Immigration Hard Liners to Lead House Judiciary

 

WASHINGTON (By Simmi Aujla, Politico) October 26, 2010 — Immigration reform would not only be dead in a Republican House; the policy debate would take a decidedly rightward turn in the House Judiciary Committee, which could become a hotbed of conservative activism on one of the most volatile issues in U.S. politics.

Chairman-in-waiting Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has been an advocate of national Arizona-type immigration laws, implementing a mandatory verification program and revisiting the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Smith’s wingman on the Judiciary Committee would be Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the fiercest critics of illegal immigration, who would chair the immigration subcommittee.

Smith has been on the leading edge of conservative immigration policy since the mid-1990s, but he would have a much larger megaphone as chairman of Judiciary, even if his ideas never get a vote on the floor, because GOP leaders might hesitate to open the chamber to a full-blown immigration debate.

Reform advocates, frustrated by the inability of a Democratic Congress to push serious immigration reform, worry the debate in the House may swing the opposite way.

Smith is “less interested in getting in the spotlight and more interested in driving immigrants out of the country,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a group that supports a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants. “That’s why I am not looking forward to Mr. Smith coming to Washington.”

Through a spokeswoman, Smith declined to comment on his plans if he becomes chairman, because it would be premature before Election Day.

“They could really keep the debate alive, and they can really be very active in raising all sorts of questions that continue to — in the public mind — make immigration look as if it is just undoable and the government is never going to manage it,” said Doris Meissner, who was head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Bill Clinton, while Smith was chairman of the immigration subcommittee. Meissner appeared before the committee to defend her leadership eight times in four years.

Conservative immigration groups believe even if Smith is stymied legislatively, his panel could become a national platform for the illegal immigration crackdown movement.

“There’s going to be a constant push on why the Obama administration hasn’t been more aggressive,” said Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, a conservative group that advocates reducing the inflow of immigrants. “He’s not very happy with enforcement. He knows the law. And he will pin the Department of Homeland Security down every place he believes they are not enforcing the law that Congress has enacted.

“He does not have to depend on the Senate for that. He doesn’t have to depend on John Boehner,” Beck said.

Smith is not a newcomer to the immigration fight. Capitalizing on Republican enthusiasm in 1994, Smith was the driving force behind one of the most sweeping immigration laws on the books: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The law created the label “unlawfully present” to define undocumented immigrants and expanded the number of illegal immigrants who could be deported. That law also created a precursor of this year’s controversial Arizona law, the so-called 287(g) program, which the Obama administration has not heavily promoted.

 

But Smith had little luck passing other aggressive immigration legislation, even when Republicans held the majority. GOP House leaders eliminated several provisions he proposed in the 1996 bill that would have hurt business groups by forcing them to screen every employee to determine immigration status. Others, such as a measure to prevent illegal immigrants from attending public school, died in the Senate.

Smith’s long-term cause has been a national mandatory verification program, which he has included in at least three bills since the early 1990s. One got through the House in 2005 despite the qualms of business groups. Smith has also been a longtime supporter of revising birthright citizenship so children can be U.S. citizens only if they have at least one legal parent, and he has conducted several hearings on the issue. Meissner, now a fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, said Smith isn’t known for snazzy sound bites. But she said his chairmanship of Judiciary would be more powerful than TV show chatter.

King, on the other hand, is well-known for headline-grabbing claims. At a tea party event in Colorado in June, he said he would support a path to citizenship for immigrants only if “every time we give amnesty for an illegal alien, we deport a liberal.”

King promised to interrogate Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher about enforcement of immigration laws.

“We need to hear a considerable amount from them and start gathering the details on what is taking place on the border,” he said. “They’re not simply doing their job. They take an oath of office to see the laws are enforced. They’re not enforcing the laws.”

King rattled off a list of legislation he’d like to push to the floor: a birthright citizenship bill, legislation to reaffirm states’ right to enact Arizona-like immigration laws, a bill to take away deductions from employers who pay illegal immigrants and legislation to crack down on cities that don’t go after illegal residents.