Thread: Bush-Kennedy Alliance May Win the Day on Immigration

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- Lindsey Graham, a pro-immigration American politician, knows the ugly side of this issue: Some of his constituents derisively call him Lindsey ``Gomez.''

Yet the South Carolina Republican senator sees the raging immigration debate as a healthy primer on the political, economic, social and historical strengths of the U.S.

``Immigration causes us problems, sometimes brings out nativist feelings,'' he says. ``But, more than any other country, in the end, America sees the value of immigration.''

The 51-year-old Graham is a John McCain-in-waiting: a bright, inclusive, press-friendly conservative Republican with a decidedly independent streak. Along with President George W. Bush and Senator McCain, an Arizona Republican, he espouses a more open immigration policy. Most Republican office-holders have a distinctly more negative view of the U.S.'s estimated 11 million undocumented, or illegal, immigrants.

The U.S. House of Representatives last December passed punitive legislation focusing on tightening border security with Mexico, which is by far the largest source of undocumented workers. In May, a bipartisan Senate majority approved a comprehensive bill -- toughening border restrictions while providing a lengthy pathway to citizenship for current illegal immigrants and a roadmap for further increases.

Big Stakes

The lawmakers will try to reconcile these dramatically different approaches before this November's congressional elections; the political stakes are huge.

Many congressional Republicans believe their core voters want a crackdown on illegal immigrants or else they'll stay home on Election Day, ceding control of Congress to the Democrats. Graham believes that if Republicans are seen as anti-immigration, the party will forfeit the nation's fastest-growing electoral bloc, Hispanics. His pal, McCain, has even labeled the House legislation ``anti-Hispanic.''

If Bush fails, it will be the first time in memory that a president suffered back-to-back defeats on his two top domestic initiatives. (Last year it was Social Security.)

Both sides of this Republican divide are wrapping themselves in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. The anti-immigration forces cite the former president's embrace of traditional cultural values and insistence on play-by-the-rules law and order. At the same time, the Bush-McCain-Graham faction talks about Reagan's inclusive, ``shining city on a hill'' vision of America.

History, Facts

As this conflict gets more impassioned in the weeks ahead, facts and history may be casualties.

A case in point: There is considerable public support for building a fence along the southern U.S. border to keep out aliens who might be terrorists. There have been post-Sept. 11 terrorist efforts to sneak across the border -- from Canada. There is no discussion of a 3,987-mile fence along the northern border with the U.S.'s largest trading partner.

Critics of undocumented workers charge they're taking jobs from American citizens. Nonsense, say most economists.

``As Republicans, we can't say on Monday that we have a 4.6 percent unemployment rate and the best economy of our lifetime,'' says Graham, ``and then on Tuesday say illegal immigration is destroying us.''

Yet more than a few economists, and anecdotal evidence, suggest that the huge influx of immigrants does suppress wages for lower-income workers, a reality often ignored by the pro- immigration forces. Immigrants comprise 14.7 percent of the U.S. work force and a much larger percentage of fast-food employees, low-skilled construction workers and cleaning jobs, areas where wages have grown below average in recent years.

Center of Diversity

There is considerable rhetoric, too, about the unprecedented surge in immigration. About 12 percent of the U.S. population today is foreign born; in 1910, it was 15 percent.

Few other places -- certainly not any major European or Asian country -- rival the assimilative spirit of America. The country has honored those eloquent words at the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.''

It has rarely been easy.

The U.S. Senate established a panel to study immigration, the Dillingham Commission. Its conclusion: ``The new immigration, as a class, is far less intelligent than the old,'' lacking the skills and standards of earlier groups. That was in 1911.

Past Discrimination

In times past, signs appeared in shops, reading ``No Irish need apply,'' there was a vicious backlash against the ``dirty'' new stock coming from Italy and Poland and, at one point, Chinese were banned. Then, during World War II, American citizens of Japanese ancestry were thrown in internment camps.

Today, public opinion on immigration is as dicey as this history. Polls generally suggest that voters support a more inclusive, comprehensive approach like that passed by the Senate.

However, those with the most fervor are generally hard-line conservatives. That presents a political conundrum: Immigration bashing is often good short-term and disastrous long-term politics. Twelve years ago, Republican Governor Pete Wilson of California won re-election by going after illegal immigrants. In the process, he alienated Hispanic voters, and Democrats have dominated California politics ever since.

The problem for the White House and other immigration-reform backers is there are only a little more than 20 legislative days left in this Congress before the election. The House tomorrow resumes hearings on the Senate's immigration bill, with the Judiciary Committee focusing on whether provisions giving undocumented immigrants a path to legal status ``repeat the mistakes'' of legislation passed in 1986 that granted legal status to as many as 3 million undocumented immigrants.

For House Republican leaders, struggling to retain their majority, the November elections are the short and the long term.

Unlikely Duo

Moreover, some top Senate Democrats like New York's Charles Schumer, the head of the party's Senate campaign committee, are privately counseling colleagues not to help the Republicans and Bush out of their bitter intra-party schism. Not surprisingly, the conventional wisdom is there's neither the time nor the political will to pass a real immigration measure this year.

Graham disagrees, seeing the contours of a compromise, closer to the Senate version that would start with broader enforcement and then trigger earned citizenship for illegal immigrants. He puts the odds of success at 60-40 because of an unlikely duo: George Bush and Ted Kennedy, a longtime champion of immigrants and a legendary liberal Democratic legislator.

``I can't tell you how impressed I am with Senator Kennedy's willingness to try to solve this problem,'' Graham says. And he thinks Bush will exert enormous political pressure on recalcitrant House Republicans: ``This is about his legacy.''

A Bush-Kennedy immigration success. That would be only in America.



To contact the reporter for this story:
Al Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: July 17, 2006 13:18 EDT

``I can't tell you how impressed I am with Senator Kennedy's willingness to try to solve this problem,'' Graham says. And he thinks Bush will exert enormous political pressure on recalcitrant House Republicans: ``This is about his legacy.''

What DEAL did Lindsey Gomez Graham make that was big enough, profitable enough for him to sell his soul & his country? Hmmmmm?

Who cares about his legacy? We need to save our country. He will have a legacy alright as being known as a president who deserted his people and put his own ambitions against the will of the american citizens. He will be known as the president who sold out his country. That will be his legacy!!!

As far as Graham goes if he looks up to the likes of our president or Ted Kennedy he is an idiot.

I did hear Senator Gomez say we needed the illegal aliens, because they keep up the golf course where he plays.

You know, back in my stupid days, before the immigrations issue was important to me and before ALLIPAC, I once thought this man would make a good president! Yea, I know had to go wash my mouth out with soap,(for all of you who remembers that) for making this statement. How could I have been so blind? Thank God, for sometimes letting people get the blinders off and thank god for all the information I have read here on ALIPAC, now, I can really make a well informed decision about Lindsey Graham and others of his caliber.
THANK YOU GOD, I SAW THE LIGHT!

``shining city on a hill'' vision of America.

Would that be the one overlooking the Atlantic that the Catholic Bishop in Florida is retiring to after he makes sure Florida is a sanctuary state?

What DEAL did Lindsey Gomez Graham make that was big enough, profitable enough for him to sell his soul & his country? Hmmmmm?

Same though crossed my mind 2nd.

Bush will exert enormous political pressure on recalcitrant House Republicans: ``This is about his legacy.''

The only legacy G.W. Bush will have is he restored serfdom.

He ranks right down there with Kennedy and McCain and the rest of them. IS there ANY CHANCE South Carolina can dump this guy on election day ??

Don't feel too bad, Nitty Gritty. I, too, once felt a little respect for Linsay Graham. That is about as nice as I get with politicians.

I thought he was independent, perhaps had a soul, and a bit of a conscience.

How wrong can you be?

'Nativism?' A whole host of laws of this country are being broken. Americans are being punished for breaking the same laws. We are at risk from criminals, diseases, and terrorists coming across those borders and he calls it 'nativism'??

We have got to use our muscle which is our vote, to get these people out of office!

Jorge Bush and Ted Kennedy are the biggest, most worst disaster America has ever experienced. They are nothing, but pond scum and anyone that looks up to them are pond scum too. It's time to put politicans like them out to pastor. Legacy? What Legacy? A legacy of cronyism, lying, deceit, incompetence and corruption. That sure is something to be proud of.