David M. Elliott and John R. Anderson are Directors at Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., a full-service law firm in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Mr. Elliott chairs his firm’s immigration practice. They hope to have meaningful discussions of current events of legal significance.
Dave:
John, let’s talk about immigration, obvi-
ously a hot-button issue. While a lot of people are upset at Congress’ recent lack of productivity, the Senate actually passed a comprehensive immigration Bill. The House of Representatives does not seem eager to address immigration reform comprehensively. What is going on in the House?
John:
The government must address the needs and concerns of those people who are properly citizens of the United States. A thoughtful, methodical process to address the issues that are legitimate concerns is a more effective process than passing a massive “comprehensive” immigration bill to just get started. All legislators must understand what is in immigration legislation, and how it works, unlike how Congress passed healthcare.
Dave:
But if the majority of Americans are in favor of comprehensive reform, why address it piecemeal? I understand many of the Republican Congressmen want to secure our borders first. Thanks to our own Senator Corker, the Senate Bill allocates billions toward protecting our borders. But will our borders ever really be totally secure?
John:
Dave, more people favor fiscal reform for the government, but the Senate is unwilling to act. The Senate took four years to just pass a budget. Border security is doable. So is requiring employers to verify all new hires as U.S. citizens and increasing the number of visas for legal immigrants who have advanced skills in technology and science. We should get our financial house in order first.
Dave:
The Senate immigration Bill addresses these items. If the House was to at least get something close, then maybe the “sausage would get made” and we could get something to become law, helping millions of families and legitimizing millions of potential productive citizens. If not, don’t the Republicans in the House risk further alienating Latino voters, which could help Democrats in Presidential and other elections?
John:
“Close enough for government work” is not acceptable. The House should put its best product forward first to enter into the negotiations for compromise with the Senate. Then, an immigration reform process can be established that first is fair to current citizens and, second, allows immigration in a manner that does not unduly strain available government resources. Immigration reform should not be approached by either party on whether it costs them voters or wins them voters.
Dave:
I agree with your last point. But whether one is a “D” or an “R,” to me it makes sense to try to handle this issue now. Given the number of laws passed by this Congress, and the fact that immigration appears to be a divisive issue, I just don’t have faith that our legislators will risk political capital to address this issue again anytime soon.
John:
Our government has allowed a situation to exist and persist involving illegal immigrants. Now, we have a “crisis.” Government has been unwilling to enforce our laws. Does this proposed reform reward or encourage illegal activity? Will government ignore new laws as it has past laws? Is the immigration debate about the fair and right process, or is it about jockeying and maneuvering by one party for political capital? Handle our financial “crisis” first.
Dave:
Maybe that can be our next topic.
Send your questions or comments to David Elliott at delliott@gkhpc.com or call him at 423-752-0584.