Immigration Reform Fever Hits Bush, Congress And The Streets
It has been a longtime building, but it has seemingly happened:
The decades long debate over immigration reform has now reached critical mass.
From massive demonstrations in major U.S. cities staged by hoards of immigrants furious over a tough new law passed by the House, to President George Bush who advocates stricter border controls coupled with a guest worker program somewhat reminiscent of former President Ronald Reagan’s controversial amnesty program, to parts of his political base who don’t want anything even remotely resembling an amnesty, to Congress trying to come up with something on election year, the issue has come to the forefront. Now.
And, in the natural scheme of things in the year 2006 — a mid-term election year — high-stakes political jockeying on this issue has begun.
Polls show Americans want some form of tougher border control. Yet, neither party’s bigwigs want to do anything that will undercut efforts to capture votes from the nation’s growing Hispanic population. Or do they? The Washington Post:
Both Republicans and Democrats risk alienating coveted supporters as they attempt to find the right balance between toughening enforcement and expanding legal opportunities for millions of low-skill foreign workers to take jobs in the United States.
As the Senate begins debate on revamping the nation’s immigration laws, the issue poses multiple challenges for both political parties, while offering no clearly expedient solution. Two huge electoral prizes, the Southwest and Florida, are potentially up for grabs, as are millions of Hispanic votes elsewhere. But also in play are the votes of angry residents in border states and beyond who feel overwhelmed by the rising tide of illegal immigration….
….A sudden spate of rallies on the streets of Phoenix, Los Angeles, Detroit and elsewhere — all in protest of a possible federal crackdown on illegal workers — suggests that immigration may be an issue that galvanizes this increasingly vital, but difficult to reach voting bloc.
Immigration has mobilized Hispanic voters in the past, most notably in California after the 1994 passage of Proposition 187, a voter initiative to cut off public services for illegal immigrants. Enactment of the law was blocked by the courts, but the fact that then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson supported the measure swung California’s huge Hispanic vote firmly into the Democratic camp for years.
Indeed, many outside of California forget the political story. Moderate Republican Wilson was a highly popular San Diego Mayor. He went on to become a popular California Senator. Then he became Govenor. His backing of Proposition helped him politically in 1994…but effectively doomed the GOP in California, embittering many Hispanic voters. The GOP still has not recovered here.
The GOP is having problems these days on the national front on this issue, too…due to a split that is evidence in the Senate itself, as the New York Times reports:
With Republicans deeply divided, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Monday to legalize the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and ultimately to grant them citizenship, provided that they hold jobs, pass criminal background checks, learn English and pay fines and back taxes.The panel also voted to create a vast temporary worker program that would allow roughly 400,000 foreigners to come to the United States to work each year and would put them on a path to citizenship as well.
The legislation, which the committee sent to the full Senate on a 12-to-6 vote, represents the most sweeping effort by Congress in decades to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. If passed, it would create the largest guest worker program since the bracero program brought 4.6 million Mexican agricultural workers into the country between 1942 and 1960.
Any legislation that passes the Senate will have to be reconciled with the tough border security bill passed in December by the Republican-controlled House, which defied President Bush’s call for a temporary worker plan.
The Senate panel’s plan, which also includes provisions to strengthen border security, was quickly hailed by Democrats, a handful of Republicans and business leaders, as well as by the immigrant advocacy organizations and church groups that have sent tens of thousands of supporters of immigrant rights into the streets of a number of cities to push for such legislation in recent days.
In other words: this could shape up as one more instance of Bush being at odds with his party’s base. The House represents the base’s hard-line sentiment on this issue; the Senate represents the sentiments of GOP corporate support…and the GOP there is effectively entering into a coalition with Democrats and various groups.
Blogger Bull Moose sees some dangers for the Democrats, in particular:
They will not enjoy the luxury of being able to just sit back and watch the show….Congressional Democrats should find a way to position themselves as committed to border enforcement without being xenophobic. It is not sufficient merely to threaten to filibuster draconian legislation.…. The political future belongs to the optimists in both [parties] who project a positive inclusionist vision.,,Given the desperation of the elephant, some in the the GOP may very well ditch the inclusionist approach, at least for the short-term. Instead, Republicans are likely to demagogue the issue and attempt to portray the Democrats as the party of the illegals. This may be the domestic law and order issue of ’06. Be prepared.
A PERSONAL NOTE: I covered immigration issues extensively during my newspaper career. As a reporter on the Wichita Eagle-Beacon in Kansas from 1980-1981, I did a series on illegal immigration in Wichita and also covered immigrant-related stories about other communities (including Cuban refugees at Fort Chafee, Arkansas). During my 1982-1990 stint as staff reporter on the San Diego Union, one of my many beats included covering various aspects of Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Reform And Control Act — particularly the move of many immigrants to take advantage of the act’s amnesty provision, which was supposed to be coupled with tough sanctions on companies that used illegal aliens and tougher border controls.
Here are a few tidbits that may give an idea of the scope of the immigration issue, based on the reporting done on these two newspapers:
- It was widely said in Kansas in the early 80s that the INS office in Kansas City looked the other way on employers using immigrants from Mexico. And, indeed, in reporting on the city’s Hispanic population it became clear that they had been left alone and greatly contributed to the city’s workforce.
- I got to know a family from Durango, Mexico. The father had come over first, then brought many relatives and cousins over. He worked in a meat packing plant and lost a finger fixing a car. He had 8 kids. When I moved to California, one of his kids called me and when we talked about the amnesty that I was covering for the Union, he told his father, they applied and were legalized.
- Some families of migrants were split up with other relatives because they couldn’t afford to live in the same place. Once they saved enough money, they brought their other relatives under one roof. That father of the family of 8 could only earn a tiny amount of money in Mexico. He described his decision to come over as a life and death decision.
- I did a least one horrific story for the San Diego Union on a large group of Mexicans who perished in the desert while trying to cross into the United States.
- Ronald Reagan’s immigration reform package raised many hopes that it would be a tough combination of border enforcement, legalizing many who were here and who met certain criteria, and a crackdown on companies that continued to hire illegal aliens. But, in the end, it gave the amnesty, but border security wasn’t beefed up as much as critics wanted, and there were only perfunctory, heavily publicized cases against a smattering of employers. The buzz was that (GOP friendly) businesses successfully argued for the administration to lay off their low-salaried employees.
- Many people clamoring for a hard-line on illegal immigration paint migrants as criminals, etc. but when you met (or meet) a typical immigrant family they are similar in many ways to the migrants (such as my grandparents) who came to the United States at the turn of the country in their GOAL (providing for their family, a premium put on the family itself) but not their means (coming over without legal permission).
And what to make of George Bush’s plan?
Once again, Bush could run into a political buzz-saw due to the way the guest worker provision is being described and packaged, versus the reality. Stripping away any ideological pros or cons, the bottom line is: critics say it is in effect an amnesty program; Bush administration officials say it isn’t. IN fact, it IS very close to an amnesty program and effectively is along the lines of what Reagan proposed.
The Bush administration’s description of its guest worker program is to an amnesty what “pre-own cars” is to “used cars.”
What happened with Reagan’s plan? Immigrants continued to stream across the border because the other two components (increased border security and government sanctions against employers) proved to be more hype than reality.
Bush administration officials can’t say it’s an amnesty but use a “it all depends what is is” description of the program. This is likely to further isolate Bush from his base; he may have a better chances making his case if he doesn’t hedge about what it is.
The sticking point will be: can immigration reform in 2006 actually be enacted given the fact it’s an election year — and issues are played out far more emotionally during election years. And, if it is enacted, will it this time have three strong components (guest worker program, beefed up border security, and sanctions against employers)? Or will we see only one or two components…and what consequences will that have to immigration and the delicate political balance on this issue?
BUT THERE ARE OTHER VOICES ON THIS ISSUE, TOO. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION:
–The Right State:”Today the United States Senate, specifically the Judiciary Committee, let down the American people. Our Senators had a chance to make a stand for American law and American justice, instead curried favor with those who break our laws to come here. When the illegal aliens demonstrated, the Senators caved in giving amnesty to the immigrants.”
–The Right Side Of The Rainbow thinks its much ado about something that won’t happen this year:”Assuming the full Senate accepts the work of its Judiciary Committee, we’ll be at an impasse, for the House will not accept it.”
–Oliver Willis:
Where to start? I must admit, I think the majority of conservative posturing on immigration is out and out bigotry, the same mindset that frets about having the culture of latinos and others influencing our collective identity now hiding under the guise of “protecting the border� from terrorists. Of course, the 9/11 terrorists were not illegals and didn’t sneak across the border. They came with passports on an airplane.
By allowing those that disregard the nation’s immigration laws to remain here and pursue citizenship, the 12 Judiciary Committee members send a message – get into the United States anyway you can because eventually you will legalized.
That message will be heard loud and clear just as it was with the adoption of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). That “immigration reform” legalized 4 million illegal aliens. IRCA has been a monumental failure. Twenty years later there 12 million illegal aliens to legalize. If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that twenty years from now we will have to consider granting amnesty to 36 million more illegal aliens.
Because Bush waited until this late in his presidency to roll out any energy on immigration, hoping in a typically Rovian way to capitalize on the issue as a 2006 election motivator for the base, he has also ensured that he will lose control of the matter pretty quickly while watching the issue split his party. A president with approval ratings in the 30’s cannot scare his own party on a domestic issue, and with a flurry of GOP hacks seeing a chance to demagogue this issue for 2008 political gain, Bush has no standing to tell his wing nuts like Tancredo and Frist to rein it in, and Tancredo has already said in essence forget it. Besides, McCain is not likely to back down on an issue that can gain him chits with moderates and even liberals.
Deal with the borders and I’ll listen. But, until then, I’m compelled to not support any legislation which, or politician who eases the path for illegals to become legal citizens. But then those Americans like me aren’t going to take to the street, aren’t we? We may throw the bums out next November, but that’s the most that we’ll do. It may mean throwing more Republicans out than Democrats. But as much as I loath the Left, I can’t say the performance of the Republicans in Congress has been worthy of unquestioned support. Perhaps I and many will simply stay home. I think they are gambling that we won’t.
After “days of street demonstrations� from California to the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, today, with a vote of 11- 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senator Kennedy’s amendment for a guest-worker program. Kennedy’s measure — which is a key part of the McCain-Kennedy plan — creates a new temporary visa to allow foreign workers to enter the US. The visa is valid for 3 years, and can be renewed one time for a total of 6 years. The measure contains strong labor protections for all workers, visas for family members, a path to permanent residence and citizenship, and a flexible market-based cap beginning at 400,000.
21 Responses to “Immigration Reform Fever Hits Bush, Congress And The Streets”
I have mixed opinions on this issue. It’s so complex becuause our elected leaders have allowed the situation to get so bad that it seems almost beyond fixing. I don’t want illegals coming into the country. people should come here by the rules and they shouldn’t be rewarded for breaking those rules. BUT I’ve worked with illegals. They didn’t speak any English or very little english. Most but not all worked hard. Some just wanted a job to suppliment their criminal activity where they made their real money. But the couldn’t do the criminal activity without support from regualar Americans who profited from it.
Some of them girls on the jobs slept with the supervisor to get the job and had to keep doing him to keep it. And these so-called men wouldn’t have it any other way. These same men would talk to about voting for Bush, restoring dignity to the White House and so forth, etc. none of this is simple. How to fix it I don’t know.
If they come over without legal permission, doesn’t that make them criminals? In the meantime, people who are trying to come over with legal permission are left waiting in their homelands for much longer than they should have to because the illegals are taking their place. These “guest worker” programs are essentially rewarding the criminals while punishing the law abiding individuals. I still haven’t heard any justification for doing what is so obviously wrong.
Yes, these illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals. But guess what? So are the millions of businesses – small and large – that hire them. It is illegal to hire workers without fully vetting their immigration status. If we are going to treat illegal immigrants like criminals, let’s also treat business owners like criminals too. Let’s throw hotel executives, and landscaping business owners and restaurant managers in jail for hiring illegal immigrants. Let’s throw upper middle class people who hire illegals as nannies or maids in jail too. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Damn skippy Elrod! The employers of illegal aliens should be fined, and if they continue jailed for using illegal labour. The fines should be used to secure the borders, and repatriate said illegals so taxpayers don’t have to finance this.
20,000 fine per illegal alien should be a good start.
Nice post Joe, but I must take issue with your assertion that the federal government did not seriously improve border security after the Reagan amnesty bill. I don’t have the numbers handy, but if you were to look them up I’m certain you would find that over the last fifteen or twenty years, the amount of money and personnel allocated to border control has increased astronomically. Meanwhile, illegal immigration has also dramatically increased.
Which brings me to my point: To anyone paying attention, bigger walls, more agents, and more high-tech surveillance has already been shown to be an ineffective deterrent and a failed policy. In my opinion, there are really only four ways to make a significant dent in illegal immigration:
1. Increase the quotas for legal immigration.
2. Fine employers of illegals.
3. Improve living conditions in Mexico.
4. Drastic measures (e.g. shooting border crossers, or jailing them for extended periods)
Personally, I favor the first option.
Elrod, I most definitely agree with you. Employers of illegal immigrants should also be dealt with through the legal process. Maybe not jail for a first offense but a stiff fine. My point was that we shouldn’t be giving lawbreakers essentially a free ride at the expense of those who are following the law. That applies to both the illegal immigrants and those who employ them.
Laurence, I agree with the first three points as a multi-faceted approach of dealing with the problem and would add more. However, I wanted to mention one thing about point 1, increasing quotas for legal immigration. One reason quotas are where they are is due to illegal immigration. If illegal immigration were reduced, quotas for legal immigration could be raised without causing a flood of immigrants.
I don’t favor any one option. I know this is a very complex issue requiring a very complex solution but here are some points that I think the solution should include:
1) Increase quotas for legal immigration, increasing them more as illegal immigration is reduced.
2) Fine and, upon repeat offenses, jail employers of illegal immigrants.
3) Deport illegal immigrants unless they can make a good case for refugee status.
4) Help other countries improve living conditions so people don’t feel the need to come here illegally.
We could try to build Fortress USA but that’s not going to work unless we don’t make it worthwhile for people to come here illegally. Going after them and their employers is a big part of doing that.
I still haven’t seen all the numbers yet on what it costs the US in both benefits and costs to have illegals here.
yes, they do work hard in many jobs.
Yes, they use the county hospitals in large numbers, and cost the taxpayers enormous amounts of money.
Yes, they have done at least one illegal thing, crossing the border. Possibly two, many use a SSN that is not theirs, that would be Identity theft.
Yes employers get away w/ hiring illegals, profit from them, and don’t necessarily pass those savings to us.
So what answers do we get from all this? dunno.
For me, here in Texas, I’d like to see extremely stiffer border patrols. Considering we’ve got violent ex-members of the Mexican military shooting people (Nuevo Laredo/El Paso), and transporting drugs across the border. Our crime rates in the bigger cities are rising, and so are the gang rates. Much of it is, unfortunately hispanic. Petty theft, and violence are increasing in the suburbs as well. Our day labor centers have 50-100 men standing around all day, so the mem of there are jobs here for them does not ring true. Are there jobs for some, yes, for all, no. At some point we are going to hit a level of saturation. When do we say enough is enough?
Lawrence, where are you getting your statistics from? Last night on the Newshour, I saw a statistic showing a decrease in immigrant apprehensions overall since the early nineties.
I spent some time in ElPaso. I stayed on while vistiting a buddy at Ft Bliss back in the summer of 95. I Left in 96.
the drug situation there is unbelievable. my buddy, retired army, behind on the child support got caught up. Thought he’d make some easy money by carrying across the border for a guy he met through this young girl who said she loved him. He’s in jail now. I tried to warn him; he thought it was love.
I don’t know how you lived in ElPaso. a person has to LIVE in El Paso to appreciate the size of the problem. I even went to Jaurez. Its just a short walk from downtown El Paso. It was worse than any US slum I’ve ever seen. Drugs and prostitutes everywhere. They are a desperately poor people. it’s understandable they do anything to get out of that situation.
By the way, charles isn’t my real name. My daughter made up this name. She says I tell to much. But its all true.
Fitzov,
I googled the budget numbers and found them
here.
As you can see Figure 1 shows an increase in border patrol spending of about 1000% between 1986 and 2002.
If you scroll down to Figure 3 you’ll see that the probability of apprehension is actually down significantly – perhaps that is the statistic you heard on Nightline. In any case, it proves my point nicely: “Tougher” border measures have not worked in the past, and I see no reason to believe that they will work in the future.
Parenthetically:
If you think about it a bit, it’s kind of obvious why this would be the case. For example, estimates are that between 40% and 60% of illegals don’t actually cross the Mexican border – they just overstay visas. That being the case, a big, nasty, wall won’t do much.
Oh, and according to this government estimate:
here
about 10% of illegals are from Canada, Haiti, Poland, or the Phillipines. Hmmm… Nope, a big, nasty wall won’t help there either.
Finally, it’s worth pointing out the elephant in the room: We all know what happens when a family of illegals is apprehended at the border and returned to Mexico. They try again. And again. Until they succeed. It doesn’t take a genius to see that.
So – like I say – if you think about it a bit, it’s pretty obvious why more strict border enforcement is not The Answer.
Joe, Sorry about the length of the comment. I guess I should get my own blog.
I looked at that site you linked. First, I always look at the source–a pro-immigration site. Ok, not really a problem in and of itself, just something to keep in mind when considering the facts presented. Even on that site, I found a couple of interesting statistics:
Between 1986 and 2002 the number of Border Patrol officers tripled and the number of hours they spent patrolling the border grew by a factor of around eight.
The probability of apprehension along the U.S.-Mexico border fell from about 33 percent during the 1970s and early 1980s, to 20-30 percent in 1993 and 1994, to an all-time low of 5 percent in 2002.
From 1980 to 1992, the cost of hiring a coyote (smuggler) averaged around $400 per crossing, but rose to $1,200 in 1999 before leveling off.
These stats tell me that increased border funding does what it is supposed to do. Of course, that site doesn’t spin it like that. Instead, it focuses on the fact that we are spending more money. Also, the sites other stats suggest that more Mexicans are being granted permanent residence than ever before. In fact, if you look at the INS stats on visas granted, nationals from Mexico and Canada received the most. So claims that there is no legal means of entering the country (which was made on Newshour last night by a pro-clemency advocate), that border patrol doesn’t work, or that we need to allow more immigrants in, don’t appear to hold much weight.
Fitzov,
You lost me. We both agree that the relative stats show that much, much more money is being spent on border control. We also agree that many, many more illegals are successfully crossing. So, how does that show that the “increased border funding does what it is supposed to do”? I’m not seeing it.
No, you’re making the same mistake that many others are making. It’s not that “many more illegals are crossing”, but that more legal immigrants entered the country and the apprehension rate of illegals decreased indicating less were attempting to cross the border.
Fitzov,
I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying, but as best I can determine it appears to me that you may be misinterpreting “probability of apprehension” (the likliehood of an illegal crosser being apprehended) with “apprehension rate”, (presumably, the number of illegals apprehended). By way of explanation, when the study shows that the “probabibity of apprehension” has dropped significantly it means that more illegals are crossing successfully. This is borne out by the widely reported fact that the number of illegal immigrants has now balooned to 11 million. There is no evidence at all that less are attempting to cross, in fact the mere presence of such a large illegal population practically dictates that the opposite is true.
I’m not sure how one would go about calculating the probability of apprehension. You’d have to know how many illegals were crossing, which, according to the apprehension rate alone, has declined. The probability must be based on the fact that either more money or time is spent looking for illegals. I’m not concerned with how much time is spent, only pleased with the fact that less are apprehended. I think that indicates that less are attempting to cross. Of course, if you are pro-immigration you’re going to try to argue that it indicates that border patrol doesn’t work because less are being caught. I haven’t seen the statistics yet to back that claim up.
Opportunity Cost – I would like to hear more in the media about the people who got passed over when the illegals jumped to the front of the line. Who is being left out?
Joe: nice post, but I think you – along with pretty much everybody else who focus on the skirmishing and the tactics being employed by the warring factions – are missing the big picture.
The battle over immigration (illegal and legal, for that matter) is not over the impact it has on wages or whether it poses a national security threat or what will happen if there aren’t enough cashiers at fast food restaurants or whether immigration would result in more votes for Democrats. The battle is between those who are upset that the immigrants aren’t like ‘us’ and those who don’t care or who like that.
Were immigrants today – at least the ones the debate is focusing on – more interested in assimilating themselves into American society and culture, were they waving more American flags than Mexican flags at the protest rallies, then I think there would no debate at all.
Like the characters in Harry Potter who dare not speak the name Voldemort, there are a whole lot of people who aren’t comfortable acknowledging that they’re not happy with the influx of people who, unlike those who came to this country generations ago, just don’t seem to want to assimilate themselves into America. Since they’re not comfortable acknowledging this, they dredge up other issues, such as those I mentioned above, and none of which are really on point or important…
You agree?
MoQuestions, this is exactly the question I’m trying to raise all the time. The people who are getting passed over when the illegals jump to the front of the line are people like my wife and her family, who had to wait years longer than they should have had to in order to get out of a refugee camp that their help of Americans put them in because illegals were jumping in front of them. The question of allowing someone who is illegally here to stay seems outrageous when you consider that they are illegally here taking the space of people who are trying to get here legally.
Steve, maybe that is true for some people but not for everyone. My wife is Asian and about half of my neighborhood is Latino. I greatly appreciate diversity, I think that’s what makes America great. That said, when you have people waiting decades to get into this country legally, it’s simply wrong that we look the other way as people illegally take their place and force them to wait even longer.
Illegal means that it is prohibited by law, or prohibited by official rules.
Undocumented means that it is not supported by written evidence or not having the needed documents, as for permission to live or work in a foreign country, or a person not having proper documentation, especially for immigration.
If I decide I don’t want to follow the laws, will I be prosecuted? I don’t feel like driving the speed limit so I will just speed like a demon and instead of calling myself a speeder, I’ll just say that I’m a time traveler. I’m sure the cop won’t ticket me since I’m sure he understands that laws are made to be broken.
Why bother having laws on anything when no one has to abide by them anyway?
Steve,
What makes you think Latinos are less inclined to integrate into American culture than, say, the millions of Germans who came over in the 19th century and set up their own Germantowns so they wouldn’t have to speak English or mingle with the rest of the country. Did you know that many communities in eastern Missouri spoke only German as late as the mid-20th century? Self-separation is as old as America. Ever been to Chicago? There are ethnic neighborhoods because people from particular foreign countries felt comfortable around their own. Latinos are nothing new. And most know that if they ever went to get a job beyond cleaning toilets or bussing tables, they’re going to have to learn English.
Elrod: I’m not saying there weren’t pockets of immigrants in the past who weren’t interested in assimilating, I’m suggesting that if today’s groups were more interested in assimilating, there might not be as much of an outcry over immigration. For example, had students in LA not flown an upside down American flag under a Mexican flag, had they not carried banners proclaiming their belief that America stole California from Mexico, what would Michelle Malkin have had to write about?
PING:
TITLE: McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill Passes
BLOG NAME: Everything Between
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed immigration reform legislation proposed by Sens. McCain (R-Ariz.) and Kennedy (D-Mass). In an apparent victory for pro-immigration demonstrators, the bill would upend the H.R. 4437 Sensenbrenner anti-immi…
PING:
TITLE: Rise of the Immigrant
BLOG NAME: The Mechanical Eye
FROM THE LA Times: “Hundreds of thousands of people boisterously marched in downtown Los Angeles Saturday to protest federal legislation that would crack down on undocumented immigrants, penalize those who help them and build a security wall on the U.S….
PING:
TITLE: My views on immigration
BLOG NAME: The Glittering Eye
One of the biggest news stories of today seems to be the immigration bill making its way through the Senate:
A key Senate panel broke with the House’s get-tough approach to illegal immigration yesterday and sent to the floor a broad revision of t…
PING:
TITLE: My views on immigration
BLOG NAME: The Glittering Eye
One of the biggest news stories of today seems to be the immigration bill making its way through the Senate:
A key Senate panel broke with the House’s get-tough approach to illegal immigration yesterday and sent to the floor a broad revision of t…