ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase

Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.

Immigration reform supporters would like to think that the chances for reform in 2014 depend on House Republican "moderates" such as John Boehner (Ohio), Bob Goodlatte (Virginia) and Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) who may be talking out of both sides of their mouths on the details, but at least are not adamantly opposed to reform of some kind.

The media have also been hanging on their every breath and prognosticating on each syllable that comes out of their mouths to try to divine the future of reform, very much as the ancient Greeks and Romans did with the Delphic and Sybilline Oracles, or the Ancient Chinese did with oracle bones.

But what if Boehner & Co. are not the people who really control the future of reform? What if reform is in the hands of the Tea Party (as I have been suggesting in many of my posts for the past several months)? This view now finds support in a January 26 article inThe Hill: Immigration reform battle centers on conservative Tea Party bloc.

The Hill writes:

"The immigration debate in the House could boil town to a handful of influential Tea Party conservatives.

Proponents and opponents of creating a pathway to citizenship and other reforms have zeroed in on 'peer leaders' in the House GOP. These conservatives include Reps. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Trey Gowdy (S.C.), Justin Amash (Mich.), Renee Ellmers (N.C.) and Steve Scalise (La.)

While there are vocal factions on each side of the debate, the battle for immigration reform will be fought over a bloc of lawmakers who have stayed relatively quiet on the issue. Many of them will take their lead from conservative colleagues they respect more than House GOP leaders or big business groups."

The good news could be that some of these Tea Party Representatives may be becoming more open to the idea of reform.

The Hill points to the example of Renee Ellmers, who recently wrote a newspaper op-ed supporting legalization for out-of-status immigrants.

Her op-ed was quick to draw condemnation from Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, an anti immigrant organization:

"Our activists are hitting Elmers very hard after her comments this week. If any of these type people show signs of giving into the establishment, we regard it as very important."

The idea that the Tea Party and their supporters in the House could determine the future of immigration reform is not a nice thought. But the fact that support for reform may be growing even among some House Tea Party Republicans, who are essential to John Boehner's "majority of the majority" decision about whether to bring any reform bills to the floor for a vote, may be a cause for optimism.


Roger Algase, a New York attorney and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, has been helping H-1B specialty workers, O-1 and EB-1 extraordinary ability professionals, labor certification green card applicants, marriage-based immigrants, and other business and family-based immigrants succeed in overcoming the complexities of our immigration system for more than 30 years.

He has enabled immigrants from many parts of the world to achieve their goals, advance their careers and build a solid foundation for their lives in America. His email address is

Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Does Immigration Reform Depend on the Tea Party? by Roger Algase" to

Updated 01-27-2014 at 09:38 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. Dave Francis's Avatar

    Although promised emphatically in the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens, the laws were never enforced. So strictly speaking Americans are taking a massive chance, trusting either side of the Congressional aisle in Washington. With over a 10 million Americans still seeking work and another 6 million either given up or not seeking a job, there should no thoughts of pressing for the objectionable Senate bill or the Republicans set of new policies. We certainly can do without another 30 million illiterate people; as many will end up on welfare; meaning cash payments for illegal parents for their children; more food stamps; billions of dollars for already overcrowded schools; then health care will become a catastrophe. YOU WILL PAY FOR IT ALL; NOT THE EMPLOYERS WHO WANT CHEAP LABOR? The only true Conservatives who will enforce immigration are the ?Break-away? Peoples TEA PARTY dot org. President Barack Obama is pushing for amnesty even though the Congressional Budget Office determined it will devastate the wages of working class Americans. If Washington gets its way we will lose our jobs to illegals. We will be forced to pay even more outrageous health care costs to pay for these law-breakers. They already openly defy our laws, deface our flags and feed off our system. What will happen if they're rewarded for their illegal and illicit activities? Backdoor Amnesty: Deportation Cases Closed by ?Prosecutorial Discretion? so illegal immigrants walk free. This man has continuously violated ?THE RULE OF LAW.?

    The more Tea Party members elected into the Senate or house will decide a greater future. They will build the Real, two fences along the border and will implement E-Verify with no loopholes; prosecuting incorrigible employers who believe they are above the law. The Birthright Citizenship law will be presented for review by the highest court in the land, and foreign nationals entering through the borders, by aircraft as an ?Overstay? will be treated as a felony. Very few politicians deserve any reprieve from being thrown out of office, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner. The Tea Party has grown in mega-membership of Americans from every Race, religion and political relationship, who have been lied to, by arrogant and delusional bunch of narrow-minded people and have unceasingly ignored the will of the people. Numbersusa, a grassroots organization, sees the danger of overpopulation the socialist factions don?t? Fax for FREE Congress - Tell them to secure the borders first! . Use your voice and slam the switchboard in Washington DC at (202) 224-3121.
  2. Jack2's Avatar
    “It would be tragic if the Leader's immigration principles were simply a ‘piecemeal’ repackaging of the Senate plan,” [Jeff Sessions] said in a statement.

    Sounds like it will be--but we won't conference S. 744! That sounds nice but is a distinction without a difference. Don't be fooled--their whole game is to fool those who aren't down with the higher immigration/guest worker lobby's agenda into thinking they aren't really for it too.
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The first of the above two comments is a useful illustration of the powerful influence of irrational hate in holding up immigration reform.

    Are reform advocates missing the boat somewhere in focusing on abstruse economic arguments, no matter how sound, in trying to sell reform? Should they instead be emphasizing the importance of immigration reform as part of the battle against racism and prejudice?

    That was what won the victories of the civil rights movement. Racial segregation was not overturned because it was bad for the economy (as it no doubt was)

    It was overturned because bigotry is wrong. That is the same issue facing America today.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-27-2014 at 07:02 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. Jack2's Avatar
    Roger, do you think a policy of limited immigration is inherently bigoted? What then if we do not want U.S. overpopulation?
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Oh, now I get it: they only want to kick 11 million brown people out of the country, but they're not bigoted.

    Let me give you a little history lesson: the Southern segregationists during the civil rights era weren't bigoted either. They only wanted to protect "states rights" and the "Southern way of life."

    The people who passed the anti-immigrant laws in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina are walking in their foot steps.

    Ditto for the authors of Arizona's SB 1070: they were following the lead of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who ran for president in 1964 on an anti-civil rights platform.

    But in those days, most of the white supremacists who hated brown people at least had the guts to admit it.

    Today, those who want to kick millions of brown people out of the country and seal our borders so that no more can come in don't even have the courage to stand up for their own prejudices.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-27-2014 at 07:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. Jack2's Avatar
    I was not talking about the motivations of politicians but your position and its logical conclusion. If your premise is that limiting immigration to the U.S. is, by definition, a form of bigotry or that is impossible to limit immigration without bigotry, etc., then what? Are we morally required to forever have unlimited immigration (so as not to be bigoted) regardless of the consequences or do you allow for competing moral interests, e.g., ecological sustainability.

    The U.S. is already in ecological overshoot even if future immigration were zero. Every time a person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country (like ours), the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. Thus, immigration to the U.S. exacerbates not just our problem, but the world's. The way to maximize the interests of humans (not to mention all other species) going forward is to not destroy ecosystems and deplete resources today. Opening our doors discourages the most overpopulated countries who cannot sustain their own populations from ever changing their unsustainable ways. This is the practical, moral case not to cause harm through immigration and due to the stakes involved (national and planetary habitability) arguably trumps issues such as whether people should be free to live in whatever country they wish however nice that sounds in theory. Unlimited immigration might be defensible in a much less populated U.S. and world but is arguably shortsighted and reckless today.
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    No room in America for more brown people? Is that the issue?

    And who, exactly, do you think will be taken in by all the high-sounding nonsense about "ecological footprints"?

    In all my comments, I have supported the Senate CIR bill, S. 744 (with all its shortcomings). Can you show me what part of that bill would allow unlimited immigration?

    I am not an advocate for "open borders". I only oppose prejudice and persecution against immigrants who are already here or who are seeking to come here through traditional legal channels that have been in effect, in one form or another, since 1965.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-28-2014 at 07:56 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: