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.

[Immigration1] 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, plans use 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 Committee sent 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 contractors are 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.”

Salazar lost to Republican Scott Tipton, a Tea Party-backed candidate who will likely support heavier immigration enforcement without paths to legal status for the illegal immigrants already in the country. In Texas, Republican Francisco “Quico” Canseco defeated Rodriguez, a six-term congressman, and Republican Blake Farenthold took out 14-term congressman Ortiz.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is made up of Democrats and supports immigration reform that would allow some of the illegal immigrants in the United States to remain if they paid fines and taxes, learned English, passed background and civics tests and registered with the government. Losing three members from the caucus may seem minor given the size of Congress, but it means at least three pro-immigration reform members will be replaced in the House with members who support restricting immigration and tightly enforcing immigration laws to drive out current undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who chairs the immigration task force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, easily won re-election yesterday. But he acknowledged that enacting immigration reform will be more difficult with a GOP-led House. “If Republican opposition prevents us from seriously addressing immigration legislatively, then the President must address the toll deportations are taking on American families and neighborhoods through administrative action,” he said in a press release.

Angle posed a serious threat to Reid, in spite of — or perhaps because of — rhetoric and advertising on immigration that frequently crossed the line into offensive territory, according to Latino groups. Angle claimed Reid supported a number of policies to help illegal immigrants and seemed to be attempting to capitalize on ethnic fears in ads that showed angry-looking Latino men set to dramatic, if untrue, statements.

Tancredo also campaigned largely on immigration policy, accusing his Democratic opponent John Hickenlooper of supporting “sanctuary city” policies that allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the country and threaten American lives. Hickenlooper won the election.

Immigrant rights advocates will also be pleased about the California governor race, where Republican Meg Whitman lost to Democrat Jerry Brown. Whitman shifted to the right during her Republican primary and received support from former Gov. Pete Wilson, the controversial figure behind California’s now-overturned Proposition 187 to exclude undocumented immigrants from state services. Whitman tried to reach out to Latino voters after her primary, but was hindered by allegations of mistreatment and illegal employment by an undocumented maid who worked for her for almost a decade.

Anti-illegal immigration governors won in a few other states, though. New Mexico’s Susana Martinez (R) emerged victorious, as did Georgia’s Nathan Deal (R) and South Carolina’s Nikki Haley (R). All three support harsher laws on immigration in their states.

Of course, freshman members usually don’t have that much influence, but these potential members would likely have the support of Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Steve King (R-Iowa), who will head committees that manage immigration if the House flips today. I’ll have a few posts later today on some of the major races that could influence immigration issues, but it’s worth looking at some of the probable freshman GOP members as well.

Here are a few possible Republican winners, plus the bills they have pushed for in their home towns and states and some of their priorities if they win today:

Lou Barletta: Barletta is the mayor of Hazleton, Pa., which passed a law cracking down on employers and landlords who hired or rented to illegal immigrants. A court overturned the law in September, finding it preempted federal immigration law. Still, Barletta may push for similar legislation on the national level if he wins today against Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.). “We can convince others, if we’re going to deal with the deficit and the budget, you can’t exclude the illegal immigration problem out of that equation because it has a direct effect on the budget,” Barletta told Politico. “Not dealing with it would be like having a car with three wheels.”

Jeff Perry: Currently a Massachusetts state senator, Perry has attempted to block undocumented immigrants from receiving services funded by taxpayer money, such as public housing. His campaign site argues for a “comprehensive plan” to end illegal immigration: “Secure the border,” step up enforcement and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. He also supports expanding E-Verify, a program that verifies the immigration status of potential employees, and creating legislation to block social services from illegal immigrants nationwide. Perry is running for an open seat against Democratic candidate William Keating.

Martha Roby: On the Montgomery, Ala., city council, Roby passed an ordinance penalizing businesses that employ undocumented workers. She has argued in support of Arizona’s SB 1070, the controversial immigration law the Justice Department sued the state to stop, and says the government must do more to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the border and finding jobs in the United States. Roby could win the seat of Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.).

Sandy Adams: Adams has pushed as a Florida state representative to stop certain immigrant-friendly practices, such as in-state tuition to undocumented students who attended high school in the state. She has also tried to pass legislation preventing illegal immigrants from receiving driver’s licenses. Adams touts her endorsement from Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, or ALIPAC — a group that has fought back against charges that it is tied to Nazism and white supremacist groups — and claims the government should increase enforcement of illegal immigration. Adams is running against incumbent Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.).

For the most part, these legislative efforts are the standard Republican fare on immigration. Most of these candidates hope to push for more enforcement along the border — which was already bolstered by additional troops and funding. They also could come up against significant pushback on attempts to increase immigration enforcement within the United States. The Obama administration has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have chosen to adjust their enforcement priorities rather than requesting more funds to police immigration.

Although border security, especially, has become a major campaign talking point, these potential freshman members might also come up against a lack of support from the GOP leadership. King and Smith failed in their effort to include specific immigration-related plans in the GOP’s Pledge to America, which was meant to be a summary of how a Republican-led House would lead on a number of issues. The actual immigration content in the pledge is vague and unclear on what type of immigration legislation would be a priority for the leadership.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who supports comprehensive immigration reform, evoked their names last week as “a guarantee of more gridlock and chaos.” “On immigration, the question is not whether you are a Pelosi-Obama Democrat, but whether you are a Lamar Smith-John Boehner-Steve King Republican,” he wrote in an op-ed. What, then, is a Lamar-Smith-John Boehner-Steve King Republican, and why should immigration reform supporters be afraid of it?

Both congressmen have been longtime proponents of harsher anti-illegal immigration laws. Smith helped lead the charge pass the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which designated a large number of offenses as cause for deportation and created the 287 (g) program that deputizes local police to enforce immigration laws. He has also pushed for nationwide expansion of E-Verify, an employment verification system that critics say is too fraught with errors to be fully implemented.

King told Politico he has a number of other immigration-related plans if he helms he immigration subcommittee:

In an interview with POLITICO, King promised to interrogate Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher about enforcement of immigration laws.

“We need to hear a considerable amount from [them] and start gathering the details on what is taking place on the border,” he said. “They’re not simply doing their job. They take an oath of office to see the laws are enforced. They’re not enforcing the laws.”

King rattled off a list of legislation he’d like to push to the floor: a birthright citizenship bill, legislation to reaffirm states’ right to enact Arizona-like immigration laws, a bill to take away deductions from employers who pay illegal immigrants and legislation to crack down on cities that don’t go after illegal residents.

The always-quotable King has a number of ideas for immigration that he did not mention. In 2006, he told Congress he wanted to build an electric fence along the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigration. “We do that with livestock all the time,” he said. This summer, King said he would support “amnesty,” or a path to legal status for illegal immigrants already in the country, under one condition: “Every time we give amnesty for an illegal alien, we deport a liberal.”

Barreto pointed to a new poll out today from Latino Decisions that shows climbing enthusiasm from Latino voters, particularly among those likely to vote for Democrats. While about 40 percent of Latinos said they were very enthusiastic about voting in the midterms a month ago, last week that figure rose to 58 percent. “These may indicate that the Latino vote is no longer a sleeping giant but a looming giant that will continue to play a part in an increasing number of races,” Sharry said.

Latino Decisions has a useful graph tracking the enthusiasm progression:

Democrats have an advantage: Polling indicates Democrat-favoring Latino voters are more likely to be enthusiastic about the Nov. 2 elections than Republican-favoring voters. Barreto attributed this to anti-immigrant rhetoric made by many Republican politicians. “If you are a Republican who is a Latino, you’re probably less excited about your party this year than, say, the Tea Party is.”

Barreto and Sherry said the midterms have created a perfect storm to push Latino voters to support Democrats in certain states. Republicans have increasingly pushed for anti-immigration laws that some consider anti-Latino, and meanwhile some Democrats have reasserted their support for immigration reform measures. Immigration is consistently among the top issues listed as a priority by Latino voters, although generally jobs and the economy are considered more important.

Democrats have failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, or even smaller legislation such as the DREAM Act, which means Latino voters aren’t necessarily favoring them out of support for their action over the past two years. But Republicans are generally considered to be the greater of two evils. “The current enthusiasm is much more related to opposition to Republicans and the possibility of Republican control of the House and the Senate,” he said.

President Obama made a similar argument against Republicans during an interview aired today on Univision’s “Piolin por la Manana,” where he was asked why Latinos should support him despite his failure to enact immigration reform. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder [to pass reform], and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on Nov. 2,” he said during the interview.

Why are some cases dismissed? The answers differ: Although ICE claims only cases involving pending petitions for illegal immigrants by U.S. citizens would be considered, others claim the guidelines are more broad. Raed Gonzalez, liaison for the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told the Chronicle judges were given authority to dismiss immigration cases for a number of other reasons:

Government attorneys in Houston were instructed to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis for illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years and have no serious criminal history, Gonzalez said.

To qualify for dismissal, defendants also must have no felony record or any misdemeanor convictions involving DWI, sex crimes or domestic violence, he said. [...]

By moving to dismiss cases for people who have stayed out of trouble, the agency will be better able to use its limited resources to more rapidly deport those with serious criminal records, supporters said.

On the other side, though, supporters of tougher immigration enforcement have claimed the review is an effort at backdoor amnesty by the Obama administration. It’s an argument many anti-illegal immigration groups have made before, but it is worth noting that despite dismissals, deportation is still on the rise under the administration.

The problem? Sometimes this boils down to helping illegal immigrants avoid detection, which critics of illegal immigration argue is indefensible. “That really crosses into a whole different type of political activity,” Roy Beck, executive director of the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, told USA Today. “It’s very counterproductive to the cause of these immigrant groups, because it’ll cause them to seem more foreign and less American.”

Here are some of the local efforts:

•The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights created 21 family support networks this spring to set up a safety net for immigrant families whose relatives get deported, leaving spouses and children behind. Executive director Joshua Hoyt says the group is still pushing for immigration legislation introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., but realized communities should be the focus in the meantime.

“We said, ‘We have to figure out a way to organize ourselves to provide support at the same time we challenge the policies,’” Hoyt says.

•In Washington, OneAmerica, a statewide civil rights groups, has established nine community groups. Executive director Pramila Jayapal says they have begun regular discussions with local politicians and police agencies to ensure that the plight of immigrants is understood.

•In Arizona, about 15 “neighborhood defense committees” were created in recent months, and organizers are getting requests to open more around Phoenix. [...]

Opal Tometi, whose Puente Arizona organization helped create the committees, says they serve several functions: They train illegal immigrants to know their rights when they are stopped by police. They work with lawyers to navigate deportation proceedings. They offer English classes and arrange for doctors to treat people nervous about going to hospitals.

They send out video teams to monitor for civil rights violations when police or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents perform immigration raids.

Immigration reform advocates are also attempting to mobilize Latino voters, a majority of whom support comprehensive immigration reform, to vote in the midterms. However, that push seems to be flagging, with a recent poll indicating only half of registered Latino voters plan to go to the polls in November.

There are a number of costs involved in the removal process. First, illegal immigrants must be apprehended, which requires local law enforcement, Border Patrol and a number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs and offices. Next, they must be detained, and then processed through the legal system. Finally, illegal immigrants must be transported back to their native countries. Here are the per-person costs listed in the Center for American Progress report released in March:

Apprehension: $18,310
Detention: $3,355
Legal processing: $817
Transportation: $1,000

In total, that’s $23,480 for each of the 392,000 people the U.S. removed last year, or $9,204,944,000.

Of course, many of those deported were convicted criminals, meaning they would have had imposed high costs had they remained in the country. While numbers vary from state to state, on average it costs at least $60 per day (or $1,800 per month) to incarcerate prisoners.