Thread: Democrat talks tough on illegal immigration

Democrat talks tough on illegal immigration

Key senator in upcoming debate could help sway GOP votes.

By Dena Bunis
Washington Bureau Chief
The Orange County Register
Friday, June 26, 2009
dbunis@ocregister.com

The immigration reform debate began anew this week, and buried in a speech given by a Democratic senator who will be a pivotal player are a few sentences that just could help transform this emotional issue.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is the new chairman of the subcommittee on immigration, taking over for Sen. Edward Kennedy who is battling brain cancer.

In remarks to a group of immigration policy wonks and advocates this past week, Schumer broached something that is usually reserved for Republicans: the fact that sneaking into this country over the border or overstaying a visa is wrong. And he also raised the notion of what to call people who are in this country illegally.

"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose,'' Schumer said.

He continued: "People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally.''

When I told Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who has long fought to stop illegal immigration, what Schumer said, the Huntington Beach Republican asked if the ice caps were melting.

That's because those are words you normally wouldn't hear from a Democrat. He was speaking to a pro-immigrant audience that likely didn't like what they heard.

But when I talked to one passionate advocate who was in the room she said Schumer's speech was a breath of fresh air. She said that folks on the left have to understand they can't be cavalier about where the public is on this.

She reminded me that Schumer also said that the United States can't deport its way out of the problem of the 12 million illegal immigrants living here now.

Here's what he said: "Just as the American people are strongly against illegal immigration, they are also just as strongly against turning their country into a 'roundup republic,' - where they will be confronted by nightly news stories of sympathetic families being torn apart at gunpoint during harsh enforcement raids. The American people prefer a pragmatic solution that works to empty rhetoric, however satisfying, that fails."

In talking tough about illegal immigration and in declaring that his first principle for comprehensive reform is that illegal immigration is wrong, Schumer may well be both trying to appeal to colleagues who have opposed reform in the past – and to the American public.

"This may not be a sophisticated maneuver,'' suggests Rohrabacher. "It may be that he's had a revelation.''

Let's not go overboard. Schumer, while he wasn't a key player in the 2006 and 2007 immigration debates, was very involved in the 1986 amnesty bill when he was a House member and has always supported comprehensive reform.

But maybe because of the very fact that Schumer was not one of the authors of the failed bills of 2006 and 2007 he may be able to approach this issue freshly and may have more luck swaying some recalcitrant Republicans to his view.

Kennedy, for example, probably never would have said what Schumer did. And even if he did, Republicans wouldn't believe he meant it.

Schumer does have the baggage that he is one of the most partisan members of the Senate and as head of the Senate's Democratic Campaign Committee helped engineer the Democrat's victories last fall.

And he's not likely to get anywhere with lawmakers who oppose any legalization of undocumented immigrants – including Orange County's Republican members.

Rep. Ed Royce told me he agreed with the part of Schumer's speech when he talked about illegal immigration but then the senator lost him when he talked about legalization.

Royce said the 1986 amnesty was supposed to be the first and last. If another one is passed, Royce believes it will send the signal that coming here illegally really doesn't have any consequences in the long run; that if you wait long enough Congress will pass another one.

There's no question that both sides have their work cut out for themselves.

Those in favor of a bill will have to overcome the loud and passionate views of Americans who oppose one. During the last debate they definitely won the grass roots battle and that helped defeat the bills in the Senate.

And the political calendar is against them. With health reform and energy ahead of them in the legislative queue, it's unlikely anything could get done this year in the Senate so we're looking at early next year. Supporters probably have a few months to get something done but the closer the 2010 midterm elections get, the less likely any substantive legislation gets passed.

'Those opposing a comprehensive bill have math working against them. There are more Democrats in both chambers now than in the last Congress – even though not every Democrat favors comprehensive reform and not every Republican opposes it.

Opponents also have a different president to contend with.

While President George Bush supported a comprehensive bill he never pounded the pavement and went to the mat for its passage until the end game when he did send his homeland security and commerce secretaries to Capitol Hill to try and work out a deal.

President Barack Obama met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday and insisted he wants a bill.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who was at the White House meeting, said she told the president if he wants a bill he'll have to sell it to the American people.

"Obama understands he needs to step forward,'' Sanchez told me after the meeting.

Obama's job will be to bring along the American public to put pressure on their lawmakers to support comprehensive reform. The job of those who don't want to see such a bill passed will be to make sure the grass roots opponents who clogged the Capitol Hill switchboard during the last debate do it again.

We'll be watching.

Contact the writer: (202) 628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/schu ... eople-bill

Smoke and Mirrors. The Democrats are pretending to talk tough to convince the public that they are. Manure

Dixie

they are also just as strongly against turning their country into a 'roundup republic,'

Says who ?

Originally Posted by Dixie

Smoke and Mirrors. The Democrats are pretending to talk tough to convince the public that they are. Manure

Dixie

Exactly Dixie! Sen. Chuck Schumer is simply talking out of both sides of his mouth so as to appease the vast majority of Americans who oppose any amnesty!

Even Rep. Dana Rohrabacher knows that to be the case...as was evident by his thoughts regarding Sen. Chuck Schumer's comments.

When I told Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who has long fought to stop illegal immigration, what Schumer said, the Huntington Beach Republican asked if the ice caps were melting