national legislation

LAS VEGAS — On the flight home from Washington last week for the Fourth of July recess, Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., read all 1,200 pages of immigration reform that had just passed the Senate.

It is a document that probably has no political future in the GOP-controlled House, but Heck may be a prime example of why House Republicans will be forced to grapple with immigration in the next few months, despite deep opposition within their caucus and their party.

Heck's district begins just south of the glitzy hotels and casinos on the Vegas Strip and stretches into the neighboring suburbs teeming with Latino and Asian immigrants, who work at the same hotels and casinos. Those immigrant employees comprise about a quarter of the district's voters and last year they mostly backed President Barack Obama, in part because of his support for immigration reform that is embodied in the recently approved Senate bill.

But the conservative Republican voters who secured Heck's re-election last year oppose any legislation that would give a pass to immigrants living in the United States illegally, especially because of Nevada's persistently high unemployment rate.

This is an immigration crossroads, where demographics and ideology collide, and Heck may have some special responsibility to persuade his GOP colleagues to take action on the issue.

He said that those Republicans who oppose a House debate "have to understand that for those of us who represent districts that have a large foreign population, this is not a Mexican issue, this is not a Hispanic issue. This is an issue about a broken legal immigration system. They've got to understand that we've got to address this broken immigration system or, quite honestly, we maintain the status quo and we continue to see a growing illegal population."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said that on immigration, he will hold votes only on bills backed by a majority of House Republicans, which disqualifies the Senate measure Heck spent so much time with last week.

"Like any 1,198-page bill, there are some good things in there, there are some bad things in there," he said in an interview. "I hope that when those provisions are addressed in the House that we have the opportunity to tighten up the areas that need to be tightened."

Among the things in the Senate bill that Heck wants to change are making it a requirement that hundreds of miles of new border fencing be built and more agents be deployed to help eliminate illegal border crossings before any illegal immigrant is given a chance to start the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.

And he wants to toughen the education requirements for the children of illegal immigrants seeking citizenship.

Heck held a town hall meeting at a library auditorium here Tuesday night. About 80 people attended, and of the 15 questions he took, 10 were about immigration.

"Let's face it, we have a broken legal immigration system," he told the crowd at one point.

"No, we don't," one man shouted.

"Yes, we do," Heck shot back.

"You're just not enforcing the law," the man replied.

But Heck pressed on: "We do an awful lot of legal immigrant visa casework in my office. And we have folks that have been in the queue waiting for a visa to bring their spouse from the Philippines for 15 years."

"I think it's ridiculous," he added as others shouted at him. "As the grandson of Italian immigrants who came through Ellis Island . . ."

A woman cut him off, saying, "But they didn't come illegally."

"I understand that," Heck said. "And that's because they didn't have to wait 15 years back in Italy. It's not easy, but it's something we have to address."

Later, a younger woman in the back of the room put Heck on the spot: Would he vote for the Senate bill if it ever earned a vote in the House?

He wavered at first, then said, "If it was brought up in the House, there would be an opportunity to amend it."

But the woman pressed him again.

"As it's currently written, I would vote no," he said.

Knowing he couldn't please everyone, Heck remained hopeful.

"There are just some fundamental differences between certain individuals and party ideology," he told the crowd. "There will always be those divisions. But there's always the opportunity to come together, as we've seen in the House and in the Senate, to pass bills that everybody can get behind."

Heck is also facing considerable pressure from national Democrats who are pushing him to support immigration reform modeled on the Senate bill that most Republicans consider unacceptable.

Among Heck's constituents is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., whose home town of Searchlight sits in the southern part of the Republican's district. Reid held a rally Monday just off the Strip to celebrate the Senate measure's passage and to urge House Republicans to support it.

"We're a long ways from finished, we're only halfway done. But what a good halfway this is," Reid told hundreds who were packed into the local headquarters of the Culinary Workers Union. He urged the crowd to call GOP lawmakers such as Heck and "tell them that Speaker Boehner cannot stand in the way of what the American people want and are going to demand."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is airing Spanish-language radio ads here that criticize Heck's recent vote for a plan that would force the Department of Homeland Security to resume deporting the children of illegal immigrants. Similar ads are airing in 22 other House districts, in California, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania, that are represented by Republicans who narrowly won re-election or have many Latino voters.

"Voting on immigration reform by itself may not win or lose a specific congressional district," DCCC Chairman Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said in an interview. "On the other hand, yet another failure by Republicans to find a compromise and solve a problem could win or lose the House. So this fits into a general narrative of whether Republicans like Joe Heck and others choose to pander to their right-wing base, or listen to the concerns of moderates and independents who expect some compromise."

Heck dismisses the push from Democrats.

"I'm not the speaker, I'm not the majority leader, I'm not a committee chairman. You can pressure me as much as you want, but I'm not the one that decides what gets a vote on the House floor," he said.

But some voters say that where Heck ends up on immigration will determine whether they support him for re-election in 2014.

Bob Yeary, a retired school teacher from Las Vegas, was one of the voters shouting at the lawmaker Tuesday night when he suggested that the immigration system is broken.

"He's in a tough position," Yeary said, adding later that Republicans will face severe electoral consequences if they support a significant immigration overhaul. "The GOP will be destroyed if we let 40 million, 50 million immigrants in at this time," he said.

Then there's Otto Merida, who leads the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce and is a registered Republican. He meets regularly with Heck, and often tells him "that immigration is something that will determine how we vote for you in the next election. This is very important to us," he said. "And if you don't do it, unfortunately I'll have to vote against you and campaign against you, even though I like you. This is the right thing to do and we need to do it right now."

Astrid Silva, 25, has emerged as a prominent spokeswoman for immigrant advocates in southern Nevada. She crossed the Rio Grande with her family from Mexico as a 4-year-old girl and eventually settled in Las Vegas. She has spoken with Heck about immigration reform five times in recent months.

"We know that Heck understands our issues. He's been evolving on it," Silva said.

But she's ready and willing to campaign against Heck if he doesn't vote the way she wants.

"We've waited decades for this and I do think that we have momentum right now," she said. "If Congress takes much longer on it, we won't lose the momentum, but we will get very impatient

  Read more about Nevada district embodies GOP's immigration dilemma

There are significant unreported loopholes and exceptions in the immigration-reform bill that could allow illegal immigrants to achieve permanent status before the border security portions of the legislation are executed, WND has learned.

One of the key selling points repeatedly cited by the bill’s “Gang of Eight” sponsors has been that illegal aliens will not be eligible for permanency until after the border-security provisions of the legislation are implemented.

However, a WND review of the latest text of the bill, with the new Republican “border surge” amendment included, finds multiple possibilities for full immigration reform before the required border arrangements are in place.

Further, even the new border amendment leaves the possibility of gaps in the proposed pedestrian fence to be constructed along the border with Mexico.

The updated bill calls for over $40 billion in new border security provisions, including the stationing of 38,405 U.S. Border Patrol agents along the southern border as well as the construction of a 700-mile pedestrian fence along the 1,954 mile border.

The new Republican amendment to the bill contains a laundry list of new surveillance equipment to be installed, from cameras to seismic instruments, plus the construction of new integrated watch towers.

However, the bill contains language that would allow illegal aliens to achieve permanent status after 10 years before any or all of the new border security requirements are fulfilled.

The bill specifically states the “Secretary shall permit registered provisional immigrants to apply for an adjustment to lawful permanent resident status” after 10 years following the bill’s passage if litigation or a force majeure have prevented the fulfillment of the border security requirements, the implementation of a work visa program or electronic exit system.

Further, illegal immigrants can receive permanent resident status if the border requirements, the work visa program or the new electronic exit system has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In one of many possible future scenarios, if claims are brought to district courts that tie up construction of the border fence, illegal aliens still can achieve permanent status after 10 years.

In another scenario, the Supreme Court can declare surveillance techniques or any of the border control methods required by the bill to be unconstitutional, and illegal aliens could still become permanent residents.

Further, there seem to be loopholes in the requirements for the 700-mile border fence.

A new border security strategy committee will determine the route of the fence.

According to the text of the bill, the fence is to be built on “nontribal” lands, meaning lands owned by Indian tribes may not require a fence.

There seems to also be loopholes if any sections of the fence interfere with the environment, culture, commerce or quality of life of local residents.

States the bill: “In implementing the Southern Border Fencing Strategy required by this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, States, local governments, Indian tribes, and property owners in the United States to minimize the impact on the environment, culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities and residents located near the sites at which such fencing is to be constructed.”
  Read more about Loopholes mean amnesty before border security

House Republicans insisted Sunday that they plan to change key elements of the Senate-passed immigration bill, signaling a protracted and rocky battle ahead despite one Democrat's pronouncement that in the end the House will cave and pass the Senate bill anyway.

Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is playing a major role in the chamber's consideration of immigration policy, on Sunday addressed what is perhaps at the heart of the impasse.

He said the House, which is drafting its own plan, cannot agree to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Rather, he wants a "pathway to legalization" -- in other words, allow some illegal immigrants a shot at a green card, but not full-fledged citizenship.

The pathway to citizenship, though, is a cornerstone of the Senate-passed bill, and any Democrat-backed plan. Increased border security, better enforcement of businesses and an expansion of the legal immigration system make up the rest of the bill.

Putting the issue in stark terms, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told "Fox News Sunday" that if Republicans strip the pathway to citizenship, "no Democrat" would support it.

The confrontation over the pathway to citizenship and other planks of the bill could continue to frustrate lawmakers on both sides, and in both chambers, as they try to sustain the momentum from this past week's Senate vote.

The bill passed Thursday with a strong majority of 68 senators voting in favor. Schumer cited the bipartisan support for the bill, as well as the motive of political survival, in claiming that House Speaker John Boehner would ultimately be compelled to pass it.

"I believe that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill," Schumer said.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," also suggested that Republicans' desire to "win a presidential race" would guide them toward supporting some version of the legislation.

But what's in store for the bill might not be so clear. And there is no easy resolution to the stand-off over the proposed pathway to citizenship.

House Republicans, in the near-term, are approaching the immigration overhaul in a piecemeal fashion, tackling a series of smaller-scale bills meant to address what the Senate covered in one massive piece of legislation.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., also speaking on "Fox News Sunday," rejected Schumer's prediction.

"I was moved almost to the point of tears by Senator Schumer's concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party," Gowdy said, sarcastically. "But we're going to not take his advice."

He added: "The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House. It's not going to pass for myriad reasons."

He, like other House Republicans, questioned Senate promises that their bill would offer legalization to illegal immigrants in the near-term while eventually building border security and immigration enforcement for employers.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel also told FoxNews.com that the speaker and his caucus have been "perfectly clear" on their intentions.

"The House will not simply take up and pass the Senate bill," he said in an email. "Our legislation will reflect our principles, particularly on border security. Wishful thinking, frankly, is not a strategy for getting a bill to the president's desk."

Schumer methodically made his case Sunday for why he thinks Boehner will, in the end, bring the Senate bill to the floor.

Aside from citing the various political pressures weighing on the speaker, Schumer said the strategy of passing smaller-scale bills would not work. He said, for instance, that Democrats would not support an enforcement bill without the promise of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Factor in Republicans who refuse to support any immigration bill, Schumer said, and those bills cannot pass.

He claimed Boehner would ultimately be left with a choice between doing nothing and bringing the Senate bill to a vote, relying largely on Democrats to pass it.

Goodlatte, though, insisted that Republicans would take a "step-by-step" approach.

Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," he said "we want to see enforcement improved and actually enforced, and we want to find the appropriate legal status for people who are not here lawfully."

Asked about his opposition to the pathway to citizenship, he explained he didn't want a "special pathway to citizenship, where people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have." Read more about House leaders vow to overhaul, replace Senate immigration bill despite Dem pressure

“Today, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven rescue amendment was dropped on the Senate floor. Members and Staff have only until Monday afternoon to read through the 1,187 pages of this modified proposal...Already, in a short time, we have identified grave and deep flaws in the modified bill – both in terms of failure to live up to new promises made as well as some shocking changes that actually further weaken the underlying bill. The special interests who wrote these provisions know exactly what they do and designed them not to work – but I fear some of the Senators who sponsored this amendment have no idea they’re even there… These are undoubtedly only some of the new flaws that will be uncovered in the proposal”

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement about the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Gang of Eight substitute amendment:

“When the Gang of Eight first introduced their plan, they made a series of promises about their proposal. Each of those was subsequently proven to be false. Today, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven rescue amendment was dropped on the Senate floor. Members and staff have only until Monday afternoon to read through the 1,187 pages of this modified proposal. Already, in a short time, we have identified grave and deep flaws in the modified bill – both in terms of failure to live up to new promises made as well as some shocking changes that actually further weaken the underlying bill. The special interests who wrote these provisions know exactly what they do and designed them not to work – but I fear some of the Senators who sponsored this amendment have no idea they’re even there:

--The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn’t change the bill’s amnesty first framework. Instead it goes even further and creates an automatic amnesty for future illegal aliens. Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness. Joined with existing language that restricts future enforcement, it guarantees unending illegal immigration.

--Contrary to their rhetoric there is no border surge. The Secretary doesn’t even have to start hiring new border patrol agents until 2017, and the amendment only gives her until 2021 to increase the number by 20,000. According to the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, this hiring process could take up to 20 years. Much like the 2006 law requiring a 700-mile border fence, it’s never going to be happen.

--To raise money, the amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty – favoring illegal over legal immigrants. Under the 2007 comprehensive immigration bill, amnesty applicants had to pay up to $8,000 – vastly more than the fines in the current plan which total only $2,000 and are subject to numerous waivers. The Gang has repeatedly claimed their bill is completely paid for by fees. However, under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion.

These are undoubtedly only some of the new flaws that will be uncovered in the proposal. And the largely unchanged original bill retains its scores of many flaws including: amnesty first, legalization for criminal aliens, decimated interior enforcement, and a massive increase in low-skill legal immigration.

The Gang of Eight’s proposal – modified or not – still guarantees three things: amnesty, lower wages, and higher unemployment.”

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) serves on four Senate committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Environment and Public Works, and as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee. Visit Sessions online at his website or via YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Note: Please do not reply to this email. For further information, contact Sen. Sessions’ Press Office at (202) 224-4124. Read more about Shocking New Loopholes Snuck Into Amended Immigration Bill

There’s a storm gathering around one of the provisions in the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, but it needs to gather faster, because the amnesty shill are ramming this thing through Congress faster than they’d ever consider moving on a bill that would actually help American citizens – say, by reducing the tax and regulatory burden on the private sector to spur job growth. Anyone who thought Congress was a lumbering dinosaur incapable of swift, decisive action can only marvel at the speed they’re moving on amnesty.

One of the reasons for that speed is that Gang of Eight proponents don’t want the American people to know what’s in the bill – the same way they didn’t want us to read the last bill they passed in a blind haste, ObamaCare. (And look how that’s working out.) If we have time to study the bill, we’ll notice things like the provision that waves drunk-driving illegal aliens right to the head of the line for legalization, ahead of all those poor chumps who have been struggling to legally comply with America’s immigration laws.

Kurt Schlicter blew a gasket over this today, noting that the immigration bill allows three strikes for drunk-driving illegal aliens before the government will even think about deporting them – and even then, deportation can (and will) be waived at the discretion of the bureaucracy.

For the Gang of 8, the choice is clear. If it’s a choice between the lives of your kids and keeping the coalition together behind their immigration reform scam, your kids lose.

Under the Gang of 8’s plan, you can stay in America legally – and become a citizen – even if you are a chronic drunk driver.

Their immigration bill is packed with obnoxious features – the “path to citizenship,” the entitlement giveaways, the utterly toothless “border security” lies – yet this one dwarfs them all in terms of pure, shameful cynicism. That the Gang of 8 is perfectly willing to let American kids (and, for that matter, immigrant kids) die seems like a harsh charge. But conservatives must judge policies not upon the vague, amorphous intentions expressed by their proponents but by their real-world consequences.

The real-world consequence of this immigration reform bill will be more dead kids. Maybe yours.

Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller noted last week that Senator John Cornyn’s (R-TX) amendment to the immigration bill (which ended up getting defeated) would have barred illegal aliens with misdemeanor DUI convictions from entering the legalization process… and according to Kaus’ sources, that’s a big, but secret, reason the Democrats hated Cornyn’s amendment:

Pro-Gang Democrats (and Republicans) understandably don’t want to publicize their DUI defense. DUI offenders are not an inherently popular group, and accidents in which undocumented immigrant drivers kill innocent civilians tend to be well publicized. It’s not a coincidence that Obama’s executive mini-amnesty of so-called “Dreamers”–issuedbefore the 2012 election–claimed to exclude DUI offenders. But the broader Gang of 8 legislation, written after the election, allows two free misdemeanors–apparently including DUIs–before an illegal immigrant is disqualified. (If you search the Gang of 8 text for “intoxicated,” you will discover only provisions related to “habitual” drunk drivers–defined as “[a]n alien convicted of 3 or more offenses on separate dates related to driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated.” [Emphasis added])

The DUI issue may be a sort of Ninth Planet affecting the immigration debate in a way that’s invisible to most of the MSM’s reporters. It would certainly help explain some of the vehement Gang of 8 opposition to Cornyn’s amendment, which otherwise doesn’t seem all that different from what the Gang has proposed. …

This all seems insane to the casual observer, but it’s actually pretty straightforward: as Kaus surmises, “For the pro-amnesty side, the exclusion of DUI offenders is apparently a deal-killer. There must be a lot of them!” The goal of this bill is to import a new electorate that appeals to the ruling class, and cheap labor for the Big Business types. Rules that would keep a sizable number of applicants from boarding the Amnesty Express cannot be tolerated. A lot of the offenders have families (which they are endangering when they drive drunk, of course.) If the family enters the “pathway to citizenship” but Dad’s a DUI offender and isn’t eligible, what happens to the family? Especially since the family’s application would expose Drunk Driving Dad to detection, and deportation, by the government that hasn’t bothered looking for him until now?

Schlicter relates the story of how he was once on a DUI jury for an obviously guilty drunk driver from Central America, but it ended in a hung jury because “one idiot woman dressed like a flower child’s bad trip” refused to vote guilty, on the grounds that “maybe it’s not wrong in his culture.” Blogger Maetenloch at Ace of Spades notes there might be some truth to that assertion, backed up by an NPR piece from several years ago on the high incidence of drunk driving among young men who have recently immigrated to the U.S. from South America:

While NPR tries to portray the DUI problem as purely situational, the real issue is that in rural Mexican culture drinking-and-driving doesn’t have the same stigma it does here and in fact it’s considered part of machismo to always be able to handle your drink. Which means never admitting you’re too drunk to jump in your truck and drive home.

The end result is that illegal aliens are responsible for a wildly disproportional number of DUI arrests as well DUI-related crashes, hit-and-runs and fatalities. So much so that a special exception has been added to an already generous amnesty bill to keep widespread DUI arrests from gumming up the illegals’ legalization process.

To make the grisly farce complete, Mothers Against Drunk Driving apparently has no problem with leaving illegal alien drunk drivers on the streets. Here’s an example of what immigration politics have helped MADD grow comfortable with, from The Times of New Jersey:

Trenton resident Jorge DeLeon of Elm Street was killed early yesterday morning during a head-on crash with an alleged drunken driver; the accident also seriously wounded DeLeon’s two young passengers, officials said.

The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office has filed charges against the other driver, including death by auto and DWI.

Sgt. Adam Grossman, a spokesman for the N.J. State Police, said DeLeon was driving northbound on Route 29 near the Route 129 exit in a Nissan Quest with a 6-year-old male and a 4-year-old female just before 3:30 a.m. “They were struck head on by a vehicle traveling in the wrong direction,” he said.

DeLeon was pronounced dead at the scene, State Police said.

[...] The other vehicle, a Dodge Durango, was driven by Manuel Gutierrez Vazquez, 27, a resident of the 1500 block of Collins Road in Camden. He suffered a fractured right arm in the crash, and was transported to Capital Health Reigonal Medical Center.

Onofri said Vazquez has been charged with DWI, one count of death by auto, two counts of assault by auto and one count of causing death or serious injury while unlicensed. He also said that Vazquez is not in the United States legally, and has never possessed a U.S. driver’s license.

He also said Vazquez was arrested a few weeks ago in Texas for drunken driving.

Vazquez was released from the hospital and lodged at Mercer County Correctional Center in lieu of bail, which was set by Superior Court Judge Patrick McManimon at $250,000 cash.

That’s only two strikes. Unless there’s more on his record, this guy’s still eligible for amnesty. Of course, the government obviously has no interest in deporting him, even without the Gang of Eight bill.

The entire political class is drunk on amnesty as it drives America toward the guard rails of citizenship, foot planted firmly on the accelerator, screaming “Shut up!” at the frightened passengers in the back seat. The interests of existing citizens are not a factor, in any area from economics to public safety. On the topic of drunk drivers, we should be moving in the opposite direction. Not only should there be zero tolerance for drunk drivers in any immigration bill… how about stripping citizenship from native-born multiple DUI offenders and deporting them? Read more about Drunk on amnesty

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced an amendment Wednesday to the massive immigration bill under consideration in the Senate that would tighten loopholes that Oregon companies used to hire foreign workers to complete local forestry projects.

The amendment is virtually identical to the American Jobs in American Forests Act, a bill Merkley introduced in May.

Merkley’s legislation would require companies to make an extensive effort to hire American workers before they could apply for an H-2B visa.

The H-2B visa program, which received a major injection of stimulus funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, authorizes American companies to import foreign workers for nonagricultural seasonal work if they are unable to find U.S. citizens to fill the positions.

As The Bulletin first reported, four Oregon companies received more than $7 million in federal funds to hire foreign workers for forestry projects through the H-2B program in 2010. At the time, Oregon was suffering through double-digit unemployment.

A subsequent review of the H-2B program by the Department of Labor’s inspector general could find no evidence that the Oregon companies made any effort to recruit in Oregon.

“I am pleased that the Senate is moving forward to fix our broken immigration system," said Merkley in a prepared statement. “But we need to ensure that in fields like forestry where there are thousands of Oregonians looking for work, companies are not allowed to abuse the H-2B visa program and just blindly assert that there are no Oregonians willing and able to work in our forests."

Under the current system, companies have to advertise only in states where the jobs “originated," which often are not the states in which the work was to be performed. The companies can self-attest that they were unable to find U.S. workers before asking permission to hire foreign labor.

Consequently, unemployed workers in Oregon, many with forestry experience and expertise, might never learn about job openings for local forestry projects. Oregon’s database of those actively seeking work includes 3,492 forest and conservation workers and 1,489 forest and conservation technicians, according to the Oregon Employment Department.

Under Merkley’s proposal, companies must bolster their efforts to recruit locally by advertising on local radio and Internet job sites, as well as consulting with the state workforce agency to make sure local job seekers learn about potential openings. The state workforce agency would have to certify that a robust effort had been made before a company could apply to bring in foreign labor, and would put in stricter recruiting rules for multistate projects so companies couldn’t advertise exclusively in one state for a project that will take place in another.

While many details and disagreements remain, including over border security and a possible path to citizenship, leaders from both parties have said passing immigration reform is a priority.

By attaching his bill to the larger legislation, Merkley increases its chances of actually becoming law, since large, heavily negotiated and debated bills are generally more likely to secure a majority of votes than smaller, one-issue bills. The Senate must first agree to the amendment, and a vote on it has not yet been scheduled.

After the inspector general’s report, the Labor Department tried to change the rules governing the H-2B program to close some of the loopholes, but its changes were successfully challenged in federal court by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

The program has continued to grow under the old rules. Over the past four years, the number of visas issued has grown from 44,847 in fiscal year 2009 to 47,403 in 2010 and 50,826 in 2011, according to the U.S. State Department. Figures for 2012 were not available.

Oregon is not one of the top 10 states for total positions certified, according to Department of Labor figures. In 2012, forest worker was the second highest H-2B worker category, behind landscaper. For 2013, forest worker ranks fourth, behind landscaper/groundskeeper, maid/housekeeper/cleaner, and amusement and recreation attendant.
  Read more about Merkley intros H-2B amendment

Congress is boring. It can't even make new false promises.

On border security, it keeps making the same assurances. The Gang of Eight immigration bill, which could well be the signature legislative accomplishment of President Barack Obama's second term, travels in the well-worn ruts of past immigration promises. The Gang of Eight is offering this basic deal: "We will pretend to enforce the law, if you pretend to believe us."

The Gang of Eight bill purports to create an exit-entry visa system that Congress has been mandating since 1996. Back then, only the most cynical of observers would have believed that 17 years later, Congress would seek to pass a new amnesty for roughly 11 million illegal immigrants partly in exchange for the very same entry-exit system. But in the immigration debate, cynicism always pays.

In 2006, Congress passed a law calling for about 700 miles of double-layer fencing on the border. We've built about 36 miles, or a good, solid 5 percent. At this rate, we'll have all the double fencing in another 130 years. The rest of the mileage is various forms of inferior fencing, in keeping with a loophole Congress passed the very next year giving the Department of Homeland Security discretion in how it would go about building the fence.

Executive discretion is where border enforcement goes to die, and as it happens, the Gang of Eight enforcement provisions are entirely at the mercy of the executive. The secretary of homeland security merely submits a plan to do the things the executive branch has been mandated to do, but failed to do in the past. Who decides whether it is working? The secretary of homeland security.

This is so self-evidently ridiculous, even the Gang of Eight apparently realizes it needs to make some gesture toward toughening the bill. For his part, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is doing the best Hamlet since John Gielgud. He is refusing to say whether he will vote "yes" on his own Gang of Eight bill after spending months drafting, defending and helping shepherd it to the floor. He has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews insisting the bill contains the "toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of the United States."

Another basic problem in the architecture of the bill is that the amnesty comes before anything else, giving the Obama administration, ethnic interest groups and the business lobby every incentive to resist any enforcement measures after they pass.

Rubio is loath to admit that the amnesty comes first, although in a recent interview on Univision, he indeed admitted it: "First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence." In a subsequent interview, he said he was inartful, which in Washington is a synonym for "frank." When he's speaking more artfully, he is careful to blur the difference between the initial amnesty and the process of getting a green card to give the misimpression that enforcement has to happen before anything else does.

Not that he'll use the word "amnesty." A hallmark of Republican supporters of the Gang of Eight bill is stating their earnest opposition to amnesty at the same time they support amnesty. They call the status quo a "de facto" amnesty, but refuse to make the basic concession to logic that codifying the "de facto" amnesty makes it a "de jure" amnesty. They readily call the 1986 immigration reform "amnesty," even though the essential features of the Gang of Eight bill -- legalization with a few symbolic hoops for the newly legal immigrants -- are exactly the same.

The Gang of Eight bill is powered, in large part, by pretense and word games. If this bill passes, and then a decade or so from now we need another amnesty, the road map to passage will be easy: Congress can promise to follow up on the Gang of Eight's enforcement measures -- yet again. Read more about Gang of Eight's immigration bill neglects enforcement, favors amnesty: Rich Lowry

House Speaker John Boehner appears to have put to rest rumors that he may break what is informally called the “Hastert Rule,” an unwritten guideline that a majority of the majority party should be needed to bring a bill to the House floor, in order to pass a version of amnesty like the “Gang of Eight” bill currently moving through the Senate.

A source with direct knowledge of these matters told Breitbart News that Boehner has decided to abide by the Hastert Rule in regards to immigration reform. “No immigration bill will be brought to the floor for a vote without a majority of the Republican conference in support,” the source told Breitbart News on Monday.

Around Washington, conservatives have worried that Boehner may back down from conservative principles on immigration and support the Gang of Eight bill. They fear he may rush the bill to the floor if the Senate passes it and try to move it through the House with a majority of Democratic votes.

Even though those rumors continue to fly, signs now indicate that Boehner will not break the Hastert Rule and will only bring a bill to the floor with the support of the majority of Republicans.

Reports from Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker and David Drucker at the Washington Examiner appear to support the idea that Boehner will not break with Republicans. It did take Rep. Steve King (R-IA) banding together more than 50 of his colleagues to call for a special GOP conference meeting on the topic, at which they expressed their dissatisfaction with the Senate bill and their hope that Boehner will stick to the Hastert Rule.

In addition to King’s efforts, conservative groups have circulated letters around Washington calling on the conference to formally codify the Hastert Rule into the House GOP conference rules so that it must be followed, instead of just being a guideline.

  Read more about Source: Boehner Says No to Immigration Bill Without House GOP Support