Thread: Immigration is back – with a vengeance

Sunday, December 2, 2007
Immigration is back – with a vengeance
Letter from Washington: Issue permeated GOP presidential debate and advocates of legalization may not like the way it is being ressurected.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
Comments 0| Recommend 0

When the Senate immigration bill failed earlier this year, advocates of a broad solution vowed they'd be back and the issue wouldn't die.

Ever hear the expression, "Be careful what you wish for?"

Immigration is back all right. But not in the way that those who want a legalization plan for millions of undocumented immigrants would like.

I've said this before in this space but it bears repeating: those who believe what is needed on this issue is to enforce current immigration law and seal the nation's borders make their case with a passion that so far has been missing from the other side – at least at the grass roots level.

And the way the issue is playing out in the presidential campaign is evidence of that.

The first half-hour of last week's CNN-You Tube debate was totally devoted to immigration questions. And the audience was clearly on the side of the get-tough candidates. When Mike Huckabee and John McCain begged for compassion on this issue those attending the debate didn't buy it.

Up to now, immigration was an issue that candidates didn't believe would sway an election. But this year, at least on the Republican side – despite the Iraq war, a seesawing stock market and health care costs going out of sight – immigration will likely figure into the mix.

And that's because it's being framed as a national security and sovereignty issue by those who care most about it.

Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo was amused at Wednesday's debate. For years Tancredo spent many lonely nights on the floor of the House of Representatives railing against illegal immigration. He was laughed at frankly and not many members wanted to be seen in his company.

Not so much any more. The immigration reform caucus he started with a couple of members a few years ago now has dozens of lawmakers on board. Tancredo kind of made that point at Wednesday's debate.

"For a guy who usually stands on the bookend here, aside, and just listens all the time, that's kind of frustrating, you know, in other debates. I have to tell you, so far, it's been wonderful,'' Tancredo said smiling, "because all I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo."

And he's right.

The differences between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue go beyond policy.

Yes, the Republicans by and large oppose the kind of comprehensive immigration plan championed by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John McCain. If more Republicans were willing to support McCain, Florida's Mel Martinez, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter and a few others, the Senate would have passed a bill earlier this year.

And since the bill failed, it seems that the split in the GOP on this issue is becoming virtually non-existent. Republican lawmakers are now almost solidly behind an enforcement-first, if not an enforcement-only strategy.

Not so with the Democrats.

Most Democrats still support a comprehensive plan. All of the Democratic presidential candidates have said when asked that the immigration system needs to be fixed and there should be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who pay a fine, get to the back of the line etc.

But immigration isn't in their stump speeches. Democrats speak on this issue only when they are spoken to.

What happened with the driver's license debacle is an example of the radioactivity of this issue. Sen. Hillary Clinton got herself all wrapped up in that controversy and even Sen. Barack Obama, who made fun of her when she went back and forth on the issue, got a little tongue tied during the last debate.

So mainly the Democrats are laying low. But more than that, at least in Congress, the fissures in this party seem to be getting larger.

Former football player Rep. Heath Schuler of North Carolina, one of the freshman members who helped deliver the House majority to the Democrats, has introduced an enforcement immigration bill. Among the inner circle of House leadership there are conversations about how to handle this issue so as not to anger Latinos but also not to endanger Democrats in iffy districts.

When it comes to the presidential race, Democrats may get a pass on this in the primary – and I'm not even sure of that. But surely in the general election Democrats are going to have to play.

Republicans are going to go after whoever the Democratic nominee is when it comes to immigration. How that works is going to be interesting to watch. Latino voters will be energized in such state as New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, possible new battleground states in 2008. But whether enough of them will actually vote to make a difference in those states remains to be seen.

But just consider. It may not be who wins the presidential election that in the end will determine what happens with immigration.

After all, a Republican president supported a comprehensive bill this year and it failed. It failed because not enough Republicans in the Senate were willing to vote for it.

And while there are about half a dozen of the 51 Democratic senators who oppose a comprehensive bill, most Democrats support it. If they can add to their ranks to get close to the filibuster proof number of 60 then it's possible immigration can be resurrected. And if the Senate can pass a bill it becomes an easier sell in the House.

So as the campaign begins to unfold, it may be that some of those Senate races around the country are a better barometer of whether the immigration debate returns to Capitol Hill in 2009 than anything that happens on the presidential trail.

We'll be watching.


Bunis is the Register's Washington bureau chief.

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




From the editor: Many of you have expressed concerns about some of the harsh anonymous comments from readers. To remedy that, we are introducing new features. You can create your own blog, publish your news and share your photos with the community. Once you fill out a simple form and leave a verifiable e-mail address, you can set up your profile page. It will display all of your contributions and allow you to track issues and easily connect with others.
We want our site to be a place where people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities. We built this for you. Please take care of it. Tolerate broad thinking, but take action against obscene or hateful material. Make it a credible and safe place worth preserving and sharing.

Report item as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/PlagiarismUser is under 13Cyber bullyingSexual / predatory behavior Other Comment: (optional)
http://www.ocregister.com/news/immigrat ... l-tancredo

Let's get the word out on Giuliani and Huckabee, both of whom support "comprehensive" massive amnesty! Giuliani tries to hide this more than Huckabee, but both want a huge amnesty.

Originally Posted by Populist

Let's get the word out on Giuliani and Huckabee, both of whom support "comprehensive" massive amnesty! Giuliani tries to hide this more than Huckabee, but both want a huge amnesty.

We plan on that.

W

With the exception of Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo the entire lot of presidential candidates seem to "talk the talk." They're just like Bush. Guiliani is a big amnesty guy as well as Huckabee. Romney may be a little better. Not sure of him though. I agree we really need to get the word out. Can't quite make up my mind about Thompson either.

And if the Senate can pass a bill it becomes an easier sell in the House.

Not with the shamnasty bill. The House swore that even if it did somehow manage to get cloture and pass, that our Representatives would have squashed it completely.