Immigration Reform Meets Set-Backs

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution gives the power to Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 grants to Congress the authority to pass legislation prohibiting the migration of persons to our country across the national border, as they deem necessary.  Article IV, Section 4 tasks the federal government with the duty of protecting each of the States from invasion.  Therefore, immigration is indeed an issue that the federal government is supposed to be involved with.  Article II, Section 3 requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

States also have authorities regarding immigration.  The States have the authority to protect their State borders, and to enforce the law inside their States.  Prior to 1808, the States had all authorities regarding immigration, but Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 allowed the federal government to prohibit immigration as they felt was needed.  Notice, nowhere in the Constitution is it indicated that the federal government can tell the States who they have to accept.

Also, understand that securing the border is more than just an immigration issue, since many of the people crossing our borders into the country are of Middle Eastern descent.  With people who are associated with sleeper terrorist cells, or are connected to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, crossing the border illegally, the issue of securing the border, and enforcing immigration laws, is also a national security issue.

Sanctuary cities, and States, are harboring illegal immigrants, and in fact could be harboring the enemy, and are in violation of U.S. Code, Sections 1324 and 1325, which addresses "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens," as does the Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275.

Refusing to enforce immigration law places the federal government, and States that do the same, in violation of Article III, Section 3 by giving the enemy "aid and comfort" by allowing illegal entry into the United States, or "entry without inspection." Failure to enforce immigration law is against the law according to INA section 275, (8 USC Section 1324).  Repeated illegal entry is a felony.

A large swath of Americana realizes these truths, and have been steadfast against amnesty, and any other free ride to citizenship being offered to the lawbreakers that invade our soil by illegally crossing the U.S. National Border.

The federal government has been trying to reform immigration law to be more accommodating to the invaders.  The "Gang of Eight," consisting of four members from each political party, have been working to create what they consider to be a bi-partisan effort towards immigration reform.

Unforeseen obstacles have risen up in their path.

One of the reasons employers in the United States illegally employ the unskilled workers coming across the border is because they are willing to work jobs not easily pitched to Americans, and the illegal aliens are willing to perform these tasks at a rate of pay significantly lower than what their American counterparts would be willing to work for.  Now, with the immigration talks in play, the negotiations over wages has become something that may stall the efforts of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight.

The plan being worked on would enable the federal government to grant visas to low-skilled foreign workers to work in the United States temporarily.  Both parties have accepted the plan tentatively, but when the plan was shown to the AFL-CIO Labor Union, the huge union said, "No-Go."

I am not seeing why our politicians should have to dance around hoping for the okay of a labor union, but the outcome is favorable to those that are against the enactment of any amnesty legislation.  The opposition to amnesty would rather see government enforce the laws on the books, rather than try to legislate our future away with draconian immigration reform laws that open the borders, or grant a free ride to citizenship to people willing to break the law by crossing the border illegally.

The legislation specifies that the visas will only be issued if they do not drive down the wages of those doing the same job in the United States.  The proposal also includes construction workers in the plan, which business wants and labor does not.

Randel Johnson, a senior vice president of the U.S Chamber of Commerce, Washington's largest business lobby, said "unions have jeopardized the entire immigration reform effort...because of their refusal to take a responsible stance on a small temporary worker program."

Organized labor had a similarly angry characterization of the status of talks. "There is an uncomprehending level of anger. We have conceded on so many different grounds. They (Republicans) want to pave the path to citizenship with poverty," said Jeff Hauser, a spokesman with the AFL-CIO.

With the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO in open warfare over the immigration reform proposal, questions on if an agreement will even be reached are rising.

Meanwhile, one of the loudest voices supporting that government enforce the laws that are on the books, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona, has been under fire, but the organizers of the campaign to recall Sheriff Joe has lost ground, and are now relying solely on volunteers because they have run out of money.  This shortfall may keep them from collecting enough signatures to place a recall of Arpaio on the ballot.

Arpaio's camp says the claim may simply be another fundraising stunt.  Arpaio’s campaign manager, Chad Willems, noted the anti-Arpaio forces could find "funding sources outside the legal channels" of the group.

In the end, according to Laurie Roberts, a political writer for the Arizona Republic, "no money equals no recall."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Immigration Reform Talks Stalled by wage disputes - Reuters

Group Seeking Sheriff Joe Recall Out of Money, Momentum - Breitbart