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.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.