The Obama Adminstration Plan - Will Congress Act Yet?

photo: http://thephilanews.com/obama-administration-prods-congress-on-immigration-reform-38033.htm

This week USAToday released a publication that revealed some of the Immigration reform the Obama Administration is working on. In the beginning the Obama Administration commended The Gang Of 8 for progressing forward on immigration reform, but Congress has yet to act further. President Obama reminded the Gang of 8 that if there is no further progress, he will introduce his own immigration reform legislation. I believe this "leak" by a White House Official is a reminder to Congress that President Obama will act if these "Representatives" refuse to play ball across the aisle. This publication from the Obama administration is a bill that is oriented towards common-sense immigration reform, that should be accepted by Democrats and Republicans.

"The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. In addition, the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created 'Lawful Prospective Immigrant' visa, under the draft bill being written by the White House."  USAToday

As stated previously, this plan is very oriented to trying to be passed in both houses, therefore there are aspects of true immigration reform and "security increases". I believe the most important part of this reform bill is the opportunity for currently "unauthorized" persons to apply for lawful status, only by: "people would need to pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa. If approved, they would be allowed to legally reside in the U.S. for four years, work and leave the country for short periods of time. After the four years, they could then reapply for an extension"(USAToday). This would allow many people who were once legal to stay in the United States, to stay and continue with their life. This released plan doesn't layout any future immigration policy or plan to deal with the backlog of visas. I can see another problem around the bend, if the system that renews and issues new visas is inefficient. My other concern is with the fees, where there will begin to disqualify some, and entitle others. With the median wealth of Hispanics being roughly $7000, these fees will weigh more heavily on the lower income, often times the same people trying to immigrate here.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/wealth-gap-race/index.htm

This wealth gap is very dangerous as we progress in trying to decide where most of the responsibility for funding this reform will come from. 

These fees will inhibit some from becoming legal citizens, but also some of the other security measures included in this plan will do the same thing. Not only does the Obama Administration want to reform the Border Patrol to accept donations from any source, but also wants to study how border crossing fees will cover the costs of the agency. My concern with the donations is the probability of an unjust Sheriff like Joe Arpaio or Governor like Jan Brewer  taking advantage of their accumulated wealth to maintain a neoconservative view of border security. Why do I pick Sheriff Joe and Brewer? Both own stock in the private prison industry that is currently profiting greatly from increased border security. These are the same folks that want to increase apprehensions at the border, keep "unauthorized" persons around and create schemes to persuade the public that border is not secure. I would argue that both of these individuals should be removed from office due solely to their very obvious conflict of interests. 

foxnews.com

Just when I think I am done talking about Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), he returns to the limelight to disregard what the Obama Administration is working towards, to spew the same Republican jargon. 

"It fails to follow through on previously broken promises to secure our borders, (and) creates a special pathway that puts those who broke our immigration laws at an advantage over those who chose to do things the right way and come here legal" - Marco Rubio

I don't know what more he wants from the Obama Administration, as I have said before, apprehensions at the border are down, deportations are at a high, President Obama wants a ID card for these new Prospective Immigrants, more studies after reform to see how border patrol can be improved, an E-Verify program to help limit the number of "unauthorized" persons working in the country and of course... more Status Checks. I don't believe these attempts to criticize the Obama Administration is useful or beneficial for our government or progress for true immigration reform. I consider these to be political stunts that will be referenced in 2016 during the Presidential Election. The motive behind these actions must be to completely halt any progress the Obama Administration can make to meet the expectations of voters. Marco Rubio and the GOP are attempting to push the Administration to be a Lame Duck, however will these actions be detrimental during the 2014 midterm elections?

State of the Union and Marco Rubio's response to the State of the Union

The State of the Union seemed to be focused on the economy and middle class families. There was little mention of immigration reform, foreign policy and the environment. This is surprising to me because the Hispanic vote for the first time influenced the outcome of the election. However, with that being said, I can also see how this State of the Union was focused mainly domestically and on the American (White, Union) Community. I do not believe that this is laying the groundwork for immigration reform to be thrown to the back burner, however, I just do not believe that it will be fully reformed. I feel that we can anticipate only the DREAM act being passed before Congress has to change gears and prepares for election year. I definitely support the passing of the DREAM Act, however I believe true immigration reform will need do more to include more people who could become legal residents. There needs to be a correction of language, to remove the concept of "illegal/legal" immigration. Congress should attempt to pass a full reform bill that is beyond the DREAM act, that lays out a pathway to citizenship for those who are already in the country. Most unauthorized persons in this country overstayed a visa or were caught up renewing their visa. This is true for some of the record breaking number of deportations by the Obama administration in the last four years. I was not impressed by President Obama's State of the Union address, I think there are far more issues that could have been mentioned in an economic context to illustrate their importance.  However, I do find Marco Rubio's response to be interesting, only because President Obama is doing exactly what the Republicans want him to do... Nothing.

Here is Marco Rubio's Official response to the State of the Union. Here is the written Transcript - Marco Rubio's Reponse

I find Marco Rubio's response to be a very partisan, and almost just the same Republican argument. I want to bring light to a couple of his statements.

"For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance...Presidents in both parties -- from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan -- have known that our free-enterprise economy is the source of our middle-class prosperity." Washington Post

This introduction and conclusion is leading the listener into how the Obama Administration is acting different than any other Democrat or even Republican. Also, that the Administration is working against the free-enterprise economy that creates the middle class. I wouldn't find this argument to be completely out of touch, however its almost to the border. I don't believe Marco Rubio, or the Republican party has done research about the distribution of wealth during and after the Reagan years. It looks much like the distribution of wealth that we saw in the 1920's, a whole lot at the top and very little for the rest. I would like to also introduce the inequality of pay: for instance, the average American CEO pay is upwards of x343 more than employee pay.  It was only 40x that in 1980, so I want to ask: What exactly did Ronald Reagan DO?

"But America is exceptional, because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them...Like most Americans, for me, this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here...We can also help grow our -- grow our economy if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world’s best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws." Washington Post

For a Progressive, this statement is a real turn off mainly because it is making reference to Abortion policy. I cannot believe this is being repeatedly brought up by the Republican party, this should no longer be in the sight of legislators. I don't know what else to say other than - The belief that life begins at conception is only a belief that is held by Catholics and some other religions. NOT BY ALL. I believe legislators assisted by doctors and other experts, have come to the consensus as to when an abortion should be legal. That is what holds weight in the public domain, not the opinion of a Religion. Moving from Abortion, to the final portion of that excerpt, that his parents immigrated here. He takes a tough stance on enforcement of the borders even though deportations rates are at all times highs, and apprehensions at the border are low. His parents immigrated here from Cuba, which means they immediately assume priority immigrant status, because they are trying to "flee" a Communist country. I believe this "entitlement" makes him believe that all immigration is that easy, however when only 500,000 visas are granted to the Western Hemisphere, including priority immigrants, how can anyone from south of the border expect to gain entry into the United States?

Marco Rubio a GOP prospect for 2016?

As immigration reform is evolving in Washington, I am not surprised by the GOP's attempt to thrust relatively new faces in Congress into the limelight. Senator Marco Rubio is becoming an increasingly important representative for the GOP. "Wednesday, it was announced the 41-year-old Cuban-American Rubio would rebut Mr. Obama's State of the Union speech next week - in English and in Spanish. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568216/rubio-there-is-only-one-savior-and-its-not-me/ ). I thought this is an important step forward, because it will raise questions about how we will begin to recognize the second most spoken language in the U.S. I am curious how it will continue to develop over the long term with the changing demographics of the United States, but also how it will evolve over this immigration debate. I am beginning to believe that this can become a political tool for either the Democrats or Republicans during the debate to gain momentum in 2014 and further in 2016. 

Beginning to look further, Marco Rubio could be a Candidate for the Republicans in 2016, especially as he begins to spend his political capital on immigration reform. Although, the election in 2016 is dependent on how these next four years change. If Immigration Reform is dealt with in Washington quicker than anticipated, it will provide more time for other issues. This requires me to look into Senator Rubio's actions in Washington. I find that he is influenced by what should be his private belief: religion.  I believe that religion is supposed to be viewed as completely separate and absent from the legislative process in the United States. I think this barrier will be a difficult hurdle to jump over for more moderate voters in the United States as he is campaigning in 2015. I think this is mainly applicable when viewing Abortion and Gay Marriage policy. Also, if Senator Rubio works against the Afghanistan timeline he can lose potential voters that would otherwise vote the party line. I would argue that the secrets of war and war itself is becoming very unpopular in the United States, and this will be continued to be questioned when approaching the end of the timeline. Senator Rubio has a few hurdles to jump over for more moderate voters to begin to pay attention to a Rubio 16' bid.

Immigration policy is not the only policy matter in the news currently, gun policy is being again questioned in the United States. Senator Rubio will indefinitely be a public figure for the GOP when it comes to gun policy in the coming months.

Bipartisan Reemergence? - Immigration Reform

The "Gang of 8" Senators from both sides of the aisle presented ideals and values that should be held while trying to develop a new Immigration Policy. The first provision presented was tightening and ensuring the security of our border. I find this problematic because some actors, both Democrats and Republicans, are opponents to any type of Immigration Reform. This provision must be "completed" and approved through unknown standards and unknown actors for other aspects of reform to occur. Depending on the committee, governor, or senator, this stamp of approval may never be accomplished. Even with more deportations in the Obama Administration than 8 years of the Bush Administration, how can we still be concerned about security? (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/18/news/la-pn-deportation-ice-20111018). Our border is secure, our net migration is nearly zero, and I argue that we need serious Immigration reform if we want to remain a hegemonic power. We need to concern ourselves less with border security and more with trying to get legal immigration streamlined and simple. Making legal immigration to the United States easy, affordable and flexible especially for our close neighbors has the possibility to jump start economic growth. This economic growth will be stopped if "security of the border" inhibits our ability to move forward. History has proven time after time that walls do not stop entry, regardless how tall they are. Border security is always an illusion, there is no such thing as a truly secure border.