MICHELE NORRIS, host:
More now on what's coming up for immigration policy both at the federal level and in the states. And here to help us out is Fawn Johnson. She's a correspondent at the National Journal, and she has been covering these issues.
So glad you came in.
Ms. FAWN JOHNSON (Correspondent, National Journal): Happy to be here.
NORRIS: Now, how big a priority is immigration reform for the 112th Congress?
Ms. JOHNSON: Well, that depends on who you talk to. There are people like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For him, this is an incredibly important issue, but he has had very little luck in actually getting anything passed in the lame-duck session that happened just before the new year. He fell short of getting 60 votes for a small part of what he wants, which is to help legalize some students who have been in the country for a very long time. It's unlikely...
NORRIS: The DREAM Act.
Ms. JOHNSON: The DREAM Act. That's right. It's unlikely that they're going to be able to get much going forward in the Senate just because they have a smaller majority than they did before, and they still need 60 votes for almost anything.
In the House, it's a different story. The Republicans have taken over, and they are much more interested in enforcement-related issues involving immigration than on things like a path to citizenship. It's not the most important issue for Republicans, but it is a very important issue for the incoming chairman of the judiciary committee, Lamar Smith of Texas.
NORRIS: It's interesting because he said that before they get to legislation, he wants to take up oversight.
Ms. JOHNSON: Right.
NORRIS: You know, looking carefully at the E-verify program, looking at the Obama administration's decision to scale back worksite raids and things like that.
Ms. JOHNSON: That's right.
NORRIS: What will that mean?
Ms. JOHNSON: Lamar Smith has been critical of the administration for not being as strong as they could be in terms of enforcing immigration laws at the worksite. However, the administration has been countering and has been saying for the last couple of years that they actually have a higher deportation rate of criminal aliens than they have ever.
So you can expect a kind of tit for tat I think, you know, with Republicans pressing on things that they are interested in, and then the administration countering by talking about how they're enforcing immigration.
NORRIS: Now, the 2012 presidential election is like thunder in the distance.
Ms. JOHNSON: Exactly.
NORRIS: And lawmakers will certainly have that in mind. Is it possible that some Republicans, particularly in the House, will push for hawkish immigration policies to try to drum up support on the conservative side? Or is it - might they stay away from that for fear of repelling Hispanic voters?
Ms. JOHNSON: I think you will see a little of both. Certainly, there are members of the Republican Party, especially those who have been recently elected, who have been incredibly forceful about how strongly the immigration laws should be enforced.
But then there are also other members of the Republican Party who must answer to business interests, and the business community is not terribly interested in watching people crack down wholeheartedly on immigration. What they would like to see is something a little more moderate, which would involve things like increasing enforcement, but at the same time giving them access to the workers that they need.
NORRIS: Now you've written that inaction on the federal level has motivated state and local Republicans to get tough on illegal immigration. How many states are trying to push through laws much like the controversial one that Arizona passed last year?
Ms. JOHNSON: There are a handful of states that are going to make the attempt. There are a few that might actually succeed. South Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma are ones that we can expect to, probably within the next couple of months, have some sort of legislation that looks like the Arizona Enforcement Law.
The question is do they then invite a similar reaction from the federal government?
NORRIS: Meaning lawsuit.
Ms. JOHNSON: Right. Exactly. We have to see how the lawsuits that have been filed play through before we really figure out what's happening in the courts.
NORRIS: If states do take this up and pass a patchwork of laws, what does that mean if you - if that leads to something that you described this as much like a balkanization (unintelligible)...
Ms. JOHNSON: Exactly.
NORRIS: ...having all kinds of varying immigration policies all over the country.
Ms. JOHNSON: It's kind of chaos. Part of the reason why the 1986 big immigration bill that was passed under President Reagan made the immigration laws a purview of the federal government was precisely to avoid this type of situation.
And the reason why you're starting to see so much of this legislation pop up at the state and local level is because they're frustrated that Congress hasn't acted. So you could see quite a bit of chaos and real uncertainty on the part of businesses and on the part of immigrants, be they legal or illegal, about what exact rights that they might have in any particular community.
NORRIS: Fawn, before I let you go, I have one last question about federal immigration policy. Despite the polarization on this issue, is there room for compromise? Much like we saw in the case of the tax cuts, the compromise between the Obama administration and the Republicans, might we see something like that on this issue?
Ms. JOHNSON: If we're going to see any type of compromise, it'll probably be on something much smaller. I can envision, for example, some sort of compromise in which the business community agrees to verify the legal status of all the people that they hire in exchange for some sort of protections from the Department of Homeland Security or others that would come in and raid them for example. That's a possibility.
NORRIS: Fawn Johnson, thanks so much for coming in.
Ms. JOHNSON: My pleasure.
NORRIS: Fawn Johnson covers immigration issues for the National Journal.