Thread: Immigration, Yet Another Hard Issue for Congress

Immigration, Yet Another Issue: How Many Hard Votes Can Congress Take?

Walter Shapiro columnist
POLITICS DAILY
Posted: 11/17/09
22 Comments

The Obama administration – and this is a rare statement apt to unite acolytes and acid-tongued critics – does not lack for ambition.

Even with the president off in Asia, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 9/11 suspects would be tried in civilian courts in New York City. And Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, delivered a major speech adding one more controversial item to the 2010 legislative agenda. The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dominated the headlines, but Napolitano's full-throated commitment to push for immigration reform next year may have the most lasting political reverberations.

Barack Obama pledged during the campaign to make immigration reform a "top priority" during his first year in office, but until now that promise seemed more an inconvenience than a heartfelt commitment. Napolitano's speech in Washington Friday, which had been carefully choreographed with the White House, was designed as a we-were-not-kidding reminder to Congress, Hispanic groups, liberals and the business community that "the president continues to be fully committed to reforming our immigration laws."
The president may be "fully committed,'' but so is Congress, which is already up to its neck with health care and climate change legislation, financial regulation and a stomach-wrenching recession. Illegal immigrants living outside the protections of the law and the scrutiny of law enforcement seem like one of those problems America forgot it had. While winning the Latino vote has a continuing urgency for the Democrats, the immigration issue, for the most part, does not. And that is the daunting challenge for Obama and Napolitano.

Napolitano, who wrestled with immigration issues as Arizona governor, is not prone to soaring rhetoric. Her most unequivocal comments came during the question period following the speech rather than in her formal address. Asked about pressing congressional issues like health-care and climate-change legislation, Napolitano flatly declared, "This administration is perfectly capable of multi-tasking." And her final words underscored the administration's message on immigration: "This has been allowed to fester too long. We can fix this. This is a fixable problem."

There were few new policy wrinkles in Napolitano's speech, but there did not have to be since the contours of a legislative compromise were hammered out during the Bush years. Illegal immigrants would be granted a path to citizenship if they pay a fine, pass a criminal background check and demonstrate proficiency in English. Coupled with this liberalization for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants would be enhanced border security, tougher workplace enforcement and some form of a guest worker program. This is the grand bargain that under-girded the reform legislation that survived a Senate filibuster but failed to make its way through Congress in 2006.

"Unlike health-care, this will be more of a political debate than a legislative debate, since we know the contours legislatively," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN, a center-left think tank that supports immigration reform.

Even after the administration has now upped the rhetorical ante, the political mystery is how much appetite Congress has for another high-decibel debate before the 2010 elections. By all accounts, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who is locked in a tough reelection fight in a state that is one quarter Hispanic, is determined to make the fight. But Tamar Jacoby, the president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a business alliance championing reform, conceded, "There is no enthusiasm for immigration reform in either caucus in either chamber of Congress. That's the downside. The question is going to be which is stronger – Obama's need to do this or congressional reluctance. That's the dynamic."

In many ways, the anti-legalization passions that once swirled around the immigration fight have faded as dramatically as Lou Dobbs's television career. While there is always a constituency for demonizing illegal immigrants, it is impossible for anyone to blame the 2008 Wall Street meltdown and the current deep recession on Mexican farm workers and Chinese dishwashers. In fact, under the Bush administration last year, apprehensions of illegal immigrants dropped to the lowest level since 1975, suggesting an equally precipitous drop in attempted border crossings. As Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who directed a task force on immigration policy, explained, "The biggest reason for the drop is the decline of the economy."

The moribund job market cuts both ways with Congress. Fears of illegal immigrants taking work from American citizens dissipate when there are few foreign workers and even fewer jobs. But there is also the what's-in-it-for-me problem as voters become skeptical of any major piece of congressional legislation that does not directly address unemployment. A Democratic strategist, who insisted on anonymity because he did not want to cross swords with the White House, said, "Politically the water is fine for immigration reform. But the real problem is that the issue becomes a distraction in the minds of the voters."

Immigration reform began as a rare 21st century bipartisan crusade linking the Bush administration, congressional liberal Democrats, and reform-minded GOP senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But these days, early-line estimates suggest that immigration reform may attract only seven or eight GOP votes in the Senate, which may barely compensate for Democratic defections in staving off a filibuster. If the bill survives the Senate, the outcome in the House is apt to pivot around how many Democrats from dicey districts are willing to cast one more potentially explosive vote before the 2010 elections.

In 2008, according to exit polls, Obama carried 67 percent of the Latino vote. The Democrats need both high Latino turnout and similarly lopsided margins to hold their ground in Congress next year and reelect Obama in 2012. The political calculus surrounding immigration reform is tricky: Do the Democrats actually need to win congressional approval of immigration reform in 2010? Or will they get the same Latino vote merely by attempting to pass the legislation, especially if enough Republicans give vent to nativist sentiments and mobilize Hispanics in opposition?

Simon Rosenberg, who works closely with congressional Democrats as the president of NDN, argued, "The Democrats will be punished by Latino voters if they do not pass comprehensive reform next year. Failure will make the Democrats look impotent – and I'm willing to use that word." The counter-argument is that voters often do not distinguish between position taking (making passionate speeches on an issue) and actually doing something about it. The anti-abortion movement, for example, has been part of the GOP coalition since the 1970s, even though three Republican presidents, governing for 20 years, have failed to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Passing immigration reform is never going to be easy, especially since a 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants did not bring with it the promised strengthening of border and workplace enforcement. Napolitano referred to that failure in her speech as she said, "We now know that one-sided reform, as we saw in 1986, cannot succeed." She argued, and independent experts buttress her assessment, "The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure. And it has made a real difference."

But Napolitano and the White House may be fighting the last war as they emphasize enforcement as the first step toward legalizing the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. The legislative obstacles this time around appear to have far more to do with congressional fatigue over casting difficult votes, the collapse of the last remnants of bipartisanship and the drag (both economic and political) from double-digit unemployment.

"We're drawing to an inside straight," admitted Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group organized to support immigration reform. "But still it's our best chance to pass legislation in 10 years." That may be true. But the real test will come when the Obama administration – making good on its purported love for multi-tasking – has to play four or five tough legislative hands before the 2010 elections.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/17 ... ress-take/

"The Democrats will be punished by Latino voters if they do not pass comprehensive reform next year.

And they'll be punished by the rest of the voters if they do. Between a rock and a hard place - think before you make campaign promises you can't keep.

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

"The Democrats will be punished by Latino voters if they do not pass comprehensive reform next year.

And they'll be punished by the rest of the voters if they do. Between a rock and a hard place - think before you make campaign promises you can't keep.

How will they punish the Dems? Switch to the Republican party?

How will they punish the Dems? Switch to the Republican party?

I did. Over this very issue. I saw the machine works the Demos were doing during the Bush years and realized it was time to change. Glad I did with all the other garbage they are trying to swamp us with now.

Originally Posted by ShockedinCalifornia

How will they punish the Dems? Switch to the Republican party?

I did. Over this very issue. I saw the machine works the Demos were doing during the Bush years and realized it was time to change. Glad I did with all the other garbage they are trying to swamp us with now.

I consider myself an independent but now am much more receptive to Republican candidates, as long as they support the issues I'm most concerned about. RINO's need not apply.

If legal immigrants had any pride in being able to be in this country, they would take the stance that what is good for America is also good for them. They do not realize, that by supporting the continuing influx of illegals who should be granted amnesty for their criminal acts, they are also smearing their identity. Where is the pride of having done things the right way, and where is your pride in your country, Janet Napolitano and Janet Murguia?