Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is expected to push for heavy immigration enforcement as chairman of the House immigration subcommittee next session. (Tina Fultz/ZUMApress.com)

During his campaign for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama made the now-broken promise to Latino supporters that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first year as president. But in remarks to the press on Wednesday, after Republicans took control of the House and won back several seats in the Senate, talk of immigration reform was noticeably absent.

Democrats will still hold a majority in both chambers during the lame-duck session, when leaders hope to pass the DREAM Act to give some undocumented young people and military service members legal status. But after January, immigration reform efforts that include paths to legal status for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States seem next to impossible, meaning the next few years will see little progress for immigration reform advocates.

“The new leaders of the House have made it clear that they’re going to continue to push an enforcement-only strategy,” said Mary Giovagnoli, director of pro-reform Immigration Policy Center. “It’s going to be a hard couple of years.”

The Republicans ushered into power in the midterms favor tight border security, strict enforcement and policies that would allow states, along with the federal government, to police immigration. Many campaigned on hard-line immigration positions that cost them support among Latinos, but won backing from the broad segments of the population that approve of illegal immigration crackdowns like Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

In short, Republicans who won on Tuesday hold radically different views on tackling illegal immigration from the president and Senate Democrats. Prospects are bleak for anyone who hopes to see meaningful change on immigration policy: A Democratic Senate will have trouble getting immigrant-friendly measures past the House, while the House will have trouble getting enforcement-only measures past the Senate — or the president’s desk. The result will likely be more of the same on immigration policy.

There are a few areas where Republicans have brought forth proposals to reform the immigration system. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who is expected to take over as chairman of the House’s immigration subcommittee, plansuse his leadership position to call in Obama administration officials and question them on immigration enforcement, claiming “they’re not enforcing the laws.”

It’s a common argument from Republicans, who have repeatedly accused the Obama administration of taking a lax approach. After reports that immigration courts were throwing out deportation cases for illegal immigrants who were deemed non-dangerous or had pending citizenship applications, the seven current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committeesent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano demanding to know how much it would cost to find and deport every illegal immigrant in the country.

“[Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has cited a lack of resources as one of the reasons for its prioritization of cases and for its selective enforcement,” the Oct. 21 letter reads. “But to date, we have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding. … As a result, it appears that your Department is doing the very thing that we have raised concerns about in several letters – allowing illegal aliens to evade the law.”

If Republicans attempt to force increased immigration enforcement, it would require a huge increase in funding for ICE. The agency currently receives$2.6 billion from Congress each year to detain and remove illegal immigrants. ICE Chief John Morton says this budget allows the agency to deport about 400,000 people per year — a number it approaching this year. Deporting the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, then, could cost as much as $70 billion.

Of course, most Republicans don’t advocate a deportation-only method to decreasing illegal immigration numbers in the country. GOP members also say they hope to pass legislation to eliminate possible incentives for foreigners to stay in the country by cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, eliminating the few social services illegal immigrants can receive and in some cases even eliminating citizenship for children born in the country to undocumented parents.

A GOP-led initiative to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants under the 14th Amendment received support from 95 House members in 2009, although the bill never made it out of committee. Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution, the bill would create a statute limiting citizenship to children with at least one parent in the country legally.

King plans to push for the bill again in the next session of Congress, where support for the measure will be even stronger. King insists the bill is both legal and necessary to stop the “anchor baby” phenomenon — the idea that illegal immigrants come to America and have children in order to gain legal status — which most immigration experts agree does not exist because citizens cannot petition for legal status for their families until they are adults.

Expanding E-Verify, a controversial program that allows employers to check the immigration status of potential employees, is another likely priority for the Republican-led House. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who is expected to head the Judiciary Committee, co-sponsored a bill to make use of E-Verify mandatory for all employers. (Federal agencies and contractorsare already required to use the program.)

Of course, House Republicans cannot enact any laws without the support of Obama or the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is unlikely to risk angering Latino voters by passing enforcement-only immigration measures. But even if it means gridlock, House leaders seem committed to blocking comprehensive immigration reform.

“The best solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to enforce current laws,” Smith told the Chicago Tribune last week. “Attrition through enforcement can reduce the number of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.”

The Phoenix New Times provides a comprehensive — and long — look at these criticisms in a piece today on border crossers who plead guilty as part of Operation Streamline.

The whole piece is worth a read, but I’ll break it down into the concerns it raises about Operation Streamline:

Cost: It’s unclear exactly how much Operation Streamline costs, because it pulls money from various involved agencies rather than having its own budget. But studies have found the program could cost as much as $1 billion per year. Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans,have argued for additional funding of Operation Streamline as part of their proposed 10-point border security plan.

Strategies: In part due to the high cost of prosecuting so many migrants, an Operation Streamline court in Tuscon, Ariz., only sees 70 of the 1,000 migrant apprehensions per day. The Phoenix New Times reported the group of 70 migrants is generally about 70 percent first-timers and 30 percent migrants who had been apprehended for crossing the border before — meaning they face felony illegal re-entry and misdemeanor illegal entry. The punishments for these offenses are very different: Misdemeanor illegal entrants can serve as few as three days, while felony illegal re-entry can earn a migrant up to twenty years in prison.

What happens to the approximately 930 migrants apprehended each day but not chosen for Operation Streamline hearings? They are sent back to Mexico, which means some migrants who re-entered illegally — the criminal illegal immigrants the Department of Homeland Security claims are its priority — are passed over by the supposedly “zero tolerance” program.

Operation Streamline courts also see a fair number of people who were apprehended on their way back to Mexico, which critics argue is a Border Patrol tactic to drive up enforcement data. “They’re boosting [the Border Patrol's apprehension] numbers,” Federal Public Defender Matthew Johnson told the Phoenix New Times, “by arresting the people going southbound.”

Effectiveness: The piece also points to concerns about the effectiveness of Operation Streamline as a deterrent. While proponents of the program argue it will keep migrants from crossing the border illegally, this seems to not fully be the case — at least anecdotally. The Phoenix New Times spoke to many migrants who were prosecuted under Operation Streamline who said they planned to return to the United States. While Border Patrol claims there is little recidivism, the possibility that migrants return without detection means actual data on illegal return is hard to come by. Overall, experts argue the program lacks consistent review and oversight to ensure it’s doing its job.

Justice: Operation Streamline courts usually operate through mass hearings, where a public defender represents a large number of clients and judges issue questions and decisions en masse.  Defendants sign away their right to an individual judge to enter Operation Streamline, because the process promises to be much faster: a couple of days in jail, typically, rather than months awaiting a trial. Still, critics argue the program creates criminal prosecutions without adequate defense (many defendants cannot communicate with their public defender due to language barriers) and unjust court procedures.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he hopes the border security bill will convince Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform. (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

The Senate on Thursday passed a $600 million bill for border security, providing funds for 1,500 new enforcement agents and additional unmanned drones along the border.

The bill has a convoluted history. It originally passed the Senate last Thursday, but was restarted in the House on Tuesday due to a jurisdictional problem with its funding. (The bill is funded through increases to visa fees for companies that provide temporary skilled worker visas for large numbers of workers.) Only two senators, Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), were present today for a brief session to conduct the vote.

“This bill is enormously important because it will clear the path for the bipartisan discussions we need to have about our immigration system,” Schumer said at the vote today.

But immigrants’ rights advocates aren’t happy with the Democrats for pushing more harsh enforcement over comprehensive reform — and proponents of tougher immigration policies said the bill won’t convince them Obama and the Democrats are serious about securing the border.

“You can make the argument that it can reinforce the Obama administration efforts to disentangle the border issues from the immigration issues,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the pro-reform Immigration Policy Center, told The Independent. “But that’s probably not how it’s going to play out.”

The bill will have tangible effects on border enforcement. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last week the bill will provide “important, permanent resources” to improving border security. Of the $600 million, $175.9 million will go to hiring additional border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border. Another $32 million will go to purchasing and deploying unmanned drones along the border. The bill also includes funds specifically directed at maintaining safety, with $30 million for law enforcement activities targeted at reducing the threat of violence in border states.

Still, for those who would like to see tougher immigration enforcement by the Obama administration, the border security bill doesn’t do enough. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform, said the bill is an attempt to distract from the fact that the DHS has “basically gutted interior enforcement.”

“They’re trying to do something that makes for a good photo-op at the border, but it doesn’t fully address the problem,” Mehlman told The Independent.

Republicans who once supported immigration reform, such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.), have moved further right. Graham is now calling for a reconsideration of the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to babies born in the United States to foreign parents, while McCain has said border security must be improved before he will consider supporting any other immigration reform.

Spokesmen for Graham, McCain and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) did not respond to requests for comment.

The bill is unlikely to “have any effect” on Republicans support for the DREAM Act or other paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants already living in the United States, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies.

“If that’s what [Democrat leaders] had in mind, they’re going to be disappointed,” he told The Independent. “The border hasn’t been secured, they just passed a piece of legislation. Until border control measures have been not only legislated but fully litigated, you can’t even start a discussion on legalization.”

As Republicans move to the right on immigration, advocates for comprehensive reform argue the border security bill indicates Democrats are being dragged with them.

“Republicans have falsely and in bad faith used border security to whip up their base in the run up to the fall elections,” Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, said Tuesday. “They’ve blocked real reform and are demanding an endless and fruitless focus on pure enforcement. Unfortunately, Democrats have taken the bait and fallen into the trap.”

Some argued the border does not need amped up security because residents already feel safe there, according to a poll released Tuesday. The four-question poll commissioned by the Border Network for Human Rights surveyed residents of 10 communities along U.S.-Mexican border about their feelings of safety. About 70 percent said they believe they are as safe as they are elsewhere in the country.

Sheriff Richard Wiles of El Paso County, Tex., said on a conference call about the poll that previous efforts to amp up border security were sufficient.

“I do think that resources are misdirected at the border,” he said. “We have had a significant increase and I think they’ve done a great job, but now is the time to look at the real issues and put the resources toward the issues that are really affecting our communities.”

In 2006, George W. Bush ordered thousands of National Guard troops to help patrol the border. Earlier this year, Gov. Bill Richardson ordered National Guard troops to the border in New Mexico.

U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich

A regulatory overhaul of the financial industry is probably the next thing Congress will tackle, Congressman Martin Heinrich said Wednesday in an interview in Albuquerque.

President Obama outlined a major financial reform plan last summer (The Wall Street Journal has highlights), and public sentiment would seem fertile for a move to reign in big banks.

Heinrich said Tuesday he’s “optimistic that we will have a Wall Street reform bill in the next couple of months.”

But as Time’s Michael Grunwald noted today, reform is “Far From a Done Deal in Congress.”

Heinrich noted that the House passed a financial reform bill last year, but said there was “no coverage of the most fundamental financial reforms in 80 years” from the media — because the media was covering the health care debate going on in the Senate.

The Senate has been working on the financial reform bill for months and some speculate that the bill may be bogged down by the same Republican opposition that delayed health care reform for months. Although the Senate Finance Committee passed a version of health care reform legislation in October of 2009, it was not until Christmas Eve that the Senate voted on the bill. And the final piece of the legislation was not passed until March of this year.

If and when a financial reform bill passes the Senate, that version would have to be reconciled with the House version.

A similar timeline confronts immigration reform, which Heinrich said he thought probably wouldn’t come up anytime soon.

“I think the timeline is very challenging for [immigration reform] to happen before November,” Heinrich said. Since 2010 is an election year, there will be less time for Congress to work; every House seat and more than one-third of Senate seats are up for election this year.

Heinrich, however, said “the sooner we do it, the better” because he believes immigration reform is “long overdue.”

Asked about security along the U.S.-Mexico border, Heinrich said he was concerned about the rising level of violence. “I’m not worried about the border. I’m worried about the whole country. …”There is a level of violence there now that we haven’t seen in North America in the past,” Heinrich said.

The border wall is poised to replace a barbed wire fence on Tamez's Texas property.

ALBUQUERQUE — Even though Dr. Eloisa Tamez calls Texas home, she was in New Mexico Thursday afternoon when she got some unwanted news.

In the name of border security, the federal government served her condemnation papers on part of the border-land that’s been in her family for generations.Tamez, who was in town for an academic conference, told NMI that her attorneys emailed her about the condemnation order earlier in the day.

As President Obama traveled to Mexico this week, many folks were focusing on hotly debated security threats coming from Mexico. But the Tamez case illustrated to others why New Mexicans ought to be paying as close attention to what’s happening just across the border in Texas by the U.S. government itself.

Tamez, a University of Texas at Brownsville professor of nursing, owns three acres of land in El Calaboz, Texas,  “just up the river” from Brownsville. The property is a remnant of what her family once owned — but one that has a lot of meaning for her.

What many may not realize is that in Texas the federal government is using eminent domain powers to take private property of U.S. citizens north of the border in order to build the so-called border wall, often effectively cutting property owners off from their land south of the newly constructed wall.

The massive wall being constructed along the U.S./Mexico border does not sit on the actual border, which in Texas is the Rio Grande.

Tamez’s land was once part of the San Pedro de Carricitos Land Grant, created by the King of Spain in 1767. While it was handed down to Tamez through many generations, her heritage on the land actually predates even the land grant, she explained. Tamez’s ancestors include tribal members of the indigenous Lipan Apache.

And now, the federal government wants to cut her off from most of her land.

That’s because her property sits square in the path of the authorized border wall. Tamez has been fighting the efforts of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to condemn and  bisect her land with the wall since 2007 — one of the last hold-outs in her community.

She’s tried to meet the government half way, she said, offering to replace a barbed wire fence on her property with a 10-foot wall. And she’s asked for an opening in the wall that would allow her to access what would be over half of her  land south of the wall. She said she hasn’t received a response from the government.

While government officials have told Tamez that the wall will only take a quarter of an acre of her land, she said, Tamez totals the loss much higher —  more than half of the land will be gone because there will be no access to it. Nor will it be worth much on the market if she’s forced to sell, she added.

And, as she learned yesterday, time is running out. She was in Albuquerque to give a presentation on the very topic Thursday at the Western Social Sciences Association Conference at the University of New Mexico. That is when she learned she had been served with the  condemnation notice by the feds.

Eloisa Tamez shows slides about her struggle to keep her border-straddling land intact (Photo by Marjorie Childress)

When it comes to the land condemnations in Texas, maps of the location of the new walls show them running through many lower-income, Mexican American communities, Tamez said.

This is easily seen on the ground as well, she said, with the wall stopping at wealthy resorts with golf courses.

“They choose our communities because immigrants blend in,” she said. “But that’s stereotyping and discriminatory. Not to mention, un-American.”

Tamez said she had hoped things would be different with President Obama, but that’s not been the case so far.

“They talk about cultural sensitivity, but have ignored us and continued to move forward with the contracts to build the wall,” she elaborated.

“I’m appalled that the president right away said this country would stop the torture and close Guantanamo. But what does he call what’s happening to us? Do we not count?”

Other participants at the WSSA Conference, when hearing about the condemnation notice delivered to Tamez, said New Mexicans should sit up and take notice.

Cynthia Bejaranos, a professor of criminal justice at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, said the land condemnations in Texas are a trend in the “de-constitutionalization” of border communities.

“I’m a fourth generation U.S. citizen who grew up in Anthony, and have been a resident of the border region my entire life,” she told NMI. “The institutional law enforcement presence with associated police tactics and surveillance has grown massively, with serious implications for the human rights of our Mexican-American communities.”

“I have to go through a checkpoint every time I leave Las Cruces, in any direction,” she continued. “These measures are in the name of border security, but over the past 20 years I’ve seen little to warrant it. And this condemnation of private land in other parts of the southwest are part of the trend — many of us wonder if it’s the next thing we’ll have to deal with.”