In How To Lose The House, Fred Barnes explores the political mine field of immigration reform, suggesting that if Republicans aren't careful, it's they who might be forced to immigrate back home from Washington, DC.
PRESIDENT BUSH AND REPUBLICANS are staring political disaster in the face on immigration. The problem isn't that they might enact a bill allowing illegal immigrants living in America to earn their way to citizenship, inviting foreign workers to come here, and beefing up security on the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. No, it would be a disaster for Republicans if they didn't pass such a bill.
... The American people are not on the side of the House Republicans who favor toughened enforcement and nothing more. On the contrary, a national consensus has formed around what the president calls "comprehensive" immigration reform--that is, impenetrable border security plus earned citizenship and a temporary worker program.
He's right. But comprehensive reform can mean different things to different people. Just as potential voters aren't necessarily adamant about an enforcement only approach, it's also possible they might ultimately not be thrilled with some of the provisions the Senate might allow for, or disallow in their version of the Bill. Social Security and fees are two issues which come to mind.
Agreed to - Cornyn Amdt. No. 4038; To require aliens seeking adjustment of status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Deferred Mandatory Departure status under section 245C of such Act to pay a supplemental application fee, which shall be used to provide financial assistance to States for health and educational services for noncitizens.
Agreed to - Motion to Table Ensign Amdt. No. 3985; To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Getting a strong and credible enforcement bill passed, with or without a comprehensive approach, is vital. If the Senate makes it impossible, the devil is going to be in the details on two fronts - who is to blame, and why?
One could at least argue that were the Republicans successful in putting the blame for any failure on a too liberal Senate, while pointing out specific amendments to back up the claim, it could just as easily become a campaign issue breaking for Republicans.
If Republicans are successful in keeping this from being a National campaign, or some referendum on immigration, in line with the all politics is local theme, then the individual positions of Representatives and Senators on specific amendments and provisions could come more into play.
Unfortunately, that's a pretty fine calculus to undertake and the Republicans, or maybe all politicians, aren't especially astute when it comes to making a complex case to voters. Still, the details of what the Senate will take into conference aren't fully known, so it's too early to say.
What might be ideal is if the House can cobble together a majority for some compromise, while allowing for certain Republicans to break from the Bill and secure political cover needed at home without jeopardizing the ultimate passage of a reasonable Bill.
Most important of all to many right now could be the disposition of the Plame affair as regards Karl Rove. One way or another, many Republicans are probably keeping their fingers crossed that his slide rule is available to undertake some difficult political calculus as we move through Summer into the Fall.
Obviously Fred Barnes is a Globalist and not a conservative....
If the House allows that Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill the Senate pushed thru to necome law....the GOP is toast
This myth that "liberalizing illegal alien laws" will help the GOP is plain stupid. Most real conservatives want sealed borders, no illegals, and hiring Americans
The GOP is history if it continues to listen to Globalists like Barnes, et al
Posted by: DoorMart | Sunday, May 21, 2006 at 09:39 AM
Is "Deportation" a bad word?!?!
In 1986 President Reagan granted amnesty to what was estimated to be 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Turns out that over 3 million illegal immigrants took advantage of the amnesty program to become legalized. It was later found that some of them had done so using false documents in order to qualify.
If we extrapolate from said past experience, then it follows that when the Senate grants its "Earned Path to Citizenship," or whatever they wind up calling their defacto "amnesty," to the estimated 10 to 12 million illegals presently in the country, it is realistic to expect that it will be more like 20 to 24 million illegal immigrants who will take advantage of the program and become "legalized."
Back in 1986, granting amnesty while failing to secure our borders became a magnet for illegal immigration, which has resulted in the present chaos on the southern border we are now facing, and in an estimated 3 to 5 million people trying to sneak across into the US every year!
Unless we truly secure our borders and implement our immigration laws, are we to expect any different after granting amnesty to the above 20 to 24 million? Common sense dictates not, and on the contrary we may expect the onslaught on our southern border to increase ten fold with renewed vigor, especially with the ominous prospects of increased political instability in Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, and other Latin American countries, which will only bring more strife to the region.
For any immigration policy to succeed, be it our current laws, or the Kennedy - McCain Bill, "enforcement" is a prerequisite, or the law just becomes a farce and a joke, as has been the case in the last 20 years with
"Sanctuary" cities, "catch and release" programs, total lack of "employer sanctions" enforcement for those hiring illegal aliens, and the patent unwillingness by authorities to deport illegals once inside the country!
As a matter of fact, it seems that the word "deportation" has become a "bad word" which is "offensive" to be uttered, not only amongst those calling for open borders from the Straits of Magellan to the Aleutian Islands, but even amongst the Tom Tancredo and Sensenbrenner crowd, which steps back from it in horror when asked while proposing that by just drying up the jobs for illegals by severely sanctioning employers, they will somehow leave of their own volition in an orderly manner. Yeah, right!
Which begs the question: How can we ever implement any immigration policy while suffering from this apparent political "repugnancy" to apply the law and deport anyone?!?!
I mean, imagine that Senators Kennedy and McCain get their way, and a path to "Earned Citizenship" is granted to all these illegal immigrants amongst us. Supposedly, they must pay a fine of $2000.00, take two English proficiency tests, pass a criminal background check, pay back taxes, and must have been working uninterruptedly all the time they were here illegally.
What happens if they fail any of the above criteria, do we "deport" them then, or will we just keep changing the rules to accommodate them, or just come up with some other excuses to still allow them to stay here as "illegal residents"?!?!
That is the one question which has never been posed by any of the Pundits to anyone in the "Earned Path to Citizenship" amnesty crowd! When will any immigration law have any teeth?!?!
I wish someone would have the courage to ask it!
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/05/is_deportation.php
Althor
Posted by: Althor | Sunday, May 21, 2006 at 05:19 PM