For those who have never experienced legislative debates over comprehensive immigration reform, welcome to the circus, and hang on to your seats. Barely a nanosecond after President Obama complimented the bipartisan guidelines for reform announced this week by the Senate’s “gang of eight,” seasoned skeptics began to parse any differences between the White House and Congress. The potential show-stopper involves the Senate proposal to create a Southwest border commission, comprised of local and state officials and community members. It will assess the progress of border security measures as a part of a process toward citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in country. None of the “gang” has made entirely clear the powers of this commission; Democrats have said it would provide non-binding recommendations, but Republican Marco Rubio has suggested it would essentially have veto power over any efforts to grant amnesty to undocumented workers.
The controversy over the Southwest border commission already has a name: the “trigger” issue.
Comments
The commission may not deserve vilification; however, the concept of tying immigration reform to an out-of-touch governor does. Why don't we just let Sheriff "crazy joe" Arpaio have the final word?
Yes, the experience of people on the border should matter. Here's another take: http://app.e2ma.net/app2/campaigns/archived/1404856/71aa330485b09c076f97b58734f9b93e/ Let's address also, please, racial profiling, unjustified arrests, and the human and ecological damage done by wall-building craziness.
ohhhh puhhhhleeeze. The Southern Borders Communities Coalition? Gag me with a spoon!
We have over 12 million ILLEGAL ALIENS because we did not have enough wall building craziness. Nice the way you tossed in "ecological damage" oh my, roads are "ecological damage" too, turn in your automobile, now!
You make accusations of racial profile and unjustified arrests without any cites or references. But, 1.5 MILLION illegals have been deported after DUE PROCESS. Gee whiz.
Why shouldn't the border states have a voice in this discussion? Why shouldn't the states that bear the most brunt with absorbing illegal immigrants, and who will still bear a high percentage of this burden if amnesty is granted, have a stake? We would insist on inclusion for issues that impact us locally, such as the commercial fishing industry.
Your article implies the benefits and perils of inclusion, but fails to mention items like Obama meeting exclusively at the White House with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss their most pressing issue, and I sense border control is not criticallly important to this group. I do not blame the southwest states for building a coalition in this issue.
A wall will never work, you can't create a physical barrier around the entire U.S. The enforcement of our immigration laws IS the wall. Enforce the laws on both illegal immigrants and those that employ them. Don't let anyone fool you by saying that we can give them amnesty now because the border is secure, it will never happen.