Thread: Bush's bold immigration plan isn't popular among Republicans

The title is misleading but the article explains, long as it is.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/osullivan/ ... 31.article

Bush's bold immigration plan isn't popular among Republicans
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/osullivan/ ... 31.article)

October 31, 2006

BY JOHN O SULLIVAN
President Bush's approval rating in January 2004 stood at 50 percent. It had been higher following his firm response to Sept. 11 and the early success of the Afghan and Iraqi interventions. But it was reasonably argued these "spikes" of approval were artificially high and that they would return to "normal" once the shock effects of these dramatic events had worn off.

That is exactly what happened throughout 2003. As the election year began, Bush had the approval of almost exactly half of the American people. But the fall did not stop when "normality" was reached. Throughout 2004 and 2005 his approval rating continued its decline in the Harris Interactive Survey. It rallied to rise just above 50 percent for October and the crucial election month of November 2004. But his post-election honeymoon was very short.

His approval rating began to fall again in the very next month and by December 2005 it had reached the mid-30s. It has fluctuated somewhat since then but it is still stuck in the mid-30s today -- reducing his personal clout, weakening the electoral prospects of the GOP next week, and perhaps dooming him to lame duck status against a Democrat majority in duck-hunting mood.

Iraq is the conventional explanation of this fall -- and probably it explains much of Bush's low standing with Democrats and independents. But one of the main features of the current discontent is that many Republicans are angry with Bush and threaten to stay at home rather than cast their vote. Almost all will probably change their mind and troop out to save the GOP Congress. But that likelihood does not cancel out the significance of this Republican surliness -- nor the probability that a small minority of discontented Republicans will sit this election out regardless.

What explains both this decline and the GOP element within it? Did anything in particular happen in January 2004 and December 2004? As it happens something did -- and it was the same thing in both months. In January 2004 he announced his immigration amnesty and guest-worker plan, and in December 2004 he made two major speeches highlighting his intention to press ahead with this "comprehensive immigration reform." Since then he has repeatedly argued for this policy in speeches and sought to help a majority-Democrat bipartisan coalition in the U.S. Senate to pass an amnesty bill against the strong majority opposition of his own party in both Houses of Congress.

This was and is a bold policy. It involves, for instance, legalizing an estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal aliens already in the United States and admitting millions more to work for wages Americans won't accept. To be sure, Bush has strong allies in pushing for it -- Big Business that wants cheap labor, Big Labor that wants cheap recruits, and the national Democrats who want cheap votes.

But the Bush policy is firmly opposed by important constituencies too -- in particular, the great majority of his own Republican Party. Initially, Republicans in Washington and the country disagreed merely with the substance of the Bush policy. They preferred a policy of enforcing immigration control at the border and internally with sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. They passed a House bill to bring in such a policy over opposition from the Democrats and the White House.

To the surprise of the Beltway, however, this House bill proved enormously popular whereas the Senate bill embodying the Bush approach was rejected by large majorities in the polls. So the House Republicans suddenly realized that they had a winning election issue on their hands in what was otherwise a very lean year. They rejected the Senate bill and pushed through their "enforcement only" bill that eventually the Senate accepted. Last week it was signed into law.

Unfortunately for the GOP an election issue needs three elements to work -- and the House immigration bill had only two. Those three elements are as follows:

1. The issue must be something about which the voters are seriously concerned and on which they are prepared to stake their vote. Immigration passes that test easily. Bush made it salient when he proposed his own reforms. And in a poll conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies, 53 percent of likely voters said that it was either their top issue or one of their three top issues. Only 10 percent said it was not important.

2. The issue must be one in which the voters favor one side heavily -- 60-40 at least or better 70-30. Again, the polls are clear on this point too: The voters favor lower levels of immigration by 68 to 21 percent. There is a two-to-one majority for enforcement over "legalization" and three out of every four voters blame the existing crisis on the government's failure to enforce existing laws up to this point. Again, immigration passes the test.

3. The issue must be one on which the parties are clearly divided. If both parties support the same policy or if the difference between the parties is blurred, then the voters have no real choice and so no real incentive to go with one party rather than another. And it is here that the GOP falls down.

Though most Republicans favor a policy of firm immigration enforcement, the president and a small minority of Republicans join most Democrats in preferring amnesty and a guest-worker program. So it is extraordinarily difficult for GOP congressmen to convince the voters they support one policy when the leader of their party is loudly and visibly backing a "bipartisan" alternative to it.

Bush made it harder last week by two further actions. In a meeting with journalists he dismissed the notion that immigration was an important issue that might decide people's votes. He also signed the House enforcement bill in a low-key ceremony that gave the media every excuse to ignore it and Republican candidates no grand photo event that would give their campaigns a final boost.

It looks as if Bush, having helped to destroy his own popularity by sticking to an unpopular immigration policy, is now prepared to undermine the electoral chances of his own party by depriving them of a hot electoral issue at odds with his own opinions. Unless -- as Slate's online commentator Mickey Kaus hesitantly suggests -- Bush is calculating that a Democratic majority in the Congress would pass his immigration policy and bury the approach of his own party.
But that seems to exhaust the alternatives -- Bush is committing either masochistic stubbornness or rank treachery. Or to put a favorable gloss on it: either doing the right thing or putting country before party.

HE IS JUST PUTTING THE CORPORATES PROFIT OVER EVERYTHING AND AT OUR EXPENSES.
2 MORE YEARS AND HE WONT BE IN THE LIMELIGHT SO HE CAN GO TO PARAGUAY AND ENJOY HIS GLOBALIZATION ACCOMPLISHMENT.

Originally Posted by minnie

HE IS JUST PUTTING THE CORPORATES PROFIT OVER EVERYTHING AND AT OUR EXPENSES.
2 MORE YEARS AND HE WONT BE IN THE LIMELIGHT SO HE CAN GO TO PARAGUAY AND ENJOY HIS GLOBALIZATION ACCOMPLISHMENT.

Got that right. If he lives to be old enough he can also, during retirement down south, read in history books how he headed the worst administation ever.

Paraguay is a very friendly country, if yo0u have money, you can enjoy all the benefits.
A lot of criminals find safe heaven over there.

They rejected the Senate bill and pushed through their "enforcement only" bill that eventually the Senate accepted. Last week it was signed into law.

It is unreal how much misinformation is coming from the media. This article would lead an unsuspecting reader to think the original U.S. House "enforcement only" bill passed. There can be no such thing as an "enforcement only" bill until business owners are held accountable for employing illegal immigrants. Hmmm.........a 700-mile fence bill and extra detention beds is not an "enforcement" bill!