California Senate approves health care for undocumented immigrants

A proposal to expand health care to Californians in the country illegally cleared the Senate on Tuesday, passing on a 28-11 vote and heading to the Assembly.

Senate Bill 4 would allow undocumented immigrants to purchase health insurance on the state exchange, pending a federal waiver, and enroll eligible children under the age of 19 in Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for the poor. A capped number of undocumented adults would also be allowed participate, if additional funding is appropriated in the state budget.

“We are talking about our friends, we are talking about our neighbors and our families who are denied basic health care in the richest state of this union,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, the measure’s author. “Ensuring that every child in California grows up healthy and with an opportunity to thrive and succeed is simply the right thing to do.”

Debate got increasingly feisty as it turned into a discussion of stalled immigration reform efforts in Congress. Sen. Isadore Hall, D-Los Angeles, baited his Republican colleagues to support SB 4, calling their “excuses” not to support the measure “tools of the weak and incompetent.”

Republican Sens. Andy Vidak of Hanford and Anthony Cannella of Ceres, who both represent swing agricultural districts, joined Democrats in voting yes on the bill.

The bill aims to expand the scope of the federal Affordable Care Act, which prohibited undocumented immigrants from participating in any of the health insurance exchanges it established. Under SB 4, California would also be required to apply for a federal waiver to allow individuals to buy plans on the exchange regardless of immigration status, though those who are not citizens would not be eligible for assistance to pay for the coverage.

Lara scaled back the bill last week to help it get past the Senate Appropriations Committee, where a similar proposal was held last year.

SB 4 still faces a challenging road in the Assembly, and should it make to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, a signature is not guaranteed. Brown has expressed skepticism over the bill because of its high cost, estimated to be as much as $135 million annually.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article22904433.html#storylink=cpy

IMMIGRATION: Legality of effort to repeal Prop. 187 is questioned

Some California legislators are poised to repeal Proposition 187, a controversial 20-year-old initiative that was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court and never enforced. But law scholars question whether the elected officials have the legal authority to act on their own.

“The California Constitution says you can’t amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting it to the voters unless there’s a waiver clause,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes on election law.

Prop. 187, which sought to cut off public education, health care and welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants in California, had no such waiver, said John C. Eastman, a Chapman University Law School professor and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

“These guys are acting lawlessly,” Eastman said. “They’ll do it if they think they can get away with it and no one will challenge them.”

California voters approved Prop. 187 – also known as the “Save our State” campaign – in November 1994 with almost 60 percent approval. A federal court ruled most of the provisions unconstitutional, and the measure was not enforced. But some of the language remains embedded in various codes, including education codes.

Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said he learned of its existence in California codes accidentally. He was recently talking to his staff about his personal history and recounting how he “cut my teeth politically against the 187 campaign.” Chief of Staff Dan Reeves decided to look into the proposition and found it had not been removed.

“These code sections are unenforceable. The Legislature has the right and power and authority to maintain the codes with our statutes and that’s we’re doing,” Reeves said.

“Essentially, it’s code cleaning,” he said.

De Leon’s staff consulted with the state’s legislative counsel, Diane Boyer-Vine, whose opinion was that “it’s not necessary to go back to the voters,” Reeves said.

State Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, said unconstitutional laws should not remain on the books.

“The Constitution is the highest law of our nation, and I support any effort to remove any statute or language found unconstitutional,” he said.

Sen. Mike Morrell, a Rancho Cucamonga Republican who represents parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, said in a statement that he has not yet decided whether to vote for de Leon’s bill.

“I have not yet had a chance to review the specific language of the bill or the legal questions surrounding it,” he said.

Robin Hvidston, executive director of the anti-illegal-immigration We the People Rising and an Upland resident, urged legislators to keep the law in California codes.

“To me, it’s important because this was the direct voice of the people,” she said. “The people’s voice, the people’s will was overruled by the courts.”

She worried that stripping Prop. 187 language from state codes would set a dangerous precedent and lead to other voter initiatives being gutted.

But Maria Rodriguez, an activist with the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition, said passage of de Leon’s bill would be another signal by the Legislature that California is “an immigrant-friendly state.”

Immigration reform: CA GOP members not giving up

House Speaker John Boehner slammed the door on comprehensive immigration reform this week, saying House action on the bill already passed by the Senate is “not going to happen.” That's not stopping a pair of California Republicans from lobbying fellow GOP members on the issue.

Speaker Boehner repeated his stance that the House GOP would work on a "common sense, step-by-step" approach to immigration reform. He said he had "no intention of ever going" to a conference committee to reconcile whatever measures the House passes with the 1,300-page Senate bill.

Instead, Boehner said the House GOP would work on " a set of principles" that will help "guide" the GOP as it deals with the issue. He did not mention the piecemeal immigration bills put forth by House Republicans.

That hasn’t discouraged Central Valley GOP members Jeff Denham and David Valadao.

Both Congressmen are in heavily Latino districts. Both are co-sponsors of the Democrats' immigration bill, which is based on the Senate bill that passed the Judiciary Committee and includes the House version of a border security provision. In fact, Denham and Valadao are two of the three GOP members who back HR-15. 

Denham said he has convinced three more Republicans to back HR-15. The challenge, he says, is that health care, the fiscal crisis and a farm bill have taken precedence on Capitol Hill. He says any issue that does not have an exact timeline always gets moved. "Immigration is one of those issues," he said. "That’s one of the things that makes it difficult."

The duo is "whipping" the House floor, talking to members during votes, pushing HR-15. But Valadao said that's a "tough jump" for many members. So the pair is also pushing a letter to Speaker Boehner, urging him to take  up immigration reform. Valadao said he tries not to pressure people on any specific piece of language, urging a debate on the floor and the opportunity to vote. "Fix what they don’t like about each bill as it comes, but go through the legislative process."

On Friday, the head of the campaign arm of the GOP – the National Republican Congressional Committee – said it was his "guess" that the immigration debate would happen “later next year." Next year, of course, is an election year and immigration is one of those hot button issues politicos like to avoid.

Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the NRCC, dismissed the notion that immigration can't be tackled in an election year. He told a breakfast gathering of reporters that most members have already staked out positions on immigration "and what they can and cannot support going into it."

NRCC spokesman Daniel Scarpinato gave a preview of how the debate is likely to play out in one word: "Obamacare." Scarpinato says the Affordable Care Act is a cautionary tale, "kind of a warning signal of what happens when you don't have a lot of transparency, when people haven't read everything that's in the bill." 

Of Primary Concern: Immigration Reform Could Get New Life In 2014

WASHINGTON -- The consensus across the political spectrum is that GOP leaders would prefer to see comprehensive immigration reform passed, but rank-and-file House Republicans are reluctant to back any proposal that grants a pathway to citizenship, because doing so is the quickest route to a primary challenge from the right. That dynamic, it's said, will mean a long, slow death for reform.

But the pessimism around immigration reform misses a key difference between 2013 and 2014. The general election won't be until November 2014, but primaries are held in the spring and summer. The deadlines to get on the ballots for those primaries often come months earlier, meaning that at some point in 2014, the chance of a surprise challenge from the right goes to zero for all House members.

Far from being the death of immigration reform, some think the election year could breathe new life into the effort. The House will undoubtedly recess for August without passing an immigration bill; House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference last week they would focus on Obamacare, the IRS and gimmicky votes on government conference spending and public salaries.

The recess could very well jack up pressure on opponents of reform, as the most die-hard tea party activists make their voices heard at town halls -- a forum ripe for verbal challenges to incumbent members of Congress. That pressure to move even more right on immigration could further entrench tea party-backed congressmen, but it could also fuel the efforts of reform supporters. The potential less-than-politically-correct rants -- some from members of Congress themselves -- inevitably will make their way to YouTube, providing fodder for pro-reform activists who will use the clips to draw attention to their cause.

The fury already emanating from the Latino establishment and community in general over inaction on immigration reform will only heighten as the 2014 elections draw closer. Last week, Univision's Jorge Ramos, known as the "Walter Cronkite of Spanish-language media," lashed out at Boehner, comparing him to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It was perhaps the harshest insult that can be thrown around on that network, which for the last two weeks has been the most-watched channel in any language in the U.S. in the key 18-49 age demographic.

There will be scant opportunity for immigration reform in the fall, as a looming government shutdown, the approach of the debt ceiling and the festering sequester will combine to force themselves onto the agenda. In Congress, the fall quickly turns to Thanksgiving recess, which gives way even quicker to the Christmas break. And then it's 2014.

Sometime in the fall or early winter, the Republican-majority House is likely to pass some sort of legislation that toughens border security but includes no pathway to citizenship. Some conservative members are worried about passing any bill -- even if they support it -- because of the possibility it could go to conference committee and be combined with a Senate bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to eventually become citizens. But that concern doesn't seem to be the majority view, and House leadership expects to pass something to deal with immigration, even if not comprehensive reform.

If conference committee negotiators take several months to merge the small House bill with the comprehensive Senate bill, the House wouldn't be asked to vote on it again until next spring or summer -- by which point it will be too late for challengers to launch primary campaigns.

The bipartisan group Third Way, which supports reform and believes 2014 could be the year, has mapped out the filing deadlines for Republicans who are being targeted by advocates as potential supporters of a comprehensive bill. If House members vote on immigration reform after Dec. 9, there will be 10 Texas Republicans whom advocates believe to be persuadable who could be off the hook for a primary. California, where reform supporters hope to pick up 11 GOP members, has a primary filing date of March 7. In sum, there are 38 targeted Republicans -- including Boehner -- who will know by mid-March whether they have a primary challenger.

Only about half of those safe, gettable Republicans need to vote aye to get a simple majority in the House, assuming roughly 200 Democrats vote for passage.

The scenario laid out above is far from the most likely, according to many working on reform efforts. One advocate called the entire line of thinking "bananas," and most proponents, from Obama to lawmakers, have said reform must be done in 2013 or may not happen at all. Republican leadership aides have downplayed the possibility of passing comprehensive reform, though it's impossible to say whether they truly believe immigration reform is dead or are just talking it down to give Boehner more elbow room.

But Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, politics director for Third Way, said supporters of immigration shouldn't necessarily lose hope if there is a drawn-out process.

"There is a significant chunk of House Republicans that want to see something done on this, and the only thing that's holding them back is the fear of a primary challenger," she said. "So the closer we get to these dates and the less likely that primary challenger is to pop up unannounced, the easier it is for them to have their shackles off and do what they really think they should do for the party and for themselves."

Tamar Jacoby, working on behalf of reform for the pro-business group Immigration Works USA, said that the hypothetical timeline "[c]ould turn out to be right, or could be even later -- after another big Latino turnout in November 2014."

"But I'm not giving up on this year yet -- we have no idea yet where most members stand on the issues. I think the conventional wisdom is too pessimistic," he said.

If the House prefers to sidestep the immigration issue as the election approaches, they could come back and pass a bill during the lame duck session -- a period that has seen it's fair share of major legislation move through, including, as the recent movie "Lincoln" portrayed, abolition of slavery. Republicans who voted for "amnesty" in 2014 or in a lame duck wouldn't have to worry about a primary challenge until 2016. By that time, the radioactivity of the issue may have lessened. In 2007, Fox News drove conservative anger at reform efforts. This time around, many influential conservatives support reform, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox.

So tweeted Rupert Murdoch on Sunday night:

If the immigration issue has a shorter radioactive half-life than people expect, it might be old news by 2016 in some districts, as people look around and realize the sky didn't fall.

via HuffPost

Mass Incarceration & Immigrant Detention: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Saturday, June 29, 2013

10:00 am - 1:30 pm

Holman United Methodist Church

3320 West Adams Blvd - Los Angeles

RSVP Required: admin@justicenotjails.org

California farmers eager for immigration reform

At Chandler Farms, just outside of Selma in the San Joaquin Valley, about three dozen workers are needed each season to pick acres of delicate peaches, plums, nectarines and citrus.

In recent years, however, owners Carol and Bill Chandler have struggled to find laborers as immigration from Mexicohas slowed to a near standstill.

"When the crops are ripe, we need a reliable labor force," she said. "That's what we're worried about going forward."

The Chandlers are among the state's farmers who welcomed a move this week by Congress to make immigration reform a legislative priority this year.

But the promised changes may not be enough to solve their chronic labor problems, which have been exacerbated by deportations, a stronger Mexican economy and, in good times, the lure of construction jobs.

On Monday, a group of Republican and Democratic senators unveiled a blueprint that aims to grant legal status to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

President Obama also joined the fray Tuesday, urging Congress to move legislation along quickly this year.

Immigration reform has been a rallying cry among farm groups in California and around the country for years.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, roughly half of all hired crop farmworkers are in the country illegally. Of all workers, 7 of 10 are from Mexico, a country that has provided a steady supply of farm laborers to California since the middle of the last century.

With immigration reform back on the table this year, California farm groups are fiercely lobbying to make sure proposed legislation includes provisions for their workers.

There have been false starts in the past, including efforts by former President George W. Bush, who sought to create a guest worker program and overhaul immigration laws during his administration.

But the latest push to tackle the highly politicized issue is "one of the best signs we've seen in a long time," said Ken Barbic, senior director of government affairs for Western Growers in Irvine, a trade group that represents farmers in California and Arizona.

If Congress passes legislation, "the folks who are currently working here with false documents, it takes them out of the shadows," Barbic said.

Barbic added that immigration reform would remove legal liabilities for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Diego Olagaray, 51, who grows 750 acres of wine grapes in Lodi, just north of Stockton, said that granting legal status to the state's agricultural workers ensures that both farm hands and employers would be able to breathe a little easier.

"Some of these workers go back to Mexico on a regular basis," Olagaray said. When they travel, "they're fearful of something happening to them. With amnesty, it'll make them feel more comfortable. They'll also feel that they're part of society.… And it will make it easier for employers as well."

Olagaray said that if immigration isn't resolved soon, labor shortages will become more pronounced. Last spring, he said he had trouble filling his usual crew to work on his vineyard, and other growers saw ripe crops languish in the fields.

Still, any policy effort may do little to solve the labor shortage for California farmers, said Edward Taylor, a professor of agriculture and resource economics at UC Davis.

Such shortages predate the recession. During boom times, contractors persuaded many workers in the fields to work in construction jobs, according to farmers and Taylor, who recently co-wrote a study that examined the decline in the number of farmworkers from Mexico.

A key finding in Taylor's study was that more immigrants were staying home to work on Mexico's farms. They were taking advantage of a strengthening Mexican economy and a growing middle class that ramped up agricultural production.

Now, American farmers find themselves competing for a dwindling supply of workers.

"Immigration policy stops being a solution if you can't find workers," Taylor said.

Farmers in California have already begun adapting to the drying supply of laborers.

Growers, for instance, have swapped out labor-intensive crops such as tomatoes and peaches for less labor intensive ones such as tree nuts.

Almonds, which were the second-most valuable crop in California in 2011, were ranked No. 11 in 2000. Sales of almonds have skyrocketed from $682,000 to $3.9 billion during that time period, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Technology is also playing a role. Using robots that shake loose crops from trees, farmers have been able to cut back on labor costs.

Paul Wenger, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers are well-aware that their industry is changing.

And although he agrees that a dwindling labor supply will cause problems further down the line, he said Congress should still pass immigration reform that will allow farmers to hire legal farmworkers.

"Within the next two decades, we're going to have a problem. A domestic workforce will not want to work in the fields," he said. "It's going to be a problem. But that still doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the problems that exist today."

via LA Times