|
o |
|
WASHINGTON (By Billy House and Susan
Carroll, Arizona Republic) — Rep. J.D. Hayworth,
R-Ariz., introduced on September 29, 2005 when he was still a
congressman a sweeping immigration enforcement
bill that would have created a new national Social Security card, crack down
on employers who hired undocumented workers and brought a moratorium on
immigrant visas for Mexican citizens.
Although the provisions of the bill were well-received by some
proponents of greater immigration control, they were widely assailed by
immigration attorneys, advocates for undocumented immigrants and privacy
watchdogs.
The Enforcement First Immigration Act of 2005 laced together in one
package new and old proposals.
It represented what Hayworth and other U.S.
House anti-immigrant conservatives hoped would have been their signature core principles in any
immigration reform bill agreed upon by Congress.
"The hope is that my model of enforcement will be a blueprint where the
majority . . . can come together," Hayworth said of the 113-page bill he
detailed at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Increasing enforcement
Hayworth joined several other Arizonans in producing his own major legislation targeting immigration reform, a key issue for their state, which is the gateway for most of the illegal immigration into the United States.But Hayworth's bill, unlike other immigration legislation introduced this session, would reduce the number of visas available, particularly for Mexican citizens.
It included provisions that historically have proved controversial, such as putting the military on the border, doing away with the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution ending automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil and authorizing an estimated 700,000 state and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law.
The proposed legislation also would have make voting in a foreign election without approval from the secretary of State a felony.
Critics found plenty to fault in the legislation.
"I don't expect this is going to be taken particularly seriously on Capitol Hill," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that pushes for more legal immigration. "The debate has moved far beyond where Representative Hayworth is."
Kelley charged that Hayworth's bill mistakenly tries to stop illegal immigration by restricting legal immigration.
"I think there's some enforcement provisions in here that might make sense, but they can't be absent an overall reform," she said.
"It guarantees our illegal immigration population will swell because it shuts off the narrow legal channels that now exist."
Employer accountability
Hayworth's bill would have dedicated thousands of agents and local law
enforcement officers to identifying and deporting undocumented
immigrants, while increasing the fines for employers who flouted the
law.
Under Hayworth's bill, hiring one undocumented immigrant could have resulted in
a penalty of up to $50,000 and a jail term of up to one year.
"It creates a verifiable means for employers to check if somebody is
legal to hold a job, and if they fail to observe those procedures, there
is a serious fine involved.
Lynn Marcus, director of the University of Arizona Immigration Law
Clinic, said the proposed legislation was a "monster" with "many heads,"
alluding to the number of controversial provisions.
'Could be a disaster'
"Any piece of this could have been a disaster," she said.The bill took a chapter from the CLEAR Act, which proponents have said could add as many as 700,000 law enforcement officials to the battle against illegal immigration.
Crime victims
The CLEAR Act
has faced opposition from many law enforcement and union leaders across
the country, including in Arizona, who fear undocumented immigrants will
not come forward to report crimes.
The bill's thrust stood in starkest contrast to bipartisan legislation
also introduced in the Senate and House.