Depending on what news source you hear or read, immigration reform is either progressing and there’s compromise or there’s not going to be a final bill.
And given the intense emotions swirling around this bill it could well be that deadlock will be snatched from the jaws of compromise. The Christian Science Monitor reports:
In a move that stunned official Washington, Senate Democrats and Republicans reached a compromise Thursday on an immigration bill that had looked certain to fail.
With hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters poised for street demonstrations Monday in many US cities, the pressure was on both sides to find a path to citizenship for at least some of the 12 million living here illegally.
“They looked into the abyss and saw this whole thing falling apart and realized they needed to get something done over a serious issue,” says Marshall Wittmann, an analyst with the Democratic Leadership Council. “It was a rare moment of government at its best, and it’s not clear how long it will last.”
Wittmann, by the way is aka
http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/”> Bull Moose. The Monitor goes on to say:
For nearly two weeks, Democrats had blocked all but three votes on amendments to a bipartisan bill that had emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats said they wanted a straight vote on the Judiciary bill, before heading into a tough conference over a House immigration-control bill focused on enforcement and border security. The House bill does not include a path to legalization or citizenship.
The new plan, offered by Senate majority leader Bill Frist late Wednesday, offers a path to legalization for some but not all those currently in the US illegally.
While final details were not available, in general, the compromise would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home countries briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.
But just when it seemed like there was a deal, it soon seemed like it was becoming an UNdeal. The AP:
But delay soon set in, as party leaders became embroiled in a procedural spat that threatened prospects for passage by week’s end, if not longer. Democrats blocked votes on Republican amendments, and Republicans promptly accused Democrats of trying to scuttle a bill they had embraced earlier in the day.
“I believe there are some people who would rather have no bill,” said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican and a Cuban-born first-term senator who has taken a visible role in compromise efforts.
The seesaw nature of events was in keeping with the unpredictable course of the election-year legislation, designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
President Bush said he was pleased with the developments and urged the Senate to pass legislation by week’s end. But the emerging compromise drew fire from both ends of the political spectrum.
And therein is the problem: is 21st century politics so polarized on issues that a compromise on major issues is almost impossible? The compromise would help millions become citizens and although the word “amnesty” is being downplayed, it is in some ways similar to Ronald Reagan’s amnesty (but with different details).
The LA Times offers this immigration primer. Here’s the text of President Bush’s statement on the bill (complete with his blooper describing it as an “energy” bill.).
How likely is it that it’ll pass? Reuters notes that after news came about a compromise, the bill’s future was in doubt as GOPers began to oppose it:
A U.S. Senate compromise on an overhaul of immigration law appeared to get bogged down late on Thursday in the face of opposition by some Republicans who say it would give amnesty to lawbreakers.
It appeared unlikely the Senate would approve before a two-week congressional break on Friday the radical immigration reform that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance to earn U.S. citizenship.
The bill’s backers expressed fear that failure to enact the legislation before lawmakers leave for their spring break could hurt its chances in a congressional election year.
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada earlier hailed a “breakthrough” on the compromise bill that would include a guest worker program sought by President George W. Bush.
But the two leaders were unable to agree on how many amendments to the bill would be allowed.
Frist later accused Democrats of trying to block the bill by refusing to allow amendments. Democrats said they wanted to protect the bill from being “gutted” by Republicans opposed the bill.
“Republicans are still deeply divided on this issue, and we must protect this from those senators bent on gutting the bill with hostile amendments,” said Reid.
Indeed, some conservative talk shows yesterday were peppered with callers — and hosts — urging listeners to contact elected officials to oppose anything resembling an amnesty. A member of one group that wants a hard line on illegal immigrants predicted on one radio broadcast that in the end the compromise would die in the Senate.
And if it passes? Few expect smooth sailing after that — since the House will oppose the Senate version.
The danger is that there could be new forms of polarization, as immigrants and their supporters take to the streets and rumblings about counter demonstrations risk becoming reality. The danger: clashes.
And feelings are running high on both sides in this debate. The bill’s proponent argue that the immigrants aren’t only here but have contributed greatly to American society and are hard-working, “family values” residents. Those who oppose a compromise bill are particularly irked by the bill’s backers insisting that provisions to offer residency aren’t really an amnesty.
One of the bill’s biggest web critics, Michelle Malkin, writes:
Amnesty is a general pardon from the government for law-breaking.
It’s against the law to cross our borders or overstay visas without permission. It’s against the law to avoid deportation once you’ve been ordered to leave. It’s against the law to re-enter if you’ve ever been deported. And it’s against the law to recruit, hire, harbor or encourage those lawbreakers.
What else do you call a bill that grants any illegal immigrant who has been in the U.S. for five or more years an immediate path to American citizenship?
This is amnesty and it does not depend on what the meaning of “is” is.
OUTLOOK: More will unfold today but even if a compromise emerges from the Senate it’s unlikely it will be able to be reconciled with the House’s more stringent proposal, which only entails enforcement, not anything remotely similar to an amnesty. The Republicans are more splintered on this issue than the Democrats. Bush’s poll numbers have already dropped among Republicans and this probably won’t help boost them.
In the end, a law may not emerge this year due to the difficulty of reconciling proposals (if the Senate passes something). Which means an emotional issue will fester out there in 2006. But it may not be a clearcut “wedge issue” GOPers can use against Democrats since so many Republicans are upset over their own party elite’s position.
Will 2006 be the year when the U.S. takes a serious stab at immigration reform? Or will immigration reform be just one more, big fat political monkey wrench thrown into the mid-term elections? The answers are coming….likely quite soon.
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.