Guest posted by Josh Drobnyk of the Morning Call at 7 am CDT
Lou Barletta, a Pennsylvanian pressing for tough measures against undocumented immigrants, could be looking at a campaign of his own for Congress.
Barletta’s local immigration law last year to counter what he characterized as a growing gang problem exacerbated by illegal immigrants, quickly gained the mayor of Hazelton Pa., a national spotlight as cities around the country followed Hazleton’s lead. That attention has continued this year after the law, which fines businesses that employ illegal immigrants and landlords that rent to them, was challenged by civil liberties’ and immigrant rights’ groups and the case went to court this month.
Now the GOP may be interested in the mayor. See the story in the Morning Call:
By Josh Drobnyk
Call Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta met with national Republican Party leaders in Washington last month about the prospect of running for Congress.
Barletta, who is in the middle of a court battle over a law he proposed last year to crack down on illegal immigrants, said he had a “very informal” discussion with members of the National Republican Congressional Committee during a trip to the capital at the end of February, but that he has no plans to run for any other office than mayor of Hazleton.
“I am really not thinking of anything other than being mayor right now,” said Barletta, who is seeking a third term as mayor this year. “I haven’t given \[a run for Congress\] any serious thought. Obviously I am going to listen.”
Barletta lives in Pennsylvania’s 11th district, whose seat is held by Democrat Paul Kanjorski. The two ran against one another in 2002, with Kanjorski winning 56 percent of the vote.
Barletta’s tough immigration law, which he proposed last year to counter what he characterized as a growing gang problem exacerbated by illegal immigrants, quickly gained the mayor a national spotlight as cities around the country followed Hazleton’s lead. That attention has continued this year after the law, which fines businesses that employ illegal immigrants and landlords that rent to them, was challenged by civil liberties’ and immigrant rights’ groups and the case went to court this month.
It’s unclear how the attention has affected Barletta’s political stock. The first indication could come as soon as May, when he is expected to face off against an opponent in the city’s mayoral primary election.
A run against Kanjorski would not be easy. The 12-term lawmaker is the second-longest serving House member in the state and hasn’t faced a significant challenge in years. He won in 2006 with 72 percent of the vote and finished the race with $1 million left in campaign cash. He is second in seniority on the Financial Services Committee and with Democrats in control of Congress he has a perch atop the panel’s subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-sponsored Enterprises.
Kanjorski’s biggest challenge could be his own health. He underwent triple bypass heart surgery earlier this month, and is expected to make a full recovery. He turns 70 on Monday.
Neither Barletta nor Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is charged with recruiting candidates in congressional races, would say who initiated the meeting in Washington last month.
Spain said Barletta’s “presence in the building was welcome.”
“He is very impressive,” Spain said. “Should he decide to run for Congress, he would make a formidable candidate.”
Barletta, for his part, said that he thinks a second run in Congress would be easier than his first, simply because he now is widely recognized within the district. “For a first time \[run\] you have to boost up your name recognition,” he said. And while he stressed that he is not thinking about seeking any other office yet, he acknowledged that it is not out of the question.
“I realize these other options will present themselves,” he said. “If I make a decision to do something else, I will take everything I have learned into consideration.”
Josh Drobnyk reports for the Morning Call of Allenton, Pa., a Tribune Co. newspaper.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
This issue is were I differ with the democratic party. Illegal immigration is something that needs to be dealt with. I am not against immigration, just "illegal" immigration. I don't buy the doing jobs that Americans wouldn't do stuff. To me thats just a cop out from busineses so they can get cheap labor. If they paid a decent wage, they would have American workers. The cost of illegals to the states with health care and education and loss of tax revenue is staggering. We have overlooked this problem for to long and I don't know how one can say we are fighting to stop terrorists half way around the world when we continue to leave our borders wide open. Thats absurd.
Posted by: bill r. | March 31, 2007 7:15 AM
This is a good year to try to resolve the (pick one of the following) illegal immigration/illegal aliens/illegal workers/undocumented workers' issue.
The presidential campaign is heating up and if Congress doesn't take action soon Lame Duck Dubya won't be able to pass gas much less legislation.
The immigration status quo isn't good for any of us. Illegal workers live in fear of being caught. Illegal workers hold down wages and benefits by working on the cheap under the table. Illegal workers use the emergency room for primary medical care.
Illegal workers are also, on the whole, otherwise law abiding people with good family and work ethics who contribute to American soceity.
This is also a plug to set a limit on how long someone can hold a green card. I've met a lot of Canadians who game the system by using America for our jobs, way of life (warm weather) and their home country for pensions and major health care. People who would absolutely under no circumstances defend America. The way I feel about it is you either want to be in the America club or you don't. So go ahead and get your green card and then you've got either five years or until the age of 21 to make your decision about becoming a U.S. citizen.
If you don't, get out your parka and go home.
Posted by: Doug Zook | March 31, 2007 8:40 AM
I don't think either side tells the truth on the immigration issue, frankly. The Republicans use it to gin up part of their base, and the Democrats don't want to offend part of their base.
I also wonder how much real thought has gone into the problem.
For instance, I understand from economists that our GDP will slow to anemic rates if we don't have the wave of immigrants, because our traditional workforce has basically stopped reproducing beyond replacement levels. And a slow GDP hurts us all.
Likewise, I haven't seen much data on how a wave of immigrants might actually help Social Security and Medicare, but I think it should be seriously looked into.
It's well known that the aging US workforce is retiring soon, and there are few workers to take their place and, consequently, Medicare and Social Security are going to be in trouble.
We all hear about SS and Medicaid fraud by "illegal" aliens. OK, so what if you brought them into the system and they started paying too? How might that help SS and Medicare? Especially given that these people skew younger? Moreover, many of these people intend to spend their retirement years back in their home countries, so they'll be paying in for 30 or 40 years, and may not even bother to collect.
Finally, after all that, you have to admit that it's just ridiculous to assume the government can round up 40 million people and send them back over the border. Even measures like this mayor is using are just putting a bandaid on the problem in a few isolated areas.
No, I think we have an opportunity to not only fix the undocumented worker problem, but make it work to our advantage. But, as I say, I'm betting the politicians will just go along with their black-and-white absolutist positions on the issue (and Americans will be stupid enough to buy into these positions), and we'll all end up paying for it down the road.
Posted by: Bill | March 31, 2007 9:42 AM
Why is this so hard - secure the border and increase the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
Businesses get the workers they need, the immigrants become part of the system, and (this the part the dems will like), these workers will pay taxes instead of getting paid under the table.
Posted by: Terry | March 31, 2007 12:47 PM
4 questions:
40% of illegal entrants are not workers. The workers, even if they become legal, make very low wages. Who should volunteer to pay for health care, education, justice system, social services, etc., the common citizen or the companies that profit from illegal immigration and/or from low wages?
Given the solid research showing children fare better in 2-parent families, what can be done about the high rates of out-of-wedlock births among the illegal entrants (higher than either the US or the Mexican rates)?
Almost everybody on earth wants to come live in the US. To whom should we give preference, i.e., against whom should we discriminate? Should we discriminate in favor of those who enter the country illegally, and against law-abiding potential immigrants?
Hundreds of thousands of relatives of US citizens (e.g., from Asian countries) have been waiting in long lines to get legal visas so they can become legal immigrants. Many have waited several YEARS and are so honest it would not occur to them to actually break our laws. Do we as a nation believe in jumping the line by entering illegally and becoming an illegal as opposed to legal immigrant?
Posted by: RealityCheck | March 31, 2007 4:40 PM
Set up a way to register all the illegal aliens in the country. Set a 60 day deadline. After 60 days go after every non registered alien in the country. Set a hugh fine for employers of non registered aliens. Believe me, employers know who there aliens are. Deal with the registered aliens fairly and with the recognition that their situation is the result of our failure to enforce our laws. We are not blameless. Close the border. Design a system to throw those that overstay their visas in jail. They must sign out of the country on time or be listed on a national fugitive list. Registered aliens will be protected by law and receive benefits of citizens. A path to citizenship must be found. it is absurd to think we can deport 15000 aliens.
Posted by: c perry | March 31, 2007 8:03 PM
Posted by: Terry | Mar 31, 2007 12:47:48 PM
-------
You were sounding rational til you took that cheap shot at the Dems.
Yeah, Dems pay their bills, unlike the Republicans, who just write hot checks for their grandchildren to pay.
It's people like you who make any kind of comprehensive solution impossible, because you're always trying to score cheap political points.
Lowlife.
Posted by: Bill | March 31, 2007 9:49 PM
4 questions:
40% of illegal entrants are not workers. The workers, even if they become legal, make very low wages. Who should volunteer to pay for health care, education, justice system, social services, etc., the common citizen or the companies that profit from illegal immigration and/or from low wages?--PEOPLE WHO MAKE OVER $200,000 DON'T PAY ANY MORE INTO SOCIAL SECURITY EITHER. WHO SAID THE SYSTEM WAS EQUITABLE? BESIDES, THEY MAKE LOW WAGES NOW, NOT IN THE FUTURE. AS FOR THE 40 PERCENT WHO DON'T WORK. I DON'T TRUST YOUR NUMBERS BUT ASSUMING YOU'RE JUST NOT SPOUTING RACIST PROPAGANDA FROM FOX NEWS, I ASSUME THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE CHILDREN WHO WILL GROW UP INTO TAX PAYING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, AND LIKELY WILL MAKE MUCH MORE (AND PAY MUCH MORE) THAN THEIR PARENTS.
Given the solid research showing children fare better in 2-parent families, what can be done about the high rates of out-of-wedlock births among the illegal entrants (higher than either the US or the Mexican rates)?--ALABAMA HAS A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES THAN MASSACHUSETTS TOO--AND, I BELIEVE, THAT'S TRUE FOR MOST RED STATES COMPARED TO BLUE STATES. DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD KICK THE RED STATES OUT OF THE UNION? I MIGHT AGREE WITH YOU THERE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
Almost everybody on earth wants to come live in the US. To whom should we give preference, i.e., against whom should we discriminate? Should we discriminate in favor of those who enter the country illegally, and against law-abiding potential immigrants?--HEY, THEY'RE ALREADY HERE. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO REMOVE 40 MILLION PEOPLE ANYWAY. STOP PRETENDING LIKE SENDING THEM AWAY IS EVEN POSSIBLE. IT WOULD BE A NEAR IMPOSSIBLE JOB THAT WOULD COST MORE THAN BUSH'S NEXT THREE WARS.
Hundreds of thousands of relatives of US citizens (e.g., from Asian countries) have been waiting in long lines to get legal visas so they can become legal immigrants. Many have waited several YEARS and are so honest it would not occur to them to actually break our laws. Do we as a nation believe in jumping the line by entering illegally and becoming an illegal as opposed to legal immigrant?--AGAIN,THEY'RE ALREADY HERE. REMOVING THEM IS NEITHER PRACTICAL NOR NECESSARY. SHOULD WE HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB PROTECTING OUR BORDERS, YES. BUT IT'S TOO LATE TO UNDO THAT MISTAKE FROM THE PAST. MOVING FORWARD, IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO. FINALLY, THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING IN "LONG LINES." WE WILL HAVE A MAJOR SHORTAGE OF EVERY KIND OF WORKER AS WE MOVE FURTHER INTO THE CENTURY AND WE WILL HAVE TO IMPORT WORKERS REGARDLESS.
Posted by: Ron | April 1, 2007 8:57 AM
Bill,
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its a duck.
I'll take the "scoring of cheap political points" and "lowlife" comment more seriously when you start commenting on everytime a conservative/republican is called a nazi.
Posted by: Terry | April 2, 2007 7:08 PM