It's clear immigration laws aren't working

If you've ever discussed immigration reform with a friend, neighbor, relative or co-worker, you've probably heard someone say we should just enforce the laws we already have on the books. It's the same line we hear about preventing gun violence, cleaning up our environment, keeping workers safe on the job and preventing workplace discrimination.

The thing is, it's not true.

Our current laws created the mess we have now.

Our problem isn't that we're not enforcing our laws; it's that our laws are out of date and often impractical or unenforceable. It's comforting to believe we could solve everything by hiring more law-enforcement agents, but that would barely scratch the surface.

If you believe immigration reform boils down to an enforcement question, consider the likely results of a nationwide crackdown. If we deported every one of the estimated 11million undocumented immigrants in this country, it would wreak havoc on the legal economy -- the loss of customers and the families suddenly without breadwinners would be just the start. No increase in Border Patrol spending will change that.

Besides, we've thrown money at the problem before and it hasn't made a difference. Border Patrol enforcement costs keep going up, but the agency's reported number of annual apprehensions has been decreasing steadily for years. The cost to taxpayers per apprehension has skyrocketed from $238 in 1990 to $10,431 in 2011, according to Business Insider. Are we happier with the results?

Undocumented immigration to the United States has slowed more or less to zero. The major policy question we're facing today isn't how to stop more immigration; it's how best to respond to the presence of the millions of people already here.

The solution is to create a reasonable earned-pathway system for undocumented workers to come into compliance and start to work legally in this country. Spending billions of dollars on get-tough fantasies is not going to happen, and it would be a disaster if it ever did.

Just as importantly, the "enforce the laws we have" rallying cry ignores huge opportunities that we as a country should be taking advantage of. The Senate reform bill passed earlier this year increases the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers by 3,500 over the next four years, which the University of Southern California found would create more than 115,000 new jobs and add $7billion to the U.S. economy annually. That's a big improvement that needs to be made today.

Unfortunately, prominent figures such as House Speaker John Boehner and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have decided that running out the clock on immigration reform is better for the Republican Party than addressing our country's needs.

As Perry said at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Arizona last month, "I think immigration reform is going to be very passé." Boehner said Nov.13 that on his watch, the House won't negotiate at all with the Senate on the issue.

That's not a political gamble. It's a total failure of leadership.

No one thinks our system works well right now. Even if you disagree with the efforts of comprehensive-reform advocates, you probably don't think we're living in the best of all possible worlds today. The status quo has no serious defenders, but it's exactly what Boehner, Perry and their friends are keeping in place.

Everyone should be able to agree that they want a better immigration system than the one we have now.

We can disagree about what that would look like, but it's important to move past the "enforce the laws we have" talking point.

It keeps us from having the serious conversation we need to have about what to change and how.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat, represents Arizona's 3rd Congressional District.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

GOP governors talk immigration reform

Republican governors who gathered in Phoenix last week for their annual conference did their best to distance themselves from their congressional GOP counterparts and Capitol Hill political dysfunction.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie cited immigration reform as an example of Washington's failure to deal with major issues.

Speaking Thursday at a news conference at the Republican Governors Association meeting at the Phoenician resort, Christie said the broken U.S. immigration system "has an effect on the people of our states, on the economies of our states" and needs a solution.

Christie declined to endorse specifics of a legislative remedy, such as a pathway to citizenship for most of the estimated 11million undocumented immigrants who have settled in the United States. He said it is up to President Barack Obama and Congress to figure out a compromise, just as he has to do in dealing with the Democrat-controlled New Jersey Legislature.

"The inaction down there on this problem, a problem that we've all seen for years, is just unacceptable," Christie said. "They've got work to do. Get to work and start to fix the problems."

Christie, who earlier this month won a second term in his traditional blue state, is a top GOP presidential prospect for 2016. He was the focus of most of the media attention at the four-day RGA conference, which also included a surprise Thursday appearance by former President George W. Bush at a private governors lunch. Also on Thursday, Christie became RGA chairman for the 2014 election year, a role that will give him additional national exposure.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whose parents came from India, shared Christie's sense of urgency about the immigration situation. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate this year passed a comprehensive bipartisan reform package, but it was declared dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Though House Republicans have talked for months about acting on a series of smaller immigration-related bills, none has come to the floor this year.

"At some point, D.C. needs to actually do something, say something," said Haley, who also did not offer an opinion on details such as a path to citizenship. "It is causing a divide across this country, the longer they put off making a decision."

Others at the Phoenix gathering offered varying views on immigration reform.

Some, such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, advocated for securing the border first, which for years has been a common Republican refrain.

"You could do a 21st-century, modern, guest-worker program without amnesty and solve the problem going forward for this country," added Pence, a former U.S. representative.

Perry, who unsuccessfully sought the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, predicted that the immigration-reform discussion will eventually resolve itself due to energy-policy reforms that he suggests will reinvent Mexico's economy. Mexicans now living without authorization in the United States will go home to better jobs, he said.

"Listen, I think the issue is you secure the border first and then you can have the conversation about immigration reform," Perry said Wednesday. "And, again, I think immigration reform is going to be very passé. It's going to be part of the past."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another possible 2016 candidate, complained that Republicans in Washington, D.C., too often are "defined as the party of 'no'" and called for the GOP to do a better job "offering detailed, principled solutions to the issues the American people care about."

When asked if the House Republicans missed an opportunity to offer a GOP immigration solution, Jindal said he won't participate in what he deemed "Republican fratricide." But he said "plenty of Republicans in D.C." are frustrated and agree they should be doing more on immigration and other big issues.

"You can get all sorts of Republicans to criticize other Republicans. I'm not interested in that," Jindal said. "I am interested in saying, and I do think, that absolutely, as the Republican Party, we need to be advancing solutions."

Christie and Haley both indicated that they would not hesitate to criticize Capitol Hill Republicans if criticism is merited.

"I think there are no saints in Washington right now," Haley said. "Republicans and Democrats have royally screwed this up."

For that reason, Haley said the next Republican presidential standard-bearer should come from the ranks of the governors, not Congress.

"What I always think is important are results, and it's really hard for somebody out of D.C. to prove results when they can't even stay open," she said, in an apparent reference to the recent partial federal government shutdown.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another potential White House contender, also said the GOP's strength lies with the governors.

"You know, it's pretty interesting, isn't it, that people talk about the Republican brand and what people tend to forget is we've got 30 Republican governors," Kasich said Wednesday. "There's not a better way to figure out who people favor than to look inside the states."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who also is widely viewed as a possible 2016 GOP hopeful, did not attend the conference.

Nowicki is The Republic's national political reporter.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Rubio, Amid Planning, Is Yet to Commit on Immigration Bill

Given the disdain some conservatives reserve for Republicans who consort publicly with Democrats, he had reason to be.

The next time Mr. Rubio is likely to appear with his colleagues in the eight-person bipartisan group could be an even bigger moment, when its members officially introduce joint immigration legislation this month. The probable tableau seems ready-made for problems in the 2016 Republican presidential primary fight in which many expect Mr. Rubio to partake: images of Mr. Rubio, smiling and celebrating alongside Democratic senators and maverick Republicans as he claims co-authorship of an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that many Republicans will reject.

And so the question percolating on Capitol Hill has become: Will Mr. Rubio, an up-and-coming young conservative elected on a 2010 Tea Party wave, ultimately sign onto the immigration bill that he has been helping to draft ever since the November election?

“We have to see if the Boy Wonder plays ball or not,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group.

For now, the answer — among members of the bipartisan group, immigration watchers and even Mr. Rubio’s own staff — is a tentative yes, even with Mr. Rubio increasingly urging caution about racing ahead with any immigration measure as the unveiling draws nigh.

“We understand Marco is not going to be rushed into anything,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the group. “But we don’t doubt his commitment to seeing this through at all.”

In recent days, Mr. Rubio has begun to sound nervous again when it comes to the immigration legislation. He sent a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, counseling against “excessive haste” in changing immigration law. On Sunday, just moments before two of his fellow bipartisan group members were set to appear on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he released a statement that warned, “No final agreement on immigration legislation yet.”

Mr. Rubio finds himself in an extremely delicate position as a rising conservative hero and a proponent of immigration law changes. As much as the fate of the bipartisan group’s legislation hangs on Mr. Rubio, who is perhaps the only member of the group with the conservative credentials to sell the plan to skeptical voters, the fate of Mr. Rubio’s ambitions for higher office are also inextricably bound up with the immigration legislation and his base’s reaction to it.

So far, Mr. Rubio has seen early success wooing grass-roots Republican voters. When he joined the bipartisan group late last year, after Mitt Romney lost the presidential election in part because he was overwhelmingly rejected by Hispanic voters, Mr. Rubio quickly went on a one-man blitz of conservative news media outlets, explaining his guiding immigration principles and winning plaudits from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

“The argument is that it’s not conservative policy to have 11 million illegal immigrants in this country,” said Phil Musser, a Republican consultant and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association. “By showing up and by boldly deciding to engage people who have had their fingers in their ears on this issue, he’s been able to decalcify a process that’s been stuck for a long time.”

He and his staff have studied the mistakes of the last attempt at immigration overhaul, in 2007, and have tailored their pitch to address conservative concerns. Mr. Rubio stresses that strict goals for border security must be met before any illegal immigrants can be put on a path to citizenship. And he talks of refining the current system — from increased enforcement to a workable plan for future legal immigrants — saying he wants to ensure the country does not face another wave of illegal immigrants down the road.

“His emphasis on strong border security and enforcement is a big deal, and I think the Democrats are finally beginning to get that, and I think that is because of his strong leadership and communication skills,” said Mel Martinez, a former Republican senator from Florida who was part of the failed 2007 attempt at an immigration overhaul.

View the original article here

Immigration worries GOP base

DENVER — DENVER Republicans in the U.S. Congress are inching toward a deal on immigration, but will they lose part of their base as a result? Since last year's election, many top conservatives have distanced themselves from the idea that the country's 11million illegal immigrants must be removed, instead signaling a new openness to allowing them to eventually become citizens.

Demographics and election returns are pushing Republican leaders away from many of the party's conservative voters, many of them white and from more rural regions.

In 2007, a grassroots rebellion led Republicans to reject then-President George W. Bush's immigration overhaul because it included a process in which otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants could eventually become citizens. Activists derided the provision as an "amnesty." After conservative tea party groups toppled various Republicans in primaries over issues that included their immigration stands, the party's rhetoric and proposals became increasingly tough.

That's changed since the drubbing the Republican Party took last November as President Barack Obama won a second term. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney received underwhelming support from voters in the two fastest-growing minority groups: 27percent of Hispanic voters and an even smaller share from Asians, according to exit polls. In contrast, George W. Bush won an estimated 44percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2004 re-election.

Prominent Republicans now support legalizing the status of some illegal immigrants. The outline of a bill to do just that was unveiled Monday by a group of eight senators, four from each party, and Obama reiterated his support for a similar overhaul Tuesday.

Even in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, a half-dozen bipartisan members are nearing completion on wide-ranging legislation that would include a pathway to legalize the immigration status of those here without authorization.

It's unclear what, if any, immigration bill could pass Congress. Still, the shift in tone signals to some who favor tighter restrictions on immigration that parts of the Republican Party are ready to be flexible. They warn that the party will squander a valuable resource by alienating its base.

"I don't know how you can even quantify the loss of enthusiasm," said former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a longtime thorn in party elders' sides for his aggressive stance on illegal immigration.

Other Republicans dismiss that worry. "Where else are they going to go?" asked Sig Rogich, a veteran Las Vegas-based Republican operative who has long pushed for a more immigrant-friendly Republican Party.

"They'll get over it."

Michael Long, a retired Air Force employee in Colorado Springs, is resigned to the Republican Party cutting a deal.

"The last election scared the heck out of Republicans, and the numbers aren't going to go down for the Latino vote," said Long, 50.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Win or lose, immigration risk for GOP

As comprehensive immigration reform continues to gain momentum, many Republicans are hopeful that passing a bill that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants will draw more Hispanics into the party.

Younger voters offer potential gains for gop

According to a June poll by Latino Decisions, 31percent of Latinos said they would be willing to vote Republican if Republicans took a lead role in passing reforms that include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The Republican Party also has the potential to make gains with younger Latino voters, said Gary Segura, a political-science professor at Stanford University and a principal at the polling firm.

Younger voters are less likely to have party affiliations and more likely to be open to efforts to reach out to them than older voters, he said.

About 50,000 Latino citizens in the U.S. reach voting age every month, Segura said.

But it's a big gamble for Republicans, who took a beating in November, when President Barack Obama won re-election with more than 70percent of the Latino vote and congressional candidates saw similar results.

If the effort fails, Latinos will likely blame Republicans, many of whom -- especially in the House -- remain opposed to any sort of legalization program for illegal immigrants. That result would further tarnish the party's image among Latino voters, pushing them in even greater numbers to the Democratic Party, analysts say.

If the effort succeeds, some Republicans fear it could eventually have the same effect. The reforms being debated propose giving undocumented immigrants a chance to eventually legalize their status and citizenship, which could create millions of new Democratic voters, because Latinos tend to vote Democratic.

There are an estimated 11million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, as of March 2010, Mexicans made up about 58percent of the unauthorized immigrant population, with an estimated 6.5million people. Other nations in Latin America accounted for 23percent of unauthorized immigrants, or 2.6million people. Asia accounted for 11percent, or about 1.3million people, and Europe and Canada accounted for 4 percent, or 500,000 people. African countries and other nations represented about 3percent, or 400,000 people.

Analysts and Republican backers of reform are urging skeptics to take the long view, saying that passing immigration reform is necessary for the Republican Party to have any hope of attracting more support from the fast-growing Latino electorate, which made up 10percent of the voters in November's presidential election and includes huge numbers of young U.S.-born Latinos who are turning 18 -- voting age -- every day.

They say it is unlikely that the Republican Party will split the Latino vote with Democrats any time soon.

But passing an immigration-reform bill that includes a pathway to citizenship could help burnish the party's brand with Latinos turned off by the tough stance some Republicans have taken on immigration, helping draw at least a larger share of the Latino vote.

"I am under no illusion -- and I don't think any of my colleagues are on the Republican side -- that when we pass this, even if we are out front leading the parade, that we are going to get 50percent of the Hispanic vote next time," said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Flake, a longtime supporter of immigration reform, is among the so-called Gang of Eight senators leading the way on reform.

Passing an immigration bill would help Republicans move beyond the immigration issue, Flake and other Republican leaders say, allowing the party to begin reaching out to Latinos on other issues, such as jobs and the economy. Those are issues Republicans believe resonate with Latino voters but have been drowned out by angry rhetoric on immigration from some members of the party.

"It's tough to talk to them about those issues when they don't think you like them," Flake said during a recent meeting with The Arizona Republic and 12 News. "And rightly or wrongly, fair or unfair, I think that's been the case over the past couple of cycles. They have a view that we don't like them very much, and I do think that has to change."

It's not just Latinos who have been put off by the Republicans embrace of tough immigration policies, Flake said.

"I don't see this just as a Hispanic problem," Flake said. "There are a lot of Republicans who have left the party or don't vote for the Republican on the ticket because they think, 'Can't we have a party or somebody running for office that has a realistic view on some things?' And I think on immigration we have not had a realistic view. I don't think self-deportation was a realistic view. So, it goes beyond the Hispanic vote."

During last year's presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said during a GOP debate in Tampa that he favored "self-deportation" over providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Obama played up the comment on the campaign trail, and it prompted Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who worked on Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, to say on Twitter on Election Night: "Mitt Romney self-deported himself from the White House."

Principles for reform

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first immigration hearing in the chamber since a bipartisan group of senators released a blueprint for overhauling the nation's immigration system. The principles call for creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants once the nation's borders have been deemed secured, among other reforms.

In addition to Flake, the group includes three key Republicans -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida -- all of whom will play key roles in persuading other Republicans to reach a compromise with Democrats over the highly contentious issue.

The Democrats in the group are Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Charles Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado.

Over the weekend, USA Today obtained a draft of a White House immigration proposal that would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.

The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires.

In addition, illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa.

White House spokesman Clark Stevens told USA Today that the administration supports bipartisan efforts on immigration reform in Congress, but some read the leaked legislation as intended to pressure lawmakers into moving more quickly.

Rubio was critical of the administration's draft proposal, saying it repeats the failures of past legislation and would be "dead on arrival" in Congress.

Mark Garces, a Florida lawyer who is a spokesman for the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, a group that works to increase the number of Hispanic Republicans, said passing a bill would help prevent Latino voters from flocking to the Democratic Party.

In the past, he said, Democrats have successfully used immigration as a political "wedge issue" to divide the Republican Party and draw Latino voters away from the GOP, he said. That would be harder to do if Republicans helped pass a compromise bill with Democrats, he said.

Garces said he favors the approach proposed by the Gang of Eight, which calls for giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship as long as the border has been deemed secured, they pay fines and other penalties, and they don't receive permanent residency before others who have been waiting for years to come to the U.S. legally.

Latinos a political force

Latino voters are a powerful political force.

They made up 10percent of the electorate in the November presidential election.

And the number of eligible Latino voters is projected to skyrocket from 23.7million in 2012 to more than 40million in 2030, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Latino voters come from diverse backgrounds, but they tend to vote largely Democratic, said Joe Garcia, director of Arizona State University's Morrison Institute Latino Public Policy Center.

Even so, there are several issues important to Latino voters that "line up well" with Republicans, Garcia said.

Those issues include "family, faith, patriotism and small-business entrepreneurship," in addition to the economy and jobs, he said.

"When you get the harsh immigration-hardliner issue off the table, the GOP thinks it matches very nicely with some other key elements of what Latino voters are looking for," Garcia said. "They don't need to get all the Latino votes, they just need to get a larger chunk in order to make a difference in the elections."

The 27percent of the Latino vote that Romney received was the lowest for a Republican presidential candidate since Bob Dole received 21percent in 1996 against President Bill Clinton, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Yet while some Republican leaders have begun calling for immigration reforms, others continue to advocate for harsh immigration policies that Latino voters interpret as being anti-Hispanic, said Gary Segura, a political-science professor at Stanford University and a principal at Latino Decisions, a polling firm.

Mixed feelings

Rudy Peña, 60, a plumber who lives in Tolleson, is on the board of directors of the Arizona Republican Latino Association.

Although Peña is a "lifelong" Democrat, he usually votes Republican and voted for Romney in November.

He is adamantly opposed to Republicans supporting immigration reform for the sake of drawing more Latino voters to the Republican Party. "What it amounts to is pandering, and Latinos recognize that is pandering," Peña said.

Peña would rather see the Republican Party push for border security first as well as greater enforcement of existing immigration laws while reaching out to Latino voters on other issues such as jobs and the economy.

He has mixed feelings about giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

On one hand, working in the construction industry, he said he has seen firsthand "how hard they work," Peña said. On the other, he believes giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship would reward people who entered unlawfully and would be unfair to others who have tried to come to the U.S. legally.

"It really does shortchange the 5million or so who are going through the process the right way," he said. "It can't just be a question of the 11million (undocumented immigrants) who are here. What happens to the 5million who are waiting?"

Attracting more Latino voters to the Republican Party won't be easy, Segura said.

The Republican Party's image already has been badly damaged with Latino voters because of the tough stances some Republicans have taken on immigration.

"I don't hear a GOP message on immigration. I hear some senators who have reached a less-hostile position," Segura said. "But the noise coming out of the House of Representatives today and throughout the entire period has not been encouraging by any stretch. So, I don't think there is a unified Republican message on this by any measure."

In the past, Latinos tended to join the Republican Party as they gained affluence, Segura said.

But that support has been eroded because immigration tends to be a deeply personal issue for Latino voters. In a June poll by Latino Decisions, 60percent of Latino voters surveyed said they have a relative who is undocumented or know someone who is undocumented.

"The issue for the Republicans is not whether doing immigration reform is going to save them," Segura said. "It's whether not doing immigration reform is going to doom them forever."

USA Today contributed to this article.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Rubio Outlines Elements of His New Immigration Plan

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican who is on a talking tour to publicize his proposals for an immigration overhaul, said on Thursday that tighter enforcement at the borders and in workplaces would be central to his plan, which would also offer legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

In a meeting in New York with reporters and editors of The New York Times, Mr. Rubio said that any broad immigration legislation should create a nationwide exit system to check foreigners out of the country, to confirm that they left before their visas expired. He noted that at least 40 percent of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country came on legal visas but then overstayed.

Mr. Rubio said he would also insist on a nationwide program for employers to verify the legal authorization of new workers, although he did not specify whether he would favor an expansion of an existing federal electronic worker verification program or seek to create a new one.

Mr. Rubio, 41, the conservative son of blue-collar Cuban exiles who won his Senate seat in 2010 with support from the Tea Party, has been shaking up the Republican Party’s immigration politics with his proposals to offer legal status and eventually American citizenship to immigrants here illegally. Since the November elections, many Republican leaders have said the party should find an alternative to the policy of “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, which turned many Latino voters away from the party’s presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

On Monday, Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, shifted to Mr. Rubio’s approach, endorsing the senator’s principles and saying the two would work together on immigration legislation. On Wednesday, Bill O’Reilly, the conservative media personality, added his endorsement, telling Mr. Rubio he liked his program.

“I think it’s fair,” Mr. O’Reilly said, in a notable change for a commentator who has been fiercely critical of illegal immigration. Since Mr. Rubio started to unveil his principles last Friday, they have also been praised by Grover Norquist, the conservative antitax crusader. He also drew support from some longtime advocates for broad legalization legislation.

One of them, Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, called Mr. Rubio’s proposals “a very welcome and courageous statement from someone who was elected with Tea Party credentials.”

Mr. Rubio, saying immigration would be a top priority for him this year, said he was currently laying out principles and gathering support for them. As a tactical matter, Mr. Rubio is not delving too deeply into the details at this stage.

His plan would give a temporary “nonimmigrant visa” to illegal immigrants, which would allow them to remain and work in the United States. They would have to wait a “significant but reasonable” period of time before they could apply to become legal permanent residents, going to the back of the line in the existing system. Once they became residents, they could go on like other legal immigrants to naturalize as citizens.

“There are millions of people who have applied to enter this country legally,” Mr. Rubio said. “Our message to them cannot be: you should have come illegally because it’s faster and cheaper.”

He acknowledged that major pieces of his plan remain to be worked out. According to current federal visa rosters, most Mexican-born immigrants applying to become permanent residents now face a wait of at least 17 years to receive their document — known as a green card — even if they followed the rules and were approved. Mr. Rubio’s proposal could add seven million more Mexican immigrants to those backlogs. The path to citizenship he proposes for illegal immigrants could be several decades long.

“I don’t have a solution for that question right now,” Mr. Rubio said. He said he would seek to relieve backlogs by speeding up green cards for immigrants already in the legal line, not by creating special pathways for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Rubio’s principles did not sound very different from outlines for an overhaul that President Obama has offered. And the senator, whose star is rising rapidly in his party, chose not to hammer on his differences with the White House. Instead, he said he was open to negotiating because he believed the timing was right to change a failing immigration system. “We just have to get this thing done for once and for all,” Mr. Rubio said.

View the original article here

Carmona's focus: Jobs, immigration

Richard Carmona's television campaign ads paint a rugged portrait of the Democratic Senate candidate: a decorated Green Beret, a trauma surgeon, a SWAT team leader and a U.S. surgeon general who battled "political interference" from higher-ups in President George W. Bush's administration.

Richard Carmona

Age: 62.

Education: Bronx Community College of the City, University of New York, associate degree, 1973; University of California-San Francisco, bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry, 1977; University of California-San Francisco, medical degree, 1979; University of Arizona, master's degree in public health, 1998.

Family: Wife Diane. Four children.

Work experience: Vice chairman, Canyon Ranch, 2006-present; president, Canyon Ranch Institute, 2006-present; and distinguished professor of public health, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 2006-present. Past: Department surgeon, SWAT-team leader and deputy, Pima County Sheriff's Department, 1986-2002.

Previous public office: U.S. surgeon general, 2002-06.

Top issues:

Job creation.

Immigration reform.

Balanced budget.

Social Security and Medicare preservation.

National security and veterans issues.

Women's health care.

Source: Carmona's campaign website, carmonaforarizona.com/priorities

During the Vietnam War, Carmona was awarded two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts and a combat medical badge. His law-enforcement experience with the Pima County Sheriff's Department includes action-packed episodes such as a risky 1992 mountainside rescue of a helicopter-crash survivor and a 1999 gunbattle in which he killed a man who was menacing a woman. Carmona was wounded in the leg during a 1988 SWAT standoff in which an armed man was killed.

"He's a local hero and a national hero," said veteran Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat. "I have nothing but admiration and respect for this guy. He's a brilliant doctor and an extremely talented individual."

But Carmona, 62, also has long been dogged by questions about his leadership style, which critics characterize as contentious.

The acting Health and Human Services Department deputy who supervised him as surgeon general told a congressional investigatory committee in 2007 that she felt threatened by him.

And his career in southern Arizona's health-care industry has been at times controversial, with him leaving two high-profile positions amid criticism.

Those episodes are providing fodder for Carmona's opponent, Republican Rep. Jeff Flake. Polls indicate the race is neck and neck.

But Carmona's experience working with members of both parties is complicating Flake's efforts to portray him as a "rubber stamp" for President Barack Obama, who with other senior Democrats encouraged him to seek the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Jon Kyl as a Democrat.

A lifelong registered independent, Carmona was nominated as the nation's 17th surgeon general by Bush, a Republican, in 2002 and strongly endorsed for that position by Arizona's two Republican senators.

Carmona, who lists on his campaign website priorities that include job creation, comprehensive immigration reform, women's issues and preserving Social Security, boasts that Republicans had previously tried to recruit him to run for governor and Congress.

"When I read his resume, I have to tell you that it seems it's like a resume from 10 different people," actress Lynda Carter, best known for her role as 1970s television superhero "Wonder Woman," said at a recent "Women for Carmona" event in Scottsdale. "I have played the role. He is the role."

A long resume

While his ads highlight his achievements, there is more to Carmona's resume than battlefield and law-enforcement heroics.

He helped establish Tucson Medical Center's trauma unit but was let go in 1993, according to contemporary media reports. He sued and secured a public apology and a confidential settlement that the Arizona Daily Star reported at $3.9million.

Later, he took over the financially troubled Kino Community Hospital in Tucson and ran Pima County's health-care system. Under pressure over financial issues, Carmona stepped down in 1999.

Some of those issues came up a decade ago, when Bush tapped Carmona as surgeon general. Only now are they becoming election-season fodder because, unlike Flake, a six-term congressman who won the Republican Senate nomination after a no-holds-barred primary fight, Carmona ran unopposed in the Democratic primary.

Now, Flake has started making an issue of Carmona's past in campaign mailers and ads.

For his part, Carmona pointed out that the issues in his health-care-management career were known to the senators who considered his nomination as surgeon general. He said he made tough leadership decisions at the time "with compassion for the people."

"But here's the important point: Every one of those allegations was investigated by the U.S. Senate when I went up for confirmation," Carmona said after the Scottsdale event. "And I received a unanimous confirmation from the United States Senate, so that should answer any questions as to the veracity of any of those allegations."

An exhaustive 2002 Los Angeles Times report on Carmona raised questions about his temperament and management skills, spotlighting allegations that he bullied a nurse in 1991, drove off Kino Community Hospital's veteran chief of surgery in 1996 and berated a member of the Pima County Health Care Commission in 1999.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., asked about his "confrontational" style at Carmona's July9, 2002, Senate confirmation hearing and specifically cited his publicized clash with Sylvia Campoy, the health commissioner.

Carmona said some personal friction was inevitable as an "agent of change," charged with introducing "contemporary management techniques to a dying system that is struggling to care for indigent patients."

"At times, that is upsetting to people who live in the status quo for a long time," Carmona said at the hearing. "And because of that, sometimes those of us who do step out might be characterized as confrontational. … But I would say emphatically that I always treated my patients, my staff and co-workers with the greatest respect."

However, questions about the way Carmona has treated colleagues did not end when he became surgeon general.

In May, Politico reported allegations against Carmona made in secret 2007 testimony before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee by Cristina Beato, who oversaw the surgeon general in her role as acting assistant secretary of health. According to the transcript of her testimony, Beato said Carmona "has problems with women" and "had a very difficult time having a female Hispanic supervisor."

Beato, a single mother, also alleged that twice Carmona pounded on her door after midnight in an effort to resume ongoing arguments and that she felt threatened by his behavior. Beato and Carmona both resided on the National Institutes of Health campus in Maryland.

The Carmona campaign has dismissed Beato's claims as fiction.

"This was a lady that was very politically motivated, who was aspiring to a higher position and then lied on her resume and got caught, and we held her accountable, so she lashed out," Carmona said. "But the fact is that Congress investigated those allegations, and they were all found to be false."

In a telephone interview, Beato said that her testimony was delivered under oath and was truthful and that Congress did not investigate her claims. She acknowledged making mistakes on her resume but said that Bush continued to stand by her nomination.

"No, I do not make this stuff up," Beato told The Republic. "And I did fear for my life, and I am not a little withering flower, either. It was personally very frightening."

Political leanings

In ads, the Flake campaign has tried to portray Carmona as a "rubber stamp" for Obama, arguing that a vote for Carmona equals a vote for the president's agenda.

Carmona counters that even as a presidential appointee, he was hardly a mouthpiece for Bush.

In fact, his battle with the Bush administration and his claim that officials tried to muzzle him on health issues such as stem-cell research and the dangers of secondhand smoke are part of his campaign narrative that he is not beholden to either political party.

Carmona, who is of Puerto Rican descent, has courted moderate voters and presented himself as an independent-minded problem solver who could forge solutions to lingering issues such as the broken immigration system and help restore the public's trust in government.

"I was an independent when I was surgeon general ? and always saw my job as really being nonpartisan in dealing with health and safety and security issues of the nation," Carmona said earlier this year in a Fox News Latino interview.

"But as I moved forward to be considering running for the U.S. Senate and I looked at where the Republican Party was on certain issues in my state, like on women's health, on immigration, some of the educational issues, I really couldn't align with them there. The fact is that the Democratic Party was more closely aligned with where my values were on key issues in our state."

'Take-charge guy'

Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., a Carmona supporter, described Carmona as "a take-charge guy" and speculated that might rub some the wrong way.

"When you are a leader, sometimes the people you lead don't always agree with you," said DeConcini, who held the Senate seat Carmona is seeking from 1977 to 1995. "That's what I chalk it up to. He may have a temper. Hell, I don't know who hasn't ever gotten mad. I have never seen that."

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., another Carmona ally, was a Pima County supervisor when Carmona headed Kino Community Hospital and the county health system. Although Carmona's tenure was turbulent, Grijalva credited him with stabilizing the hospital and laying the groundwork for its eventual transformation.

Any personality clashes stemmed from Carmona's effort to move the hospital in a different direction and "was part of making the omelet," Grijalva said. "In the heat of the battle, I didn't always agree with him, but I'll give him his due. He was very persuasive and talked about the fact that if we are going to turn this hospital around, we're going to have to take some risks. … I'm glad we took some of those risks."

Carmona also has taken risks during his long association with the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Dupnik, the Pima County sheriff, praised Carmona as "a tremendously courageous individual" who saved lives when he returned fire and killed a violent, mentally disturbed man in a Sept.18, 1999, off-duty gunbattle in Tucson. The celebrated 1992 rescue, in which Carmona dangled from a helicopter, was so dangerous that Dupnik said he would never have allowed it had he been aware of what Carmona was planning to do.

"We have a joke around the department: When we see on TV some disaster or emergency happening on a national level, we always look to see if Carmona is there," Dupnik said. "He just has a knack for being in the right place at the right time."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Is state GOP taking a different look at immigration?

The call for moderation in the Republican Party's hard-line stance on illegal immigration came from a most unlikely source. So much so, that I almost fell off my chair listening to the guy.

It was an hour or so after the Obama administration announced the president's mini-Dream directive and already Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and various GOP congressional leaders had taken to the airwaves, decrying "backdoor amnesty."

Meanwhile, the spokesman for the state Republican Party was in the house (so to speak), taping a segment for 12 News' "Sunday Square Off" about Barack Obama's plan to confer temporary legal status on illegal immigrants brought here as children.

The party, Shane Wikfors said, needs to reconsider the message it is sending to Latino voters.

"It is a conversation that the Republican Party has got to have at our national convention in Tampa in August," he said. "I think this party needs to re-evaluate its position on how we deal with people that are part of us, part of our community, and this may go against the grain with a lot of the base.

"But, look, we have to take a serious look on how we deal with people who are here in this country and bring them into this melting pot we call America and get them engaged in the political process."

Wikfors went on to say that the state party chairman, Tom Morrissey, agrees with him and that he believes the first vice chairman, Russell Pearce, likely does, too.

OK, I did fall off my chair at that -- metaphorically, at least.

The party of Pearce and Brewer has demonstrated no interest in anything other than the enforcement-only approach that has made them national household words (not all of them printable). Yet here was the party's spokesman in Arizona -- a "tea party" guy, no less -- preaching pragmatism, a quality seldom spotted among the party faithful.

The sort of thing that might begin to inflate that pup tent, now occupied by party purists, into the big tent the party once claimed to possess.

So, naturally, it didn't take long for the elephant fur to start flying.

Randy Pullen, former state Republican Party chairman, fired off a letter to the party's executive committee, complaining Wikfors "effectively changed our party's position on illegal immigration."

"He condoned President Obama's action of last Friday," Pullen wrote. "He went on to state that the position of the party needs to change."

Pullen called on Morrissey to clarify his position.

"If he stands by what Shane has said, he needs to resign his position as chairman. If he disavows the statement by Shane, then Shane should be terminated immediately as communications director," Pullen wrote. "There is no excuse for misrepresenting so emphatically the position of the chairman on such an important issue in Arizona."

Morrissey told me on Tuesday that he supports the party platform, which calls for enforcing "the rule of law" and opposing amnesty. But curiously, he also said he supports Wikfors' "Square Off" remarks. "I am doing an outreach to the Latino community, and I'm assuming that you understand I'm talking about the legal community," Morrissey told me. "I believe that that was what he was trying to convey."

Wikfors was, indeed, talking about outreach to Latino voters -- by re-evaluating the party's position on illegal immigrants brought here as children.

Wikfors declined to comment on Tuesday. But the fact that he's still the party's communications director suggests that somebody over at GOP HQ sees the wisdom in his remarks.

And that would be good news for Republicans who not only would like to take out Obama in November but avoid going the way of the wooly mammoth in the decades to come, as the ranks of independent and Latino voters swell.

While party hard-liners continue to cross their arms and refuse to budge, it's time for pragmatists to find their voice, as Wikfors did: to reclaim control of their party and propose an actual workable solution to our ongoing, unending illegal-immigration dilemma.

Jeb Bush talks about it. Marco Rubio talks about it.

But in Arizona, no one talks about it. Not even John McCain or Jeff Flake, men who once believed that compromise was possible.

Unfortunately, that was then and this is now, when debate equals disloyalty in the ranks of the GOP, when moderation is seen as capitulation.

When the only acceptable Republican response is "secure our borders" and "no amnesty." As if that's a solution.

Or a winning strategy.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@ arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

What Romney Should Do About Immigration

Earlier this month, asked about Mitt Romney’s immigration policy, Bettina Inclan, the director of Hispanic outreach for the Republican National Committee, stumbled into the remark that “he’s still deciding what his position on immigration is.” While the campaign distanced itself from the gaffe immediately, the comment was actually good advice, even if unintentional.

During a lengthy primary season, Romney’s effective use of base politics on immigration was a key part of his victory, especially in snuffing out Rick Perry’s potential ascent. But after those strategic attacks, which included Romney’s awkward “self-deportation” plan for illegal aliens, Romney must execute a creative pivot to the middle to attract moderate voters, especially Hispanic moderates. In an election that looks to be razor-close, how effectively Romney recaptures turf in the immigration debate could decide swing states like Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. Looking longer-term, a President Romney would have to find a solution to the immigration issue — a social crisis that has eluded political consensus for two decades — if he wanted to save his party from slow-fuse political suicide.

The immigration wars since 9/11 have left Republicans searching for a formula that allows candidates to survive litmus tests from the right — they must oppose any legalization for lawbreakers — while at the same time heeding the calls from party strategists and business interests to make our wildly outdated immigration policies reflect the realities of the modern international world.

Mary Altaffer/Associated PressMitt Romney and Latino Coalition chairman Hector Barreto Jr., left, at the Latino Coalition’s 2012 Small Business Summit on Wednesday in Washington.

Romney dedicated much of the speech he gave to the Latino Coalition earlier this week to education, but here are five policy announcements — of varying degrees of political controversy — that Romney should wrap into a high-minded address on immigration and competitiveness that would capture the middle ground. While the details are important, the tone would be, too – most Americans are weary of bombastic talk radio rhetoric on this issue and are looking for thoughtful, bold leadership.

High-skilled immigration: Romney has already endorsed proposals that would allow more highly skilled scientists to enter the United States under temporary visas and to allow foreign students educated here to receive green cards to allow them to stay here and work. However, these proposals have been blocked in Congress by proponents of a broad amnesty that is a non-starter with most Congressional Republicans. Romney should demand passage of the high-skilled agenda before the graduation of the class of 2013 next spring produces another crop of international leaders, educated here in America, needlessly forced to return home to compete against us. If you graduate with an engineering degree from Stanford, we should staple a green card to your diploma.

Temporary travel: President Obama has seized travel as a means to create jobs in the service sector. He released a national strategy to cut visa wait times and endorsed an expanded list of countries from which tourists and business travelers can come to the United States without a full-fledged visa interview. Romney should build on these goals by promising to expand access to the United States to job creators by allowing visa interviews by videoconference and creating fast-track consideration for businessmen and women looking to purchase American goods, attend American trade shows, or purchase American medical services.

“Good Neighbor” visa: Romney opposes the Democratic version of the Dream Act, which would provide legal status and citizenship to those who arrived in the United States as children. What he needs to find instead is a class of immigrants whose continuing contributions to society are worth protecting. He should propose a new visa category of unlimited duration that allows “good neighbors” to remain in the United States without gaining any special advantage over those who have obeyed the law while seeking to become citizens. This “good neighbors” group would include individuals with a clean criminal record working in the military, in law enforcement, or as a first responder, people who are running businesses with at least 10 employees, or serving as clergy members or teachers. Hundreds of thousands of our neighbors in this “white hat” group are viewed sympathetically by all but the fringes of the American electorate. This would allow Romney to base his immigration policy on a person’s good behavior and contributions to society, rather than the circumstances of his or her arrival. Even those seeking a broader amnesty might see some merit in showing Americans the benefits of recognizing the contributions of immigrants who broke the rules to get here.

Enforcement: Romney has pretty much endorsed a kitchen sink approach to enforcement, but budget realities may complicate his ability to make major additional investments. It is clear that the most cost effective enforcement activity is to concentrate on criminal aliens via the Secure Communities fingerprint program and to implement new employer enforcement checks under the E-Verify program (in tandem with the Good Neighbor program). Even as President Obama has increased deportations, the undeniable truth is that mandating workplace checks is the only effective long-term approach to turning off the jobs magnet attracting illegal labor to this country.

“American Dream” constitutional amendment: The antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires the president to be born on American soil should be repealed. In becoming the first Western democracy to elect a racial minority to the highest office in the land in 2008, the United States once again demonstrated its “melting pot” quality to the world. Allowing any United States citizen, no matter where he or she was physically born, to run for president would send a similar signal that Americans care most about a person’s ideas and character, not race and origin. This goal would also put an appropriate and necessary end to the distraction of the Obama “birther” debate that has captured a sliver of the far right’s attention – most Republicans and moderate voters would embrace this “American Dream” proposal as a way to demonstrate their support of legal immigrants.

Wrapping these five policy announcements into a broader speech about how the United States needs the best talent possible to compete internationally would mesh well with Romney’s broader economic game plan. More urgently, it would reposition Romney for the general election fight by showing a different attitude on immigration and diversity issues. Getting out in front of the issue would also allow him to escape the current legislative debate over fine print of the Dream Act.

To be sure, wading into the immigration battle brings risk of attack from the right and from members of Congress who can coast to re-election in safe districts without worrying about demographic changes that affect national elections. However, unless Romney chooses to unveil a new immigration policy, the election returns coming in from states like Nevada, Colorado and Virginia on Nov. 6 may make this the first presidential election where the immigration issue denied the Republicans a victory well within their grasp.

C. Stewart Verdery Jr. served as lead immigration adviser for the 2008 presidential campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani and was assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security from 2003-2005.

View the original article here

Supreme Court hears arguments over Ariz. immigration law

WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court justices spent more than an hour Wednesday delving into Arizona's new immigration law, raising questions about the state's ability to implement federal immigration policy, how much power Arizona has to police its own borders, and how U.S. citizens and legal immigrants could be affected by the law.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Opponents of Arizona's immigration law rally outside of the United States Supreme Court during arguments Wednesday.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Opponents of Arizona's immigration law rally outside of the United States Supreme Court during arguments Wednesday.

The justices took sharp aim at a portion of the law that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of suspects they've stopped, detained or arrested if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the country illegally.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that forcing all of Arizona's local officers to request so many immigration checks would overwhelm federal officials, and interfere with the federal government's approach of focusing its efforts on the most dangerous illegal immigrants.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why the federal government would not want a state to assist in identifying illegal immigrants.

"It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not," Roberts said.

The Supreme Court will decide on four provisions of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, known as SB 1070, that have been blocked by federal courts. They are:

Section 2(B): Requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists they are in the country illegally.

Section 3: Makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants not to possess their federal registration cards.

Section 5(C): Makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work, apply for work or solicit work in any way, including making a "gesture or nod" indicating they are looking for work.

Section 6: Allows state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant when probable cause exists that they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

Source: USA TODAY research

The questioning grew so intense that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal justices on the court, told Verrilli to move on to another section. "You can see it's not selling very well," she said.

Kris Kobach, Kansas' secretary of State who has helped Arizona and other states write laws cracking down on illegal immigration, attended Wednesday's hearing and said he was surprised at how forcefully the majority of the justices seemed to attack the U.S. government's position.

"Arizona had a good day today," he said.

Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, which has sued Arizona and other states over their immigration laws, came out of Wednesday's hearing and said it's "foolhardy" to try to predict the way the Supreme Court justices will rule based on their questions.

"The justices had a lot of questions about … what's going to be the everyday life of people living under this law," she said. "We're hopeful."

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which passed in 2010, has become a flashpoint for the debate over how to enforce immigration in the U.S. and served as a blueprint for five other states that later adopted similar laws.

Four key provisions were blocked by a federal judge before the law took effect, leading to Wednesday's hearing before the Supreme Court. The cramped courtroom was filled for the oral arguments that lasted more than an hour. Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and the law's architect, former Arizona state Senate president Russell Pearce, sat near civil rights attorneys who have battled the state over the law for the past two years.

Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly asked why Arizona should be barred from policing its own state. After Verrilli argued that the Constitution grants the federal government exclusive powers to enforce immigration in the country, Scalia fired back.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Supporters of Arizona SB 1070 rally outside the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday.

"If, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power?" Scalia asked. "What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

Meanwhile, Justices Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy asked Arizona's attorneys whether the new law would unnecessarily prolong traffic stops and arrests of legal residents and U.S. citizens.

Dozens of protesters for and against the law rallied at the base of the court steps as police kept watch over the growing crowd.

Opponents of the law chanted "Hey ho, 1070 has got to go!" Members of church groups held a large sign that read "Standing on the side of love."

A smaller group of people supporting the law from the American Council of Immigration Reform held signs proclaiming "Thank you Arizona" and "SB1070 supports federal immigration law, President Obama doesn't."

Sponsors said the law was necessary because the federal government has failed to control the influx of illegal immigrants into the country, forcing states such as Arizona to grapple with the security concerns and high costs of educating and caring for illegal immigrants. They said the law simply empowered police and state officials to help enforce federal immigration laws.

Opponents said it unfairly criminalizes otherwise law-abiding people, opens the door for racial profiling of Hispanics legally in the country and forces state law enforcement to interfere with the intricacies of federal immigration policy.

Jim Shee, 73, of Phoenix, was among a group of Arizonans opposed to the law that held a press conference Wednesday in front of the court building before arguments began.

Shee, a U.S. citizen and a plaintiff against SB 1070, said he was stopped twice by law enforcement officers in Arizona in April 2010 while driving. He said he was asked for his papers and told he was stopped for looking suspicious.

"Unless SB 1070 is struck down, I fear I will continue to face racial profiling and discrimination by the state of Arizona simply because of my race and the way I look," he said.

Cochise County (Ariz.) Sheriff Larry Dever is a strong supporter of the law, and came out of the courtroom upbeat. He said the law provides critical tools for his deputies to combat illegal immigration in his county, and was pleased by what he heard on Wednesday.

"It's hard to read the justices, but I think we outshone the opposition by quite a bit," he said.

The court is expected to rule by June on the four provisions of the law:

•Section 2(B): Requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists they are in the country illegally.

•Section 3: Makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants not to possess their federal registration cards.

•Section 5(C): Makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work, apply for work or solicit work in any way, including making a "gesture or nod" indicating they are looking for work.

•Section 6: Allows state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant when probable cause exists that they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

The ruling could have far-reaching effects on the future of state efforts to combat illegal immigration, the daily lives of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants and, to some degree, the outcome of November's presidential election.

Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah passed laws in 2011 that mirrored Arizona's law. The enforcement provisions of those laws have been put on hold by federal judges, so the Supreme Court's decision will affect the fate of all those laws.

The expected June court ruling will raise the immigration debate just as the presidential debate kicks into the home stretch. With President Obama's re-election campaign and the Republican Party both launching their Hispanic outreach programs last week to reach an expected 12 million Hispanic voters, the ruling could energize voters on one, or both, sides of the debate.

Obama has called the Arizona law "misguided" and his Department of Justice sued the state. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and likely GOP presidential nominee, has embraced some of Arizona's efforts to combat illegal immigration and adopted the Arizona-inspired idea of making life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they choose to "self-deport."

The law's stated goal for the roughly 400,000 illegal immigrants living in Arizona is "attrition through enforcement" and aims to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens."

Immediately after the law's passage, an untold number of illegal immigrants fled the state. Protests sprang up from Phoenix to Chicago and the state was boycotted by a variety of entities.

Despite the vocal criticism, the law was viewed favorably by the people most closely affected by it: Arizonans. Sixty-four percent of residents supported the law, according to a Rasmussen poll conducted shortly after the bill was signed into law.

National polls also showed that a majority of Americans — 55% — supported Arizona's efforts, according to a Quinnipiac University poll taken shortly after the law was passed.

Arizona officials, including Brewer, have long insisted that SB 1070 is not an attack on Hispanics. The bill's authors have pointed out that the law prohibits officers from engaging in racial profiling, and Brewer said she went to great lengths to ensure that the law did not violate any civil rights.

"I was born in the Southwest. I grew up in the Southwest, and anybody that has lived here knows what diversity is. It's not like all of a sudden we wake up one day and we're bigots," Brewer said. "We go to school with a diverse population, in our churches, they marry into our families. But if you want to shut down debate, what do you do? You throw out the race card."

Contributing: Erin Kelly in Washington; Carolyn Pesce in McLean, Va.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Supreme Court weighs fate of Arizona's immigration law

WASHINGTON – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she didn't know what she was starting when she signed her name to the state's landmark immigration bill just over two years ago.

2010 photo by Ralph Freso, AP

Edward Pina protests Arizona's SB1070 immigration-enforcement law in Phoenix.

2010 photo by Ralph Freso, AP

Edward Pina protests Arizona's SB1070 immigration-enforcement law in Phoenix.

"I knew that it was going to be momentous, but to this extent, I had no realization," Brewer said.

On Wednesday, she will be sitting in the gallery of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices consider the fate of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which was considered the toughest state immigration enforcement law to date and served as the blueprint for five other states that followed suit the next year.

Supporters of the law say it was necessary because the federal government has failed to control the influx of illegal immigrants into the country, forcing states like Arizona to grapple with the security concerns and high costs of educating and caring for illegal immigrants.

Opponents say it unfairly criminalizes otherwise law-abiding people, opens the door for racial profiling of Hispanics legally in the country and forces state law enforcement to interfere with the intricacies of federal immigration policy.

By John Moore, Getty Images

Supporters of Arizona's immigration law SB1070 rallied at the state capitol building on July 31, 2010.

The Supreme Court's ruling, expected in June, could have far-reaching effects on the future of state efforts to combat illegal immigration, the daily lives of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants and, to some degree, the outcome of November's presidential election.

"This is the most important immigration case in a generation," said Warren Stewart, senior pastor at the First Institutional Baptist Church in Phoenix.

The Supreme Court will decide on four provisions of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, known as SB 1070, that have been blocked by federal courts. They are:

Section 2(B): Requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists they are in the country illegally.

Section 3: Makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants not to possess their federal registration cards.

Section 5(C): Makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work, apply for work or solicit work in any way, including making a "gesture or nod" indicating they are looking for work.

Section 6: Allows state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant when probable cause exists that they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

Source: USA TODAY research

Just a month after the court entered into the legal thicket that is health care in America, the justices will be taking up one of the nation's most vexing, political and cultural issues. Once again, the courthouse steps are expected to be crammed with people supporting both sides of the debate. The two gladiators of the health care debate will face off in a packed courtoom: U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli will argue for the federal government, and former solicitor general Paul Clement will defend Arizona.

This time, the court will be missing Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself presumably because of her work as solicitor general under President Obama. That sets up the potential for a 4-4 tie, which would give the U.S. a victory since the injunction originally imposed by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix, and upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, would stand.

The case is the culmination of growing frustration in states over the inability of Washington to agree on a way to handle the country's illegal immigrants — a consensus not reached since the Reagan administration. That has resulted in a complex web of state laws that have gone in wildly different directions.

By Tom Tingle, The Arizona Republic, via AP

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she didn’t know what she was starting when she signed her name onto the state’s landmark immigration bill just over two years ago.

Since Arizona passed SB 1070, Alabama adopted the toughest-in-the-nation mantle with its immigration law that required K-12 school officials to check the immigration status of all new students. On the other end of the spectrum, Rhode Island joined 12 other states that allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state college tuition. And somewhere in between, Utah adopted a law that adopts Arizona-style enforcement, but also provides for a permit for some illegal immigrants to legally work in the state.

A June court ruling will raise the immigration debate just as the presidential debate kicks into the home stretch. And with Obama's re-election campaign and the Republican Party both launching their Hispanic outreach programs last week to reach an expected 12 million Hispanic voters, the ruling could energize voters on one, or both, sides of the debate.

Obama's immigration record as president has been mixed. His administration has set records each year for the number of people it deports — nearly 400,000 last year. But it has focused deportation efforts on illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals, resulting in the highest percentage of deportees having criminal records last year (about 55%) in a decade.

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and likely Republican nominee, has called Arizona's efforts to combat illegal immigration by cracking down on businesses who hire them — but not the whole law — "a model" for the nation. He has also embraced the Arizona-inspired idea of making life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they choose to "self-deport."

A victory in Arizona v. United States would solidify either candidate's argument, but could inspire severe backlash, or support, from the ever-growing Hispanic electorate.

"It will be a seismic shift in the Latino community," said Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress, which opposes the Arizona law. "It will be known to every Latino in this country."

Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports Arizona's law, said a victory for the U.S. would be a tragic endorsement of Obama's "we won't and you can't" immigration policy and fire up supporters of the state efforts.

"That will weigh heavily on voters' minds," Dane said.

Years in the making

Arizona's 2010 immigration law may have caught many by surprise, but the state had been heading in that direction for years.

In 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits. The state passed an anti-human-smuggling act in 2005 to allow prosecutors to charge border-crossers with state crimes. And in 2007, Arizona passed a law aimed at denying work for illegal immigrants. All three laws were challenged by civil rights groups, but all were upheld by federal courts.

Then came Senate Bill 1070.

The law's stated goal for the roughly 400,000 illegal immigrants living in Arizona is "attrition through enforcement" and aims to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens." The law expanded the requirements for local and state police to check the immigration status of people, and created new state crimes punishing illegal immigrants.

Immediately after the law's passage, an untold number of illegal immigrants fled the state. Protests sprang up from Phoenix to Chicago.

The state was boycotted by a wide variety of entities, including the National Council of La Raza, the cities of Los Angeles, St. Paul and Boston, musicians including Rage Against the Machine and Kanye West, and even the Highland Park (Ill.) High School women's basketball team, which pulled out of a tournament in Scottsdale.

Activists unsuccessfully tried to get Major League Baseball to move the 2011 All-Star Game from Phoenix. The outcry grew so loud that some called for a boycott of AriZona Iced Tea, prompting the company to issue a statement reminding customers that they were still based in New York.

The Center for American Progress, which opposes Arizona's immigration efforts, estimated that the tourism-dependent state would lose an estimated $388 million over three years as as result of the boycotts and negative publicity the law generated.

The Department of Justice joined a group of civil rights organizations in lawsuits seeking to halt the law from going into effect. At that time, in April 2010, President Obama called the law "misguided" and said the provisions "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

Despite the vocal criticism, the law was viewed favorably by the people most closely affected by it: Arizonans. Sixty-four percent of residents supported the law, according to a Rasmussen poll conducted shortly after the bill was signed into law.

National polls also showed that a majority of Americans supported Arizona's efforts — 55% of Americans approved Arizona's law shortly after it was passed, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

On July 28, 2010, the day before the law was set to go into effect, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the main portions of the law from going into effect, starting the appeals process that led it to the Supreme Court.

Portions of law enforced

Still, Carlos Garcia, a 29-year-old native of Mexico who lives in Phoenix, said the remaining portions of the law, combined with those passed before it, have created a culture of fear in the state for both legal and illegal immigrants.

Garcia is a U.S. citizen, but he says most of his relatives are illegal immigrants. In the two years since SB 1070 went into effect, four of his relatives have been arrested — two have been deported, two remain in the country.

"There's this perception that everything is OK because 1070 is enjoined," Garcia said. "But people continue to be racially profiled, continue to be detained, continue to be deported."

Phoenix police Sgt. Trent Crump said his agency is definitely enforcing the remaining portions of the law.

For example, Phoenix police used to prevent its officers from investigating the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses. Crump said the department was forced to remove that restriction because another portion of SB 1070 allows citizens to sue government agencies, including police departments, if they are enforcing federal immigration laws "to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

The penalty is up to $5,000 a day.

"1070 doesn't allow a lot of interpretation," Crump said.

Russell McClurg, a barber in Apache Junction, Ariz., said the law is needed because the federal government had ignored the financial and security burdens thrust upon the state by an open border with Mexico.

"The only ones who seem to be sticking up for Arizonans are the Arizonans," said McClurg, 72. "You'd think the federal government would be more help, but they seem more interested in fighting us."

The clearest image of that battle came when Obama visited Arizona in January and met Brewer on the tarmac, where photographs showed the Republican governor pointing her finger at the president. Brewer later downplayed the scene, but her office has strongly defended the state's economic recovery since the immigration law was passed.

As of February, the state had added 42,6000 new, non-farm jobs over the previous year, and state revenues have increased 8.7% so far in 2012. The Arizona Office of Tourism found the state generated $17.7 billion in direct travel spending in 2010 — a 7.9% increase over the previous year. Brewer said there may have been a negative effect in the immediate aftermath of the law, but that the state has rebounded and the "Arizona comeback" is here.

"Businesses are coming. People are recruiting," Brewer said. "We should get a lot of kudos for what we've accomplished."

Arguments before high court

When the case goes before the Supreme Court, the justices will not be ruling on the entire law, but four provisions that were blocked.

That includes portions requiring police to check the immigration status of people during traffic stops and creating state crimes for illegal immigrants failing to carry proof of immigration or trying to solicit work.

In court filings, Arizona argues that the federal government has failed to adequately secure the border from illegal crossers, and that Arizona is bearing the brunt of that failure. The state says a third of the immigrants illegally crossing into the U.S. did so through Arizona and the "accompanying influx of illegal drugs, dangerous criminals and highly vulnerable persons, have resulted in massive problems for Arizona's citizens and government."

Arizona argues that it's not going beyond federal immigration laws, but only assisting the feds carry out their laws. Arizona attorneys point out that it's a federal misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to not possess their federal registration cards, and that creating a state law for the same crime is merely an attempt to help federal officials implement that law.

The Department of Justice counters that the federal government has gone to great lengths to crack down on illegal immigration. President Obama, continuing the policies of his predecessors, has continued funding enforcement along the Southwest border, resulting in more than 4,000 Border Patrol agents, 350 Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents and 40 Department of Homeland Security aircraft in Arizona alone.

And while some of the new Arizona laws may mirror federal laws, Justice attorneys argue that state and local police officers are not properly trained to implement them. Requiring them to understand complex federal immigration policies is unwise, they argue, and errors could lead to foreign relations problems.

"As the Framers understood, it is the National Government that has ultimate responsibility to regulate the treatment of aliens while on American soil, because it is the Nation as a whole — not any single State — that must respond to the international consequences of such treatment," the government's brief reads.

Predicting how the court rules could come down to a question of precedent versus politics, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law.

Chemerinsky said the U.S. should prevail if the justices stick to court precedent. He points to a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, where the court struck down a Pennsylvania immigration law that bears similarities to Arizona's, including the requirement that immigrants carry federal registration papers. The court ruled that immigration enforcement requires important foreign policy considerations, meaning states could not "conflict" or "complement" federal immigration efforts.

"If I just predicted based on law, SB 1070 should be deemed preempted and it should be a lopsided decision," Chemerinsky said. "But the politics are so intense and the Court is conservative."

Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas who has helped Arizona and other states craft their anti-illegal immigrant laws, disagrees with that assessment. He points out that Arizona is three-for-three in defending its recent laws in courts, and said that of all the laws, SB 1070 stands on the strongest Constitutional grounds.

He points to a 1976 Supreme Court ruling in De Canas v. Bica, in which the justices upheld a California law that created criminal sanctions against state employers who hired illegal immigrants. That precedent was backed up just last year, when the court ruled 5-3 in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting that Arizona could restrict business licenses for companies that knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

"What the court laid out was a roadmap," Kobach said of the De Canas v. Bica ruling. "If there's no conflict with any federal statue … then the state action is perfectly fine."

A debate over civil rights?

While the justices are expected to rule strictly on the four provisions in the law, many are viewing the case as a barometer of civil rights in America today.

"Despite the fact that this is, on legal terms, about the structure of government and specifically federal supremacy and the relationship between states and the federal government … this is clearly a civil rights case," said Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is one of the groups that sued Arizona.

Arizona officials, including Brewer, have long insisted that SB 1070 is not an attack on Hispanics. The bill's authors have pointed out that the law specifically prohibits officers from engaging in racial profiling.

Brewer said she went to great lengths to ensure that SB 1070 did not violate any civil rights and expressly forbade racial profiling. She said the reaction by some, where she and Arizona legislators have been branded as racists, has led to many sleepless nights.

"I was born in the Southwest. I grew up in the Southwest, and anybody that has lived here knows what diversity is. It's not like all of a sudden we wake up one day and we're bigots," Brewer said. "We go to school with a diverse population, in our churches, they marry into our families — but if you want to shut down debate, what do you do? You throw out the race card."

Kobach considers the Supreme Court case his "final exam." Kobach, as a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and in his current role as a Kansas state official, has helped states write and implement anti-illegal immigration laws around the country.

Kobach helped Arizona legislators craft the three previous immigration bills that have survived judicial scrutiny. And now he sees the ruling on SB 1070 as the final piece.

If the court rules in Arizona's favor, then it will "vindicate the work I've been doing for many years."

If not?

"Then I'll have to go back to the drawing board," he said.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Rubio's 'Dream Act Light' Jumbles Immigration Issue - Vermont Public Radio

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the son of Cuban immigrants, has urged his fellow conservatives to soften their rhetoric on illegal immigration. Above, he makes a campaign stop with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Monday in Aston, Pa.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spent the week in the spotlight as the latest potential running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The Hispanic lawmaker, anointed as the party's best hope for appealing to more Latino voters, came loaded for bear — rolling out an alternative to the Democrats' Dream Act.

Rubio has released few details of his plan to address illegal immigration, and says he wants to introduce a bill in the Senate in June. But, like the Democrat-backed version defeated by Senate Republicans in 2010, the legislation would help young people brought to the U.S. as children stay in the country legally if they attend college or serve in the military. By most estimates, between 800,000 and 1.2 million people would be eligible.

The key distinction between the Rubio and Democratic plans is in how people would be legalized. The original act would put people on a path to citizenship. Rubio's plan would stop short by issuing non-immigrant visas allowing recipients to remain in the U.S. for college or military service.

Rubio's critics say his plan would create a permanent second class of people unable to obtain the full rights of citizenship. Supporters, however, say visa recipients could still apply for citizenship through the existing process, which can take a decade or longer.

In contrast, Democrats say, their plan would naturalize people as citizens far sooner.

Rubio's Evolution On The Issue

Rubio's move is a departure from the hard line on illegal immigration he took while running for the Senate in 2010, angering many Hispanic groups who had hoped he would help push Republicans toward a pro-citizenship stance.

Rubio, 40, the son of Cuban immigrants, ran as a Tea Party favorite and avowed conservative. Since then, he has softened his position, having publicly urged fellow Republicans to tone down their hostile rhetoric about illegal immigrants before weighing in with his proposal.

With his considerable political talents, and hailing from an important presidential battleground state, Rubio has emerged as his party's most prominent Latino.

Hispanics' rapid population growth will give them a pivotal role in the 2012 elections, particularly in some battleground states. As a vice presidential candidate, or perhaps in some other prominent role in the Romney campaign, Rubio could help the Republican Party siphon Hispanic votes from the Democrats.

The political crosscurrents at play are dizzying. People on all sides of the immigration debate are closely watching Rubio assume the forbidding task of carefully crafting a proposal that meets several objectives: help repair the GOP brand among Hispanics; appeal to non-Hispanic independent voters who favor a path to citizenship; and upend President Obama and the Democrats' advantage on the issue, all without angering conservatives.

Here's a sampling of the wide range of opinions about Rubio's version of the Dream Act. This story continues below the graphic.

Obama seemed to derisively allude to the Rubio plan in a recent interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo: "This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways — they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment ... and then they come and say, 'But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it' — that looks like hypocrisy to me."

He's not the only presidential candidate who might feel pressure. Romney himself must consider whether to embrace Rubio's proposal and risk being lambasted again by conservatives and the Obama campaign as a flip-flopper. The last Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, lost to Barack Obama in part because he was unable to energize conservatives, who hadn't forgiven him for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which would have set a path to citizenship.

So far, reactions to the Rubio proposal have been mixed, even unexpected. For instance, some immigrant advocates who usually side with the Democrats on the issue have enthusiastically gotten behind Rubio, even though his plan appears to fall short of the original Dream Act. Their decision was made easier by their frustrations over Obama's failure to get the original act through Congress, as well as the record number of deportations processed by his administration.

View the original article here

Rubio's 'Dream Act Light' Jumbles Immigration Issue - NPR

Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the son of Cuban immigrants, has urged his fellow conservatives to soften their rhetoric on illegal immigration. Above, he makes a campaign stop with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Monday in Aston, Pa.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spent the week in the spotlight as the latest potential running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The Hispanic lawmaker, anointed as the party's best hope for appealing to more Latino voters, came loaded for bear — rolling out an alternative to the Democrats' Dream Act.

Rubio has released few details of his plan to address illegal immigration, and says he wants to introduce a bill in the Senate in June. But, like the Democrat-backed version defeated by Senate Republicans in 2010, the legislation would help young people brought to the U.S. as children stay in the country legally if they attend college or serve in the military. By most estimates, between 800,000 and 1.2 million people would be eligible.

The key distinction between the Rubio and Democratic plans is in how people would be legalized. The original act would put people on a path to citizenship. Rubio's plan would stop short by issuing non-immigrant visas allowing recipients to remain in the U.S. for college or military service.

Rubio's critics say his plan would create a permanent second class of people unable to obtain the full rights of citizenship. Supporters, however, say visa recipients could still apply for citizenship through the existing process, which can take a decade or longer.

In contrast, Democrats say, their plan would naturalize people as citizens far sooner.

Rubio's Evolution On The Issue

Rubio's move is a departure from the hard line on illegal immigration he took while running for the Senate in 2010, angering many Hispanic groups who had hoped he would help push Republicans toward a pro-citizenship stance.

Rubio, 40, the son of Cuban immigrants, ran as a Tea Party favorite and avowed conservative. Since then, he has softened his position, having publicly urged fellow Republicans to tone down their hostile rhetoric about illegal immigrants before weighing in with his proposal.

With his considerable political talents, and hailing from an important presidential battleground state, Rubio has emerged as his party's most prominent Latino.

Hispanics' rapid population growth will give them a pivotal role in the 2012 elections, particularly in some battleground states. As a vice presidential candidate, or perhaps in some other prominent role in the Romney campaign, Rubio could help the Republican Party siphon Hispanic votes from the Democrats.

The political crosscurrents at play are dizzying. People on all sides of the immigration debate are closely watching Rubio assume the forbidding task of carefully crafting a proposal that meets several objectives: help repair the GOP brand among Hispanics; appeal to non-Hispanic independent voters who favor a path to citizenship; and upend President Obama and the Democrats' advantage on the issue, all without angering conservatives.

Here's a sampling of the wide range of opinions about Rubio's version of the Dream Act. This story continues below the graphic.

Obama seemed to derisively allude to the Rubio plan in a recent interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo: "This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways — they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment ... and then they come and say, 'But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it' — that looks like hypocrisy to me."

He's not the only presidential candidate who might feel pressure. Romney himself must consider whether to embrace Rubio's proposal and risk being lambasted again by conservatives and the Obama campaign as a flip-flopper. The last Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, lost to Barack Obama in part because he was unable to energize conservatives, who hadn't forgiven him for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which would have set a path to citizenship.

So far, reactions to the Rubio proposal have been mixed, even unexpected. For instance, some immigrant advocates who usually side with the Democrats on the issue have enthusiastically gotten behind Rubio, even though his plan appears to fall short of the original Dream Act. Their decision was made easier by their frustrations over Obama's failure to get the original act through Congress, as well as the record number of deportations processed by his administration.

View the original article here