Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
Many cultures around the world have matchmaker stories.
There is a Jewish joke about a matchmaker who tells Mrs. Goldberg in Brooklyn that she (the matchmaker) has found the ideal bride for Mrs. Goldberg's son, Sammy. Mrs. Goldberg asks who the bride is, and the matchmaker says that it is Princess Diana.
(I know I am dating myself, but when I first heard this joke, it was about Princess Margaret.)
To continue, Mrs. Goldberg is horrified. How can she allow her son to marry a woman who doesn't know how to cook Kosher food or follow the other traditions of a Jewish home, let alone not being Jewish herself?
Patiently, one by one, the matchmaker overcomes Mrs. Goldberg's objections and explains that Princess Diana will actually turn out to be an ideal traditional Jewish wife. Finally Mrs. Goldberg gives in:
"I agree, I give my son Sammy permission to marry Princess Diana."
The matchmaker replies:
Great! Now half the battle has been won."
I was reminded of this story when I read the June 21 story in Politico about the apparent success of the complicated and sensitive negotiations between Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), representing the Gang of Eight (GOE) and two Republicans, Senator Bob Corker (TN) and John Hoeven (ND) over the Border Security (BS) issue. See: Inside the border deal that almost failed.
As we have been reading in the headlines, BS has been a big obstacle to gathering the 60 votes needed to pass the GOE's CIR bill, S.744, not to mention the 70 votes which CIR supporters would like to gain in order to put pressure on the Republican-controlled House to agree to the bill.
However, BS demands by immigration opponents, including a poison pill amendment by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) which would have imposed an unreachable goal of 90 per cent apprehension rate of people trying to cross illegally along the entire Mexican border as a "trigger" for granting green cards and a Pathway to Citizenship (PTC) to unauthorized immigrants (UI) were threatening to block Senate passage of CIR and kill hope for immigration reform entirely.
As Politico describes in detail, the agreement reportedly worked out between Senator Schumer and the above two Republicans is now expected to attract enough support among fence-sitting Republican Senators to reach the 60 votes needed to pass, and possibly even the 70 (or more) votes mentioned above.
According to Politico, the agreement involves spending another $30 billion on BS, putting up to 40,000 agents along the border, along with the usual drones and other high-tech equipment in order to line the pockets of the big defense contractors (and campaign contributors); and, yes, finally completing the "danged fence".
Now, there should not be any more obstacles to approving CIR in the Senate and sending to the House, where diehard Republican anti-immigrant zealots have already announced that any Senate immigration reform bill will be Dead on Arrival (DOA) in that chamber.
Immigration supporters can rejoice over news of the reported Senate CIR deal. Half the battle has been won.
My colleague Bryan Johnson of*Amoache & Johnson, PLLC*wrote a blog yesterday that was critical of a decision of New York Chief Counsel Wen-Ting Cheng. *Mr. Johnson disseminated the blog post through*his Facebook account. Mr. Johnson then disseminated the blog post through his Facebook account.
Analytic statistics*reveal*that the blog post has been viewed by*33 IP addresses attributable to the *Department of Homeland Security. *According to Mr. Johnson, an IP address attributable to*Facebook also viewed his website yesterday, with one visit occurring a mere 2 minutes after a visit from an IP address located at DHS Headquarters.
Shortly thereafter, Facebook censored the link to the blog post by invoking a security warning that Mr. Johnson's website has been classified as abusive, proactively blocking any link to the blog. *Now it appears that Mr. Johnson's entire firm website has been similarly blocked by Facebook.
Next stop, IRS audit.
Big Brother is watching.
A compromise on border triggers between Senator Jon Cornyn and fellow other Republicans and the Senate's Gang of Eight could lead to a substantial number of new votes from GOP Senators for the immigration bill. They include Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Hoeven of Nebraska and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Getting at least 70 votes in the Senate is seen by some as a large enough number to put pressure on the House to support the bill or at least pass a bill that is closer in substance to the Senate bill than the piecemeal bills now under consideration in the House Judiciary Committee.
by Chris Musillo
For the last several years a group of AILA lawyers who practice in healthcare have gotten together for a dinner on the Thursday of AILA Annual week. Most years we have about 15 people. It is a great chance to catch up with old friends (and new ones!). It is a casual event.
If you are an AILA attorney who is interested in attending this year's dinner, please let me know how many will be attending from your group by June 21. Friends, spouses, etc. are also welcome.
Read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com or www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
I begin today's post with a message of condolence to Mark Krikorian, head of the strongly anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a leading opponent of immigration reform, over the loss of his part time volunteer job teaching ESL to immigrants preparing for the US citizenship test.
Krikorian was summarily fired from this position by Catholic Charities, the ESL program's sponsor, only a few hours after a column appeared in the Washington Post highlighting his opposition to multiculturalism and "mass immigration" as well as the alleged white supremacist associations of CIS's founder, John Tanton. See The provocateur standing in the way of immigration reform, June 17.
According to the WP (Mark Krikorian loses volunteer job for Catholic Charities after Washington Post story, June 18) Krikorian said that he will miss his volunteer job, because he liked getting to know people from different places, and that he hopes someone else will take him on in the same position.
I am sure that all Immigration Daily readers will wish him great good luck in his search.
Turning to other immigration news, one can expect that there will be considerable euphoria over the news that the Senate may be close to a deal on Border Security which would be acceptable to Republican hold-outs and clear the way to at least the 60 votes which the Gang of Eight's CIR bill, S.744, needs to pass the upper chamber.
The reported deal might even deliver a "large, bipartisan majority of votes" for the bill, according to Politico: Border Security deal boosts immigration bill hopes, June 19.
Details of the purported deal are not yet available as of this writing, but it is questionable how much anyone on either side of the immigration issue really cares how many more billions of dollars are poured into the attempt to make the Mexican border look more like the Berlin Wall.
The real issue is whether Border Security can be used as a pretext for derailing legalization and the Pathway to Citizenship.
As long as that does not happen, then whatever Border Security it takes to get a CIR deal is evidently acceptable to CIR supporters.
The real problem, therefore, is in what Politico accurately call the "parallel universe" of the House of Representatives. See House: Senate immigration bill DOA, June 19.
The full House has already passed a bill which would deny funding to implement both President Obama's Deferred Action program terminating removal proceedings against "low priority" unauthorized immigrants, and his DACA program to give DREAMERS temporary relief from deportation.
While there is no chance of this bill's going anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate or being signed by the president, it is a shot across the bow against CIR.
It could also be called strike one.
This bill has now been followed by a draconian, Sensenbrenner-like bill (to quote from Immigration Daily's June 19 editorial) now being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, which contains criminal penalties against unauthorized immigrants and also gives states the power to enact their own immigration enforcement laws.
This would effectively overrule the US Supreme Court's decision last year invalidating much of Arizona's notorious "papers, please" law.
As Immigration Daily's June 19 editorial also points out, this would take us back to the enforcement-only days of the 2005 House immigration bill.
It would also, in effect, nullify the 2012 election as far as immigrant rights are concerned.
A shot even closer to the bow, or strike two against CIR.
And now for what could be strike three: The above Politico article: House: Senate immigration bill DOA, states:
"If 70 to 80 members vote for the bipartisan bill - which some in the Senate are aiming for - the House would barely feel pressure to take up the bill. Most conservatives instead would see passing the legislation as an act of mass stupidity."
If House anti-immigrant reactionaries are able to pressure Speaker Boehner into following the "Hastert rule" - no bill is taken up unless supported by the majority of the (Republican) majority, this would be strike three, CIR would be out and the game of immigration reform would be over.
And it could be over not only for this year. The House is so gerrymandered, so extreme right wing, so undemocratic and so out of touch with the real America of diversity and demographic change, that we might have a "lost decade" for immigration reform.
See Politico: The Democrats' lost decade? June 19.
The failure of immigration reform, if it does fail, would be only part of an even larger failure of American democracy itself.