White House Delays Immigration Summit as Special Interests Launch New Amnesty Campaign

The Obama Administration announced last week that a White House summit on immigration reform originally scheduled for Monday, June 8 (See FAIR's Legislative Update, May 26, 2009) has been postponed to Wednesday, June 17. According to White House officials, the postponement was necessary to accommodate the president's travel schedule. (Dow Jones Business News, June 3, 2009). Since his inauguration, President Obama has repeatedly reiterated his support for "comprehensive immigration reform," which has included amnesty for the more than 12 million illegal aliens who are living in the United States. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 20, 2009 and Legislative Update, February 23, 2009).
 
When the meeting was first announced, news outlets reported that the summit would include "a small bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House and Senate, including party leaders and people who have worked on immigration issues." (Luuliyo Online, May 20, 2009). Among the lawmakers invited to the meeting are two Democratic Members of the House of Representatives from California: Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, who chairs the House Immigration Subcommittee, and Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles, who is regarded as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's point person on immigration matters.  (KPCC Radio, May 21, 2009). A June 4 article published by Politico noted that Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) are expected to attend the meeting, as well. Additionally, Politico suggested that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) would be invited to the summit, though he had not received an invitation as of Thursday, June 4. (Politico, June 4, 2009). All five of these Members of Congress have supported recent amnesty legislation. (See FAIR's Congressional Voting Reports for the 110th Congress, September 2008).

The announcement of the summit's postponement came on the same day that a coalition of amnesty-supporting special interest groups officially rolled out a new national campaign for immigration "reform." The coalition - which is calling itself "Reform Immigration for America" - is comprised of the Service Employees International Union; National Council of La Raza; National Immigration Forum; AFL-CIO; and several other amnesty groups. (Phoenix Business Journal, June 3, 2009). At a press conference announcing the new coalition, Reform Immigration for America leaders noted that they intended to spearhead a "three-day summit to pressure Congress and the president to overhaul current immigration laws." (The San Antonio Express, June 3, 2009).

Administration Delays E-Verify Rule for Fourth Time; House Subcommittee to Consider Reauthorization

The Obama Administration announced last week that it would delay - for the fourth time - the implementation of a rule requiring most federal contractors to use the federal E-Verify system to check the work authorization status of their new hires. The rule is now set to take effect on September 8, 2009 - nearly nine months after the original effective date. (USCIS Update, June 3, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).

The delay of the E-Verify requirement comes as special interest groups are challenging the rule in court. Led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a coalition of special interest groups sued the federal government in December 2008 to prevent the final rule (issued by the Bush Administration) from taking effect on its originally scheduled implementation date: January 15, 2009. The Bush Administration caved to the special interests, and, in January, announced that it would delay the implementation of the final rule until February. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 12, 2009). The Obama Administration has now postponed the implementation of the final rule three additional times and has used the same reason each time to justify the delay: "to permit the new Administration an adequate opportunity to review the rule." (See Federal Register, January 30, 2009; Federal Register, April 17, 2009; and Federal Register, June 5, 2009).
 
While the administration took steps last week to undermine the program, signs of support for E-Verify were evident in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) introduced a bill on Wednesday, June 3 that seeks to reauthorize E-Verify for five years, through the end of September 2014. The bill also contains provisions that would reauthorize three separate visa programs, including the controversial Religious Worker Visa Program. (See H.R. 2679's Legislative Text, June 3, 2009; See also USCIS Benefit Fraud Assessment, July 2006).  However, the portion concerning E-Verify is practically identical to H.R.6633, legislation that passed the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 407 - 2. (See H.R. 6633's Legislative Text, August 1, 2008; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, August 4, 2008). The House Immigration Subcommittee had originally scheduled consideration of the new Giffords bill for last Thursday, June 4, but this markup was postponed to a date to be announced.
 
E-Verify is a proven, successful tool operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration. It allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. According to DHS, the program has an impressive accuracy rate: "About 99.6% of all work-authorized employees verified through E-Verify are verified without receiving a tentative non-confirmation or having to take any type of corrective action." (USCIS Fact Sheet, January 8, 2009). In early May 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that more than 122,000 employers were enrolled in the program, with another 1,000 signing up each week. (Testimony of DHS Secretary Napolitano, May 6, 2009).

In spite of the program's documented success and popularity, recent efforts to pass a long-term E-Verify reauthorization have stalled in the U.S. Senate. (See FAIR's News Release, July 29, 2008 and Immigration Issues, April 2009). Earlier this year, the House added a five-year reauthorization to the stimulus bill, but the Senate did not pass the same provision in their version of the bill and Congressional Leadership then stripped the reauthorization during conference committee. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, February 17, 2009). Then, in March, Congressional Leaders agreed to reauthorize E-Verify for another six months, through the end of September 2009. True immigration reformers are concerned that recent short-term reauthorizations have left E-Verify vulnerable to proponents of amnesty using the program as a bargaining chip the next time Congress debates a massive amnesty bill. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Reviews Uniting American Families Act

On Wednesday, June 3, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) (S. 424), a bill that would extend so-called "permanent partner" visas to persons involved in same-sex relationships.  (New York Times, June 3, 2009; Politico, June 3, 2009).  The bill's supporters used the hearing to emphasize what they perceive to be the unfairness of current visa rules, while critics pointed to what they view as significant loopholes that will guarantee widespread fraud and higher immigration enforcement costs. (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, June 3, 2009).
 
In addition to brief statements by Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jackie Speier (D-CA), both of whom spoke in support of the UAFA, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) presided over six witnesses who took various positions on the bill's purpose and predicted impact. (Id.).  In addition to two witnesses who provided personal accounts about how their inability to obtain permanent partnership visas has impacted their same-sex relationships (See Testimony of Shirley Tan, June 3, 2009 and Testimony of Gordon Stewart, June 3, 2009), Julian Bond, Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's National Board of Directors, took the position that current immigration law should be updated to, among other things, extend visas to individuals involved in "non-traditional" family units. (Testimony of Julian Bond, June 3, 2009).  Christopher Nugent of the American Bar Association also testified in support of the bill, stating that the UAFA would not alter the federal Defense of Marriage Act or redefine marriage in any way, but would merely permit immigration officials to extend visas to eligible same-sex partners.  Nugent echoed the sentiments of Leahy and other bill supporters by noting that some industrialized countries that do not themselves recognize same-sex marriage, such as Australia and Israel, allow same-sex partners to obtain visas, and that the United States should at least follow this model. (Testimony of Christopher Nugent, June 3, 2009).
 
Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) addressed much of the pro-UAFA testimony by noting that the UAFA's creation of a visa for same-sex partners would be a de facto federal recognition of same-sex relationships that might impact other areas of federal law.  Sessions also stressed that the UAFA would make it significantly easier to engage in visa fraud, since the permanent partnerships that would be recognized under the bill would not be as traceable as marriages, which require marriage certificates and other relevant documentation. (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, June 3, 2009).   Roy Beck of NumbersUSA and Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) further criticized the bill for expanding immigration (without offsetting from other visa categories) and failing to account for the impact on other areas of immigration law. (See Testimony of Roy Beck, June 3, 2009 and Testimony of Jessica Vaughan, June 3, 2009). Vaughan, for example, testified that the UAFA would undoubtedly lead to higher levels of fraud and added that federal immigration officials already encounter significant immigration-related marriage fraud. The UAFA, she went on to say, would create new access to visas for thousands of individuals worldwide without requiring any of the safeguards that might prevent dramatic increases in visa fraud, and might even serve as further incentive for some to attempt fraud. (Id.).