Dear Readers:

Usually, I’m not exactly espousing the views of an optimist when discussing immigration law. I used to be, but after more than a decade since we saw any real progress on reforming immigration law, it has been tough to have anything other than a negative outlook. We were teased a few times when we had a real debate on comprehensive immigration reform, but inflexibility on the part of many prevented a deal.

But I’m starting to feel that old optimism again – at least a little of it. Why? Perhaps it’s because some of the hard line positions of those on both sides of the immigration debate seem to be relaxing. Pro-immigration groups have been pushing for immigration reform that is comprehensive in nature. That is, they want all of the problems facing legal immigrants, illegally present immigrant and reforms to immigration enforcement all dealt with together. The strategy is pinned on the idea that if no pro-immigration measures can move except as part of a comprehensive plan, all of the various interest groups will work together for reform.

For immigration restrictionists, no compromise on dealing with illegally present immigrants should come unless the borders are secured first and illegal immigration is completely brought under control. Some probably don’t want any immigration at all, but few are at least publicly making that argument.

For at least five years, we’ve been in a stalemate. Tough enforcement legislation has been blocked along with nearly every pro-immigration bill that has been introduced. But lately we’re starting to see some small, but important signs of compromise.  We’re starting to see bipartisan immigration measures being introduced that have a chance of passing. One, HR 3012, a bill that would eliminate per country employment immigration quotas, has passed the House Judiciary Committee and reportedly has had sign off from key leaders on both sides of the issue. Pro-immigration groups have quietly stopped talking about comprehensive immigration reform and are now focusing on smaller measures like the DREAM Act and devoting energy to pushing for expansive  Executive Branch solutions like prosecutorial discretion.

Anti-immigration groups are also starting to show some chinks in their no compromises enforcement approach. We see it in the seeming collapse of Congressman Lamar Smith’s efforts to get mandatory E-Verify for all employers. During the recent markup hearing on the Smith bill, California Republican Dan Lundgren made national headlines around the country by questioning the wisdom of mandating E-Verify without having a workable agricultural guest worker program in place. And we’re now starting to see some of the restrictionists advocating for providing new guest worker programs.

Just this past week, Governor Rick Perry redefined “amnesty” to mean a path to citizenship and announced he would support a non-immigrant work visa program that would be open to the millions of illegally present immigrants in the US. And, interestingly, there was little public comment from restrictionist groups opposing him.

So where does that leave us? Perhaps it means we can start talking about real immigration solutions that are not going to be completely satisfactory to the fiercest advocates on both sides, but are far better than the status quo and which will finally help us transition back to where we used to be. Up until around 2001, we used to pass dozens of immigration bills each year addressing small and large problems. Our system has atrophied since then and is desperately in need of updating. Perhaps we’re finally ready to start that process.

*****

Readers are reminded that they are welcome to contact my law office if they would like to schedule a telephone or in person consultation with me or one of my colleagues. If you are interested, please call my office at 901-682-6455.

Regards,

Greg Siskind