Conservatives for CIR Conference Call

May 12, 2010

Juan Hernandez: Conservatives for CIR, a loose coalition of groups, is pushing conservatives to engage in CIR conversations with the hope of creating a strategy for achieving it. We have many well-known evangelical leaders on the call today, but we will begin with a discussion by Sen. Charles Schumer.

Sen. Schumer: I have good and bad news. The bad news is that the immigration system is broken and causing pain to many in your congregations. The good news is that we know how to fix the system. I have been working with Sen. Graham for over a year and now have a plan. We know that recent public discourse reflects an increasing hostility toward immigrants. I think the fact that we now have support from Baptists, Catholics and others shows this is not just a Latino issue and that CIR is possible.

We are close to getting business and labor together on a compromise, but we need your help in getting bipartisan support for moving ahead this year. No one has criticized my proposal as amnesty but we are told that there will be no bipartisan discussion until the border is secured. That’s a talking point, not a solution. It is clear that nothing we do will be enough for those who oppose CIR. It’s also clear that there aren’t enough votes in the House or Senate Judiciary Committee to pass a piecemeal “secure the border first” bill. Only CIR can pass but we need the help of Republican Senators. We need them to sit in a room and talk. We can pass it this year if they want to help.

Question: Why are Republican Senators taking a “secure the border first” approach?

Sen. Schumer: The public wants the borders to be secured. We have already placed tremendous resources on the border. The only way to stop illegal immigration is to tell employers that they can no longer hire illegal immigrants. The biometric Social Security card I have proposed will stop 90 percent of illegal employment. But this is only part of the solution. We have to pass CIR. Even Dobbs and O’Reilly have made supportive statements about my plan. It’s a moderate bill. The public viewed the one in 2007 as not being tough enough on illegal immigration.

Hernandez: The other speakers on the call signed on to an ad that will appear in Roll Call on Thursday.

Rev. Leith Anderson (NAE President): We have surveyed our churches and found support for CIR. This led to signing on to a resolution with other evangelical groups last year. We think the ad will help show that framing the discussion as amnesty vs. deportation is a fake choice. We need to find a real solution that gives dignity to people living in the shadows.

Richard Land (Southern Baptist Conference): My organization has been calling for CIR for years. We passed a resolution in 2006 urging Congress to address the immigration crisis. The federal government has failed to address it. Yes, we want to secure the borders but this doesn’t mean we want closed borders. We need to control the borders. We can create a system that institutes fines and makes sure immigrants go to the back of the line. We have to remember that people broke the law to work.

The Arizona law is not a solution. It’s a symptom of the problem. I have been told there are attorneys waiting to use it to defend drug dealers with discrimination claims.

CIR is not amnesty. Anyone who says that needs a course in remedial English. Amnesty is what President Carter gave to draft dodgers. We can pass a law that secures the border first and uses metrics to trigger when the pathway will start.

Matt Staver (Liberty Council): We need a just solution for those living in the shadows. The solution is not amnesty. Nor is it deportation. We need an earned residency or earned citizenship. We need a program for legal guestworkers. I want to ask those labeling CIR as amnesty to stop their labeling.

Rev. Samuel Rodriquez (Hispanic Evangelicals): The fact that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law doesn’t surprise me. What surprises me is that they understand it will lead to racial profiling. We have something to decide. Is conservatism a movement just for white people? Does conservatism want to disenfranchise Hispanics like it did Black people? You need to understand the future of the conservative movement lies in the Latino population. The future of the conservative movement lies in just immigration reform.

Rev. Marcos Witt (Lakewood Church Hispanic Ministry): CIR is not a civil right issue. It’s a human rights issue, a moral rights issue. We have been active in trying to teach Hispanics in our congregation to talk to Senators and tell their stories. There are many who are trying to talk to conservatives and teach them why CIR is important. Grover Norquist is one conservative for spoke on behalf of CIR. He rejects the notion that CIR is not a conservative issue. I have been asking my Senators in Texas — Cornyn and Hutchison — to sit down at the table and discuss CIR. We need it passed this year. I also have been calling for a cessation of the raids that are tearing families apart. That is not our country. We are a country that embraces hospitality.

Pastor Kevin McBride (Raymond Baptist Church, Southern N.H.): Families all over the world are being broken apart by our immigration system. It goes against our pastoral teachings. I have been reaching out to Senator Judd Gregg and asking him to begin a dialogue.

Hernandez: Now we will take questions from the media.

Question (McAuliffe, NY Daily News): How do you view Sen. Schumer’s plan in light of the political atmosphere on the right which is focusing on enforcement first?

Anderson: Only solving one piece of the problem will unbalance the situation. We may not agree with everything in Sen. Schumer’s plan but it is a place to start.

Question (Gutman, Yahoo News): What are your specific plans for lobbying and who are you targeting?

Witt: I have approached Sen. Cornyn because he is from Texas like me and led CIR efforts in the past. He is a natural to come to the table because he was involved previously. Sen. Graham needs to come back to the table. I also have talked to Sen. Lugar.

Land: This is going to take leadership. We need to remember that President Bush made CIR a campaign issue in 2000. Then he got sidetracked by 9/11 and didn’t come back to it until his second term. A number of different Senators can be involved now. There are people on the other side saying Sen. Schumer’s plan is too tough. I know CIR is possible because the polls say Americans support a plan that secures the border and includes a pathway.

Staver: There is a broad consensus that we need to secure the borders and prevent employers from hiring the undocumented. This doesn’t mean we have to push them back across the border. When a pathway is labeled as amnesty, it clouds the issue. We now need to focus on this mislabeling so we can build consensus among the American people.

Question: Why are more evangelical groups getting involved now?

Land: Many have been involved. The media are just paying more attention now because the Arizona law passed. I am concerned that parts of the conservative coalition are mislabeling CIR as amnesty. As I said before, they need a course in remedial English.

Question: Are there some segments of the evangelical community that haven’t signed on?

Land: There are some organizations that take no position because the organizations don’t address immigration. That doesn’t mean they’re not interested. There are organizations taking a look at the issue now. They haven’t ruled it out. Some Baptist groups approached us and asked for more information.

Hernandez: That’s the end of the call. Please go back to your groups and have them ask Congress and President Obama to pass CIR this year.