Getty Images
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano talks with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R).
Following up on an item from last month, it appears President Obama's strategy for immigration reform has come together fairly well. His plan has always been quite transparent: he'd focus heavily on enforcement and border security at the outset, which would, in theory, engender goodwill from Republicans and create some legislative breathing room for comprehensive reform.
And for four years, Obama stuck to his commitment, reducing illegal border crossings, increasing deportations, and boosting enforcement at a level without modern American precedent. By any reasonable measure, this president has been more aggressive on this front than any of his Republican predecessor, all in the hopes of convincing GOP lawmakers to work constructively on a comprehensive solution.
Of course, that only works if Republicans in Congress make an effort to keep up with the basics of current events.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wasn't sold on DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's testimony that border security was vastly improved in recent years by major funding boosts, hiring increases, new technologies, as evidenced by a 78 percent decline in border apprehensions since 2000.
"I truly believe had this administration done a better job at enforcement...you would be in a much stronger position with the American people to ask for a more broad solution to the problem," Sessions said at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, citing low morale at ICE and complaints from its union.
I don't seriously expect every senator to be an expert on every issue; it's just not realistic.
But Sessions' ignorance -- during a hearing on immigration, which he and his staff presumably did some preparation for -- suggests there's literally nothing the White House can do satisfy those Republican lawmakers who intend to oppose reform efforts.
For Sessions, the administration hasn't done enough on enforcing immigration laws, which is the opposite of reality, and the White House isn't in a strong position with the public on immigration reform, which is also the opposite of reality.
So how can policymakers have a credible debate?
In fairness, it's worth emphasizing that there are some GOP lawmakers who better understand the issue, and see Obama's enforcement efforts as a success. It's this momentum that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to build on this morning.
"Our borders have, in fact, never been stronger," Napolitano testified.
Boasting of the "unprecedented progress we have made" in border security since the last immigration debate, Napolitano noted that the number of Border Patrol agents had doubled since 2004, border apprehensions had plummeted 78 percent from their 2000 peak, and a variety of new technologies had been deployed to stop illegal crossings. And net migration in recent years has been negative, meaning more people are leaving the United States than entering it.
"Speaking as someone who, as Arizona's U.S. attorney, attorney general, and governor experienced the flood of illegal immigration in the early part of the century," Napolitano said in her testimony. "That situation no longer exists."
All that's left is for Congress to step up and approve comprehensive reform.
Leave a Comment:
Sessions has a constituency of folks in Texas who profit handsomely from cheap labor. The very last thing he would do is vote for anything to change that...
You must have driven around the state, and observed the numbers of Hispanics on highway construction projects! If all are here legally, then this is Mexico! Williams Bros. is a major Perry and Sessions donor.
It's weird that Jeff Sessions has problems with immigration reform. The undocumented supply of cheap labor undercuts one of Alabama's selling points. Historically, Alabama and a few other southern states have positioned themselves as suppliers of cheap labor through pro-business, anti-labor governance. If immigrants are able to achieve some official status, they'll be much better able to avoid the exploitation that Alabama inflicts on all of its residents.
tl;dr Undocumented immigrants are doing the @!$%#ty jobs at low pay that Alabama has positioned its workforce to do. Give the immigrants rights, and Alabama gains more @!$%#ty jobs.
Senator Jeff Sessions is from Alabama, the hands-down stupidest state in America. Congressman Pete Sessions, who proves what happens when you fall off the ladder climbing into your fighter jet a few times too many without your helmet on, is from Texas.
Barring the tech area around Huntsville, perhaps. However, that's enough to let Mississippi edge past.
Alabama would, of course, be the state where the state legislators passed an anti-immigration bill unlike anything seen since segregation over the protests of farmers who said their crops would rot in the field without immigrant labor, and then were shocked, shocked to discover that, that their bill had had the totally unintended consequence of making it impossible for farmers to harvest their crops.
they can't be that stupid, they receive more federal dollars than they put in. you could say they're livin the dream.
Last night, the President did not have the political courage to make the explicit statement that establishing a second class of people living in the United States was unacceptable and antithetical to US values.
That is what the GOP is pressing for as noted by Julian Castro last night on MSNBC. Re-instituting a Bracero guest worker program is part of the right wing assault on unions and worker rights- since workers would have to compete with those whose minimum wage and labor conditions rights are not protected.
He didn't have to spell it out -- it's up to us to infer it and to work actively against this GOP wet dream.
Oh? I suppose Lincoln should have instead pressed for "slavery reform" and left it to his supporters to infer he meant that there should be no second class people? What is leadership about? What is staking out your negotiation position about if you are reluctant to communicate where your red lines are?
I believe the President has made it clear that immigration reform must include a path to citizenship. Any worker program would be an adjunct to immigration reform to provide a source of cheap farm labor. Such a program does not allow any worker an indefinite stay in the US so companies outside of the southwest states would have difficulty hiring the temporary laborers. In fact, these laborers would likely be confined to farm labor. Any noncitizen with advanced job skills would qualify for a resident alien status and a clear path to citizenship.
Immigration reform will have to deal with the status of people living in the US who are not citizens. I doubt Dems will agree to reforms that would allow these people to be paid less than minimum wage because their status would likely be classified as resident aliens. Dems are not going to agree to create another classification that dumps these people into a status that has no rights to minimum wages, SS and so on. That would not be acceptable to Latinos and other immigrants rights groups as well as many progressives. If Dems agreed to such a new status, it would be political suicide with the Latino vote.
You have to accept any resemblance the Republican Party had to Lincoln ended a long time ago.
.
Actually, the Radical Republicans talked about Lincoln exactly the same way you are about Obama. Soft on slavery, soft on the traitors, not committed to abolition.
Right. So where are the Thaddeus Stevens of 2013? The coverage of Obama's speech have been gushing in approval. Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi don't count- They are not in office.
Honestly, I was deeply disappointed- (link to observations about SOTU).
@mike- I guess I just don't understand about the rationale for not making it a red line. It's not that it is red meat for the base, but in stating the red line, it would force the GOP to explain why they are not arguing for a permanent underclass with fewer rights that has been functioning as a mechanism that undercuts middle class wages and working conditions. Is everyone getting freaked out about being called a Black Panther if we mention Race, or getting called Lenin if we mention corporate strategies leveraging class?
The rationale is that Obama does not need to say anything about legislation until it gets introduced and/or voted. Obama can wait for the GOP to step in @!$%#e when they stall on the legislation or try to negotiate such a status. He does not need to draw a red line until that time. That is when Republicans are going to permanently lose the Latino vote. Republicans know that and the Tea Party is going to be a major problem on the immigration issue. We get to watch the establishment Republicans squirm and the Tea Party rant while Dems get ready for 2014.
It makes sense and I think it was Luke Russert who made a similar point on Alex's show today that Obama may have been treading lightly on the immigration points of contention because of the perceived closeness of an agreement.
The argument in favor of making it explicit with a sentence in SOTU would be to pre-emptively surface the known issue and hammer it in the public sphere rather than let it fester in a dormant state and rear its head with full hate radio force at the inopportune moment of the eve of a final vote. My view is to drain all the right wing reactionary energy out of their known positions in advance, and then lay waste to them with majority public opinion.
The Republicans' blinding hatred of Obama has led to their detachment from reality for the last four years. This denial of reality is the same thing we see on federal spending. They claim it's "out of control," while the FACT is that spending as a percentage of GDP is going down and public employment has declined in real terms.
Since the facts don't match their narrative, those facts must be sacrificed.
It is not just the hatred of Obama that removes them from reality, it is the hatred for all who do not tow the same line as they do.
Just what actual political agenda is Jeff Sessions trying to hide behind his cockamamie rhetoric strewn with intellectual gibberish and non-sequitur still-shots of reality?
Hey Jeff, you're a little man, not worthy of Senatorial service - go home and muck things up there! -Kevo
Sessions is not a name that is quite as closely attached to the mad hatters spoken of in hushed tones of respect . Typically associated with the overactive cracker factories of our revered American Tea Party membership , they appear to think they independently hatch their very own inimical plots and conspiracies . It is a truly adorable aspect of limits of human imagination , and could be a useful marketing tool for the actions figures debut next Uncle Scrooge day . At least from where I listen to things .
The refusal to list actual events , facts , and policy is pretty standard fare , and may possibly be considered the highest form commitment from an acolyte . That however cannot be news to anyone over four years of age , that this is hardly a new activity under the sun . These forms of self indulgent fake righteousness , while amazing as an anthropological study are certainly to find a critical reception from the arch eye of a Simon Cowell . Being somewhat interchangeable with Republican blowhards they are hardly different from the run of the mill know nothing from any period where it was possible motivate useful fools with empty promises . While bringing great wealth to a PT Barnum or two , the promises of existential power being a foot soldier brings at the ground floor entry level , they are well advised to check where the zeroes are in their checks .
To the honored Tea Party legends of howling at this , that , and the other thing , being new kids in the cracker factory club , it is a distinct possibility they feel a need to over do things a bit , just to demonstrate their bona fides .
Is the border secure? ...that would be a BIG NO....if it was, illegals would stop invading http://bit.ly/YqJ0ik
total FY2012 apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, 97,762, were a 65% increase over the total FY2011 apprehensions of 59,243. Continuing on, the apprehensions for the first 3 months of FY2013, in the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, 23,814, are a 49% increase over the first 3 months of FY2012, of 16,001
total FY2012 apprehensions in the Laredo Border Patrol Sector, 44,872, were a 24% increase over the total FY2011 apprehensions of 36,053. Continuing on, the apprehensions for the first 3 months of FY2013, in the Laredo Border Patrol Sector, 10,207, are a 63% increase over the first 3 months of FY2012, of 6,257
total FY2012 apprehensions in the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector, 21,720, were a 35% increase over the total FY2011 apprehensions of 16,144. Continuing on, the apprehensions for the first 3 months of FY2013, in the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector, 4,645, are a 32% increase over the first 3 months of FY2012, of 3,524
If the numbers of illegal immigrants being apprehended are increasing as you note, wouldn't that suggest that border enforcement is working?
Exactly, stupid, apprehensions are up. That means people are not getting through, duh!
Republican are just plain old stupid, and they glory in that fact.
"By any reasonable measure, this president has been more aggressive..."
And by any "reasonable measure" this President has bent over backwards to acquiesce to the GOTP on everything - the problem is he's the wrong COLOR! And no self-respecting white man will listen to the negro......
Point being what? That this is all because the White Male is losing the control they've had over the country for hundreds of years, and that a non-White Man as President has made this an undeniable fact?
If thats what you're getting at .... agreed.
.
Exactly....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/23/deportation-statistics-said-to-be-inflated/
First sentence from that article:
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is charging that the Obama administration has “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost numbers —
Well I totally believe that the Reugs want to tell the truth too!
LOL!!!