vote in this election, they will have many other opportunities to vote in other elections," Mr. Gonzalez said.

The processing delays vary from city to city, though the biggest backlogs are in Los Angeles, New York and Miami, said Mr. Gonzalez and Michael Aytes, associate director for the agency's domestic operations.

In Dallas, the backlog isn't as serious, with 30,000 applications pending in November, Mr. Aytes said. The number of applicants here increased 49 percent in the last fiscal year compared with the previous year. In San Bernardino, Calif., the increase was 1017 percent; in Los Angeles, 101 percent.

Just the same, Mr. Aytes acknowledged, some applications with checks enclosed had taken more than six weeks just to be opened, including some sent via Federal Express.

Some 57 percent of Hispanic registered voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the Democratic Party, while 23 percent align with the Republican Party, according to a recent Pew Hispanic Center survey.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 03:14 PM | Permalink

The Washington Post reports today on the exceptional prominence of immigration in the campaigns of the Republican presidential hopefuls. Here are excerpts:

The imagery of the mailings is designed to pack a wallop: a Mexican flag fluttering above the Stars and Stripes, the Statue of Liberty presiding over a "Welcome Illegal Aliens" doormat, a Social Security card emblazoned with the name "Juan Doe," a U.S. passport proclaiming, "Only one candidate has a plan to STAMP out illegal immigration."

As Republican presidential candidates troll for votes, they have flooded mailboxes in Iowa and New Hampshire with such loaded images. Their campaigns have filled the airwaves, packed their Web sites and taunted their adversaries, proclaiming their concern over porous borders and accusing opponents of insufficient vigilance.

No issue has dominated the Republican presidential nomination fight the way illegal immigration has. Under consistent attack for inconsistent conservatism, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has turned to the issue again and again to shore up his conservative credentials. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, running as the law-and-order candidate, has been forced onto the defensive by immigration policies in his city.

And just days after he delivered a passionate defense of the humanity of undocumented children in a Republican debate, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee presented one of the most punitive immigration platforms seen in this campaign season, rejecting legislation to provide the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they finish high school, attend two years of college or join the military.

The strategy poses a real risk. As the rhetoric and the policy proposals have grown increasingly strident, the eventual nominee's ability to win Latino support in swing states such as Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico may be coming increasingly into question.

Latino and other minority groups see racial codes in many of the words the Republican candidates have used -- for instance, "illegals" rather than "illegal immigrants." And hovering around the campaigns are far more strident figures and organizations. Immigration groups were taken aback when Huckabee accepted the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the border-security Minuteman Project, calling it "providential."

Posted by Bob Kraft at 05:32 PM | Permalink

According to an article in today's Washington post, immigration is the number one issue among potential voters in Iowa's Republican caucus next month. I don't doubt the Post's polling, but that is amazing to me. With all our economic woes, a crisis in education, crime in the streets, and ongoing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't see how people could put immigration at the top of their list of things to worry about.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 04:45 PM | Permalink

Thanks to Greg Siskind for pointing out this page of the Web site of the Americans for Better Immigration, an anti-immigrant group. The ABI has rated all the presidential candidates on their positions on immigration reform and enforcement. Of course, many of us strongly disagree with the philosophy of the ABI, but this rating system does let us learn about the candidates' positions and make our judgments accordingly.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 05:40 AM | Permalink

My thanks to Greg Siskind for this very funny video about "Our Founding Illegals."

Posted by Bob Kraft at 05:32 PM | Permalink

The other day, someone asked me which presidential candidate would be best, strictly on immigration reform views. Here is a nice little summary from a Reuters news story:

DEMOCRATS:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton

Supports a guest worker program for immigrants if it does not undermine U.S. workers' wages and favors giving undocumented workers a way to become legal workers. Backed building border wall. Urges development of an employer verification system and higher penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards

Urges doubling the number of Border Patrol agents, installing surveillance technology to police the border and increasing enforcement against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Supports allowing illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens if they avoid a criminal record, pay a fine and learn English. Against a guest worker program that does not include workplace safeguards.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama

Backs additional personnel, infrastructure and technology to safeguard U.S. borders and ports. Urges reducing application fees and improving speed and accuracy of FBI background checks for immigrants. Supports a program in which illegal immigrants pay fines, learn English, not violate the law and go to the end of the line to become citizens. Backs creating a program for employers to verify an applicant's immigration status.

REPUBLICANS:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Supports building the border fence and maintaining 20,000 Border Patrol agents. Urges issuing a single biometric identification card to foreigners, creating a national database and removing those immigrants who have overstayed their visas. Backs deporting illegal immigrants who commit felonies and requiring immigrants to read, write and speak English. Against providing driver's licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Sen. John McCain

Initially supported temporary guest worker program for illegal immigrants but has since shifted his position to emphasize border security first.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

Backs securing the border with a wall, fence or electronic surveillance. Urges creating a biometric documentation program and establishing a verification system. Supports an increase in legal immigration into the United States and opposes compromise on immigration amnesty. Opposes allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson

Against providing any legal status to illegal immigrants and urges bolstering enforcement against them and their employers. Backs cutting off federal funds to cities that try to restrict communications with the Department of Homeland Security about an individual's immigration status. Urges finishing border wall by 2010, expanding Border Patrol to at least 25,000, making English the official U.S. language and improving the immigration process.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 05:32 AM | Permalink

Congratulations to the Dallas Morning News for an excellent editorial today regarding the immigration mess in this country.

Many North Texans are reacting to Irving's crackdown on illegal immigrants by saying: Darn right, they're breaking the law, and it's about time we sent them packing. Folks on the opposite side counter: This is a harsh overreaction against people who are working, contributing to the economy and paying taxes.

The mood is getting nastier by the day. Fear abounds within the Hispanic community. Latino U.S. citizens, along with legal and illegal immigrants, worry that they could be hunted down and deported. Irving schools have noticed a drop in attendance because some parents, fearing deportation, have gone into hiding with their children.

"They get this notion that someone is going to actually come to school and snatch their children," Irving ISD Superintendent Jack Singley told The Dallas Morning News last week.

No matter where you stand in the illegal-immigration debate, this state of affairs should be unsettling. No one wins when children are on the streets instead of in the classroom. Federal law requires schools to educate children regardless of immigration status. A climate of fear, whether prompted by police action or unsubstantiated rumor, can only disrupt learning and ultimately wastes taxpayer dollars.

The crackdown in Irving - along with Farmers Branch and dozens of other communities across the country - is a reaction to a more profound problem. Local governments are getting involved in immigration enforcement because Washington is too timid to confront it.

Congress has repeatedly failed to tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, a hot potato that few politicians want to handle before the November 2008 elections. Having lost patience, local governments increasingly are intervening, even though immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.

This is an abysmal state of affairs. Members of Congress are fooling themselves if they think immigration reform will somehow get easier the longer they delay it.

We think it's pathetic that Irving schoolchildren are being kept home out of fear. But what's even more pathetic is the fear - of voter reprisal - that is preventing Congress from doing its job.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 01:31 PM | Permalink

United Press International has an interesting article about the fact that although illegal immigrants cannot vote, they are included in the official U.S. Census. And the census is what determines the number of seats each state has in the House of Representatives.

Since the House is set at 435 seats, changes in population never increase the total number of seats. The changes only redistribute the seats. So if the population of Texas increases more than the population of New York, Texas could gain and seat and New York could lose one.

The point of the article is that increasing numbers of illegal aliens in some states could cause those states to gain seats in the House of Representatives, even though the aliens cannot vote. Here are excerpts:

U.S. states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants could receive additional seats in Congress after the 2010 census is conducted.

A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.

Although they can't vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.

The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 05:58 AM | Permalink

Reuters news service reported on the Democratic debate Sunday night in Florida, and said the candidates were attempting to win over Hispanic voters with promises of comprehensive immigration reform. The debate was broadcast in Spanish on Univision. Here are excerpts from the article:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would be the first Hispanic U.S. president, said, "I object to the dehumanizing of people that want to be part of the American dream."

He and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd are the two fluent Spanish speakers in the Democratic field.

"The politics of fear are the most dangerous politics in our country, and those people who deal with fear and frighten the American people on this issue ought to be dealt with accordingly," Dodd said at the University of Miami debate, billed as a discussion of issues crucial to Hispanic voters.

Hispanics are the country's biggest and fastest-growing minority group, accounting for about 15 percent of the population and at least 14 million potential voters in 2008.

President George W. Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but Democrats see a growing opportunity to win over Hispanics alienated by the hard-line Republican stance on immigration.

Efforts at a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws collapsed in the U.S. Congress amid a bitter debate on the future of undocumented workers and illegal immigrants in the United States, many of whom are Hispanic.

The Democrats condemned a bill passed last year by the then Republican-led House of Representatives but never approved by the full Congress that cracked down on illegal aliens and boosted border security efforts.

Richardson lampooned plans to build a fence along the Mexican border to protect against illegal immigration.

"If you're going to build a 12-foot wall, you know what's going to happen? A bunch of 13-foot ladders," Richardson said.

But Clinton, Obama and Dodd defended their votes to build a wall, included in a Senate immigration bill not passed by the full Congress, as a necessary part of greater border security.

"We've got to secure our borders. That has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform," Clinton said.

The questions were asked in Spanish and the candidates heard English translations through earpieces. All the candidates answered in English and were translated for the Spanish-language audience.

Richardson complained about the restrictions on speaking in Spanish.

"I'm very proud to be the first major Latino candidate to run for president," said Richardson, adding he was "disappointed" that 43 million Latinos would not "hear one of their own speak Spanish."

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and Immigration Law Answers Blog.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 05:27 AM | Permalink

The Washington Post has an excellent article today discussing the recent trend toward choosing all-powerful immigration judges for political reasons, rather than choosing them based on experience in immigration matters. Here are excerpts from the lengthy article:

The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

Two newly appointed immigration judges were failed candidates for the U.S. Tax Court nominated by President Bush; one fudged his taxes and the other was deemed unqualified to be a tax judge by the nation's largest association of lawyers. Both were Republican loyalists.

Justice officials also gave immigration judgeships to a New Jersey election law specialist who represented GOP candidates, a former treasurer of the Louisiana Republican Party, a White House domestic policy adviser and a conservative crusader against pornography.

These appointments, all made by the attorney general, have begun to reshape a system of courts in which judges, ruling alone, exercise broad powers -- deporting each year nearly a quarter-million immigrants, who have limited rights to appeal and no right to an attorney. The judges do not serve fixed terms.

Department officials say they changed their hiring practices in April but defend their selections. Still, the injection of political considerations into the selection of immigration judges has attracted congressional attention in the wake of controversy over the Bush administration's dismissal last year of nine U.S. attorneys.

All the judges appointed during this period who arrived with experience in immigration law were prosecutors or held other immigration enforcement jobs. That was a reversal of a trend during the Clinton administration in which the Justice Department sought to balance such appointees with ones who had been attorneys representing immigrants, according to current and former immigration judges.

Some judges and other immigration experts are highly critical of the administration's practice of placing political allies on the courts. "When we start seeing people who look like [they're fulfilling] someone's political debt get these positions, it starts to become disturbing," said Crystal Williams, a deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

"Immigration law is very complex," said Denise Slavin, an immigration judge since 1995 in Miami, who is president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, a union. "So generally speaking, it's very good to have someone coming into this area with [an] immigration background. It's very difficult, for those who don't, to catch up."

Continue reading "Immigration Judges Chosen Only For Political Connections?" »

Posted by Bob Kraft at 02:57 PM | Permalink

Each year thousands of asylum and immigration cases are overseen by judges. In the last few years, however, the judges' decisions have come under attack as judges issue decisions which are widely inconsistent. On June 1st, the Dallas Morning News featured an article that detailed the discrepancies often found in Immigration Courts.

The article states that a study by three law professors was released last Thursday that shows that the outcome of asylum applications may be influenced by factors such as the location of the court and even the sex and professional background of the judge. The study, which can be found at www.ssrn.com, said Immigration Courts in Dallas and Houston grant only 37% of all cases that come before them. The authors of the study go on to state that the immigration system is a "refugee roulette" since the outcome of case is determined by the "spin of a wheel" - the assignment of a case to one immigration judge rather than another.

Immigration judges are trying to defend their decisions by stating that cases, especially asylum cases, are highly personalized and that as judges they have little to go by other that their own gut feelings about the case. Lawyers, case workers, and appeals courts are now criticizing this approach, because it seems that judges are allowing their personal feelings to affect their rulings.

The law professors' study found significant discrepancies in the way asylum cases are handled. For example, female judges grant asylum at a rate that is 44% higher than male judges. Asylum applicants are also "considerably advantaged" if the judge reviewing their case has had previous experience in immigration law versus a judge whose background is in homeland security.

Another criticism of Immigration Courts is overwork and understaffing. In 2006, a study revealed that U.S. Immigration Court caseloads had jumped 39% in the previous five years. Even with the increased caseload, the courts have not seen much additional staffing or resources dedicated to alleviating the workload. To add on to this, two of the four immigration judges in Dallas retired this year, doubling the workload of the two judges remaining.

Several organizations such as The Rights Working Group and Human Rights First have been working diligently to make changes to the courts. Unless significant changes are made to the current immigration court system it is unlikely that any of these problems will be resolved

Click for a complete version of the Dallas Morning News article.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 01:07 PM | Permalink

This extremely interesting and comprehensive article is provided by the The Immigrant Resource Center. The opinions and judgments are theirs.

The November mid-term election was a repudiation of the Republican majority and a strong protest against the status quo -- whatever the status quo voters were registering their opposition to: the war in Iraq, Congressional corruption, the economy, or terrorism. And this mid-term election was largely focused on national, not local, issues.

Immigration Not A Wedge Issue: Republican leadership tried, but failed, to make immigration the wedge issue that would ensure their continued control of Congress after aggressively promoting an enforcement-only measure (H.R.4437) as their solution to reforming our broken immigration system. In fact, exit polling as reported by the Washington Post found that fewer than one in three cited immigration "as extremely important in influencing their decision, and they only narrowly favored Republican candidates. About six in 10 voters said that they believe illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status..... Democratic candidates won support from 61 percent of those who backed a path to citizenship, according to the poll."

Continue reading "After November 7, 2006: The Mid-Term Elections And Immigration" »

Posted by Bob Kraft at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. has an article on CNN warning Latinos that a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives may be no better than the current Republican-controlled House.

I refuse to be as pessimistic as Mr. Navarrette, but he does make some valid points. Here are excerpts from his article:

Just because a GOP-controlled House of Representatives screwed up immigration reform six ways from Sunday doesn't mean that House Democrats will do any better, or that they'll even feel compelled to try. Remember this is the same bunch of cowards whose leadership, a few months ago, produced a 25-page booklet laying out what they intended to accomplish if they won control of the House. The booklet left out any mention of immigration reform beyond that piece of low-hanging fruit: border security.

Political experts agreed that Democrats were terrified that the immigration issue would hurt them in conservative districts. Hispanic Democrats were furious and publicly criticized the leaders of their own party for dodging the immigration issue.

Now, my hunch is that we're even less likely to see anything resembling amnesty for illegal immigrants under a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives than we were when the Republicans ran things.

Three reasons:

With Republicans in charge, you had their benefactors in the business community pushing hard for legalization in the hopes that it might provide additional workers. Democrats' benefactors are in organized labor, which has -- in the last decade or so -- come around to supporting legalization but not if it's tied to a guest worker program, which might be the only way that Republicans would sign on;
Once Democrats taste power, they're going to like it, and they're going to want to keep it. So they're likely to keep their heads down and not do anything that might increase the likelihood that voters will take a corrective action in 2008 and bounce them back into the minority. At the top of the list is passing anything that looks, sounds or smells like amnesty;
And Democrats won't think twice about betraying their Latino supporters on this issue because they take Latino votes for granted anyway. They haven't come up with a new strategy for getting Latino votes since the 1950s when Texas Democrats used to parachute into Hispanic neighborhoods at election time with tacos and beer.

So it's a safe bet that, even if Democrats retake the House of Representatives, Latinos eventually will come out on the losing end.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 10:38 AM | Permalink

If you haven't voted yet, would you like to know which industries and lobbyists are supporting which candidates? You can learn that and much more at the OpenSecrets Web site.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 10:36 AM | Permalink

Vote411.org is an excellent educational site that will give you pretty much all the information you could ever need regarding the election November 7, 2006. Check it out before you vote.

Posted by Bob Kraft at 10:34 AM | Permalink