E-Verify bill splits House GOP

The Hill ^ | 11/03/11 | Molly K. Hooper

[markomalley]

House Republicans are split over an immigration bill that is backed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney as the measure is attracting escalating criticism from industry groups and rank-and-file members.

The rift over House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith’s (R-Texas) E-Verify bill is jeopardizing its chances of passing the Republican-controlled House.

Democrats, by and large, oppose the legislation, which would mandate that employers use the E-Verify system to check their employees’ legal work status.

The Obama administration and many Democrats on Capitol Hill want Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. That legislation, however, is considered dead in the 112th Congress.

Smith’s measure in September cleared the Judiciary panel on a party-line vote, though it isn’t clear that the bill has the votes to pass on the House floor.

Republican lawmakers have major concerns with key aspects of the bill’s effects on states’ rights, the federal government’s enforcement of the system and its impact on the agriculture industry, which relies on foreign labor.

Debates over illegal immigration have been a theme of the GOP presidential primary, with Smith’s bill getting some attention.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has endorsed the national E-Verify mandate, and released a Web ad on Wednesday attacking fellow GOP White House contender Rick Perry, governor of Texas, for his opposition to a statewide E-Verify program.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who has been mentioned as a potential Republican 2012 vice presidential nominee, recently told The Hill that he supports E-Verify “in concept,” adding that “we need an employment-based verification system.”

Rubio said he has heard objections raised from agriculture sector, suggesting he sees the need for flexibility in E-Verify legislation.

Meanwhile, sources say that at least two dozen House GOP lawmakers have an issue with Smith’s bill because it includes language to preempt the states and local governments and keep them from enforcing their own employment verification laws.

The powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has endorsed Smith’s bill, maintains that the preemption provision is vital to its support.

Freshman Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), who campaigned on battling illegal immigration last year, is leading the opposition to Smith’s bill.

As mayor of Hazleton in 2006, he cracked down on employers who knowingly hired illegal workers. Barletta says that if Smith’s bill were to become law, cities like Hazelton and states like Arizona, which have stringent immigration laws on the books, would be prevented from enforcing their state-passed mandates.

“I have no faith that the federal government is serious about enforcing our immigration laws. They haven’t, I don’t believe they will. And the Supreme Court agrees that the states have the right — why would we come along now and take that away from them? And the United States Chamber gets solidly behind this preemption — which raises all sorts of red flags for me — this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, this bill,” Barletta said in an interview with The Hill.

A source close to the Chamber of Commerce, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says that the hodgepodge of local and state laws on immigration matters is disruptive to businesses.

“The whole mantra that [Smith] and others have is … we need to make this work for employers. I can’t tell you how much we hear from our state and local chambers as well as the members of our policy committees that this patchwork of state laws is a huge problem. A huge problem,” the source told The Hill.

Other groups, such as the National Small Business Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, have objected to provisions in Smith’s bill.

Lawmakers who represent districts with many agriculture workers believe that the bill isn’t going to make it to the floor unless it is amended.

California Rep. Dan Lungren (R) told The Hill that he supports E-Verify but that “it has to be accompanied by a workable guest worker program for agriculture.”

“A bill on E-Verify won’t come to the floor unless we address agriculture, I am convinced,” Lungren said.

Smith however, remains undeterred, and downplayed GOP opposition to his bill. He declined to predict when it would hit the House floor, but seemed optimistic that it could happen sooner rather than later.

Smith cannot count on a lot of help from Democrats. During the markup this fall, Democrats questioned why Republicans — who have decried government regulations and their effect on jobs — would try to pass a bill that would impose more mandates on businesses.

Even if Smith’s bill passes the House, it is unlikely to attract the necessary 60 votes in the Senate.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The Preemption Clause is vital - to the Open Borders crowd.

They want a federal law that won’t be enforced - except the part preventing state enforcement.

[9YearLurker]

“Rubio said he has heard objections raised from agriculture sector, suggesting he sees the need for flexibility in E-Verify legislation.”

I take it the Senator would want e-verify to be optional for any industries that regularly hire illegals?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks markomalley.

House Republicans are split over an immigration bill that is backed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney as the measure is attracting escalating criticism from industry groups and rank-and-file members... Democrats, by and large, oppose the legislation, which would mandate that employers use the E-Verify system to check their employees’ legal work status.

[bcsco]

This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

Mexican senators seek meeting with Georgia lawmakers over immigration

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer Blames Second Amendment For ATF/DOJ Gun Walking Mistakes

Lanny Breuer Fast & Furious Link Absurdly Absent From Wikipedia

Presidential hopefuls back SC immigration law

Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano LIES to House Committee in Fast and Furious testimony

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State’s College Tuition Policy

Kidnapping victim found in trunk of car at international bridge(in South Texas)

Issa Introduces Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act

Family member arrested in girl's stabbing death in Carrollton

One Pivotal Week For Fast and Furious

Subpoena OK’d for ICE’s illegal-immigration data

Subcommittee authorizes Homeland Security subpoena (re: illegals identified but not deported)

Tough Illegal Immigration Laws Could be Coming to PA

Over 1,000 Kids in L.A. County Foster Care Have Capable Parents Who've Been Detained/Deported

Five Rescued from Sewage Pipe (US-Mex border)

Homeland Security Orders a Reduction in Border Inspections

Feds Request Data On All Alabama Students

The Complications between Cartels and Catholicism

WH, Justice Dept. silent as 34 congressmen call for Holder’s resignation

Mexico Mayor Shot, Killed While Campaigning for President's Kin

[Rammer]

Sure sounds like it.

[rockinqsranch]

“I take it the Senator would want e-verify to be optional for any industries that regularly hire illegals?”

Appears to me he is of similar opinion as Dan Lungren as noted in the article. IOW not “any” industry, but specifically some sort of action for the heavily foreign worker dependent ag industry.

[Will88]

Meanwhile, sources say that at least two dozen House GOP lawmakers have an issue with Smith’s bill because it includes language to preempt the states and local governments and keep them from enforcing their own employment verification laws.

The powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has endorsed Smith’s bill, maintains that the preemption provision is vital to its support.

More than enough reason there to oppose this particular bill by anyone who really wants immigration law enforced. The Chamber of Commerce supports this, and the bill must preempt state efforts to enforce the law.

[9YearLurker]

You mean the heavily illegal worker-dependent ag industry, no?

So should I amend it to that it’s just the largest illegal-hiring sector that the Senator wants to exempt, would that be good enough?

[BobL]

“The Preemption Clause is vital - to the Open Borders crowd. They want a federal law that won’t be enforced - except the part preventing state enforcement.”

How the hell should any Republican support this bill if it nullifies the laws passed by Arizona, Alabama, and other states? Why is this is even close to getting through the House? And what the heck is wrong with a CLEAN E-Verify bill?

[BobL]

“I take it the Senator would want e-verify to be optional for any industries that regularly hire illegals?”

Senator Rubio has a bit of a soft spot for Illegals. He needs to take care of that issue if he wants to rise as a Republican.

[9YearLurker]

I don’t trust any Republican who somehow reforms himself on illegal immigration in order to rise. That’s one issue where I’ll go for record over rhetoric.

[9YearLurker]

Unfortunately the US CoC has shown itself to be a band of crony capitalists.

[Dagnabitt]

Rubio can make up some new stories now about his loyalty to the USA vs illegals.

[LibLieSlayer]

He wants flexibility to allow illegal invading enemies of our Liberty to freely walk across our borders and work for HIS AGRICULTURAL constituents... oh yeah... Rubio is a fresh and new kind of Conservative.

“Meet the old boss
Same as the new boss”

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

There is no clean in DC... it is the district of corruption.

LLS

[ryderann]

Obama is all about “exceptions”, rewarding his friends, and punishing his enemies. He knows the Marxist handbook backwards and forwards.

[WilliamHouston]

If this passes, it will kill our real E-Verify law in Alabama, so thumbs down.

[Recovering_Democrat]

The idea is a good one, IF the preemption clause is taken out.

[rockinqsranch]

Illegal is what the two gentlemen are trying to irradicate with some form of agreement between nations to control, but allow some form of cross border cooperation for the purpose of getting our crops picked, and to market rather than rotting in the fields because there aren’t enough Americans willing to do that specific type of stoop labor.

FACE SOME FACTS LURKER. There aren’t enough people in this country that are willing to do specifically that type of stoop labor.

I don’t know if that’s what GW Bush meant, or not, and don’t much care, because the facts are that there aren’t enough natural born, or otherwise Americans today that want to, or will do that work. We need to have some agreement to allow those that will to legally cross over, do the work, and get the “H” out of here, back across the border to their own country again. It can be done.

Are you suggesting that the heavily illegal worker-dependent ag industry let the crops rot in the field, and that we simply import everything for our tables? Good idea, then we can turn all that fertile land into housing developments, strenghthen the CRA, and force banks to lend to people that can’t afford to pay for them.

Close the damned borders. Create a program that allows as many as necessary of those that want to do that type of work, and specifically that type of work with the understanding that when the job is done they go home, back across the border. What’s so damned wrong with that?

I am talking specifically about ag, NO OTHER INDUSTRY.