Thread: Political world split in immigration debate

http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor ... Valley,911

Political world split in immigration debate
September 11,2006
James Osborne
Monitor Staff Writer


In 2001, President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox made a historic joint statement, announcing their commitment to overhauling the immigration system and bringing order to the flood of Latin American immigrants crossing the border.

Six days later, Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four jet planes and any discussion of opening up the southern border quickly fell silent.

"I was in Washington when Fox addressed Congress, and there was the sense they turned a corner, that they were determined to go forward," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

"It would have been a messy debate and it would have taken some time. But after 9/11 it was just put on the shelf for two years."

While now on hold pending November’s mid-term elections, the debate over immigration policy dramatically re-emerged last year after the U.S. House of Representatives passed an immigration bill that increased the number of law enforcement agents on the border and stiffened penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.

With an absence of provisions for illegal immigrants already living in the United States and the bill’s emphasis on national security, the House legislation was quickly derided by civil rights groups. Even many moderate Republicans opposed it, and in March a bipartisan committee led by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) proposed a different plan that included some degree of amnesty for illegal immigrants, as well as a guest worker program.

With Bush’s support, a new bill passed the Senate in May, opening up a conflict that will likely depend on who wins in November.

Fundamentally, the two sides are separated by their vision of post-9/11 America. And for many, with the advent of a real threat of terrorist attacks within the United States, now is the time for the country to address the immigration question.

For John Keeley, a spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies, illegal immigration is a problem that was ignored for too long.

"There’s been a dereliction of duty securing the border," he said from his office in Washington D.C. His organization supports the House version of the immigration bill.

"Unlike the president, the American people have to live with the consequences of immigration policy. The bankrupted hospitals and the overloaded schools and the gangs in Hazelton, Pa."

The economic pros and cons of illegal immigration have always been a bone of contention between the two sides. Some say it burdens the economy and others say it is the base of the agricultural, manufacturing and service industries.

Those who support the Senate version say immigrants are essential to the country’s development and need to be provided a legal way of entering into the country.

"We have a 1950s outdated immigration system that has fostered illegalities." Sharry said. "In the ’90s it really became an issue. It was a combination of the recession and lots of media coverage about our porous borders.

"American people really believe strongly in the rule of law and it bugs them the government doesn’t apply it on the southern borders."

____

James Osborne covers PSJA and general assignments for The Monitor. You can reach him at (956) 683-4428.

"American people really believe strongly in the rule of law and it bugs them the government doesn’t apply it on the southern borders."

And just about everywhere else.