Thread: Left and right unite to reform immigration

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1n4switch.html


Rivals unite on reforming immigration


By Jerry Kammer
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
April 4, 2006

WASHINGTON – A casual observer of the Senate's discussion of immigration reform easily could think that the liberals and conservatives have switched scripts.

There was Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., liberal lion and longtime champion of minorities and the poor, last week calling himself “the spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce.”

Kennedy's tongue was planted firmly in cheek, to be sure. But his laugh line was a wry acknowledgment that he has teamed up with business interests to promote legislation that would vastly expand the supply of low-wage labor in the American workplace.

And there was Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, a rock-ribbed conservative and former chairman of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, demanding attention be paid to the plight of the American worker.

Kyl warned his colleagues that if Kennedy got his way, the next economic downturn would summon the wrath of constituents competing for work with the millions of new immigrants who would be allowed to settle permanently in the United States.

“Get ready for a real tough time . . . when American workers come to your office and say, 'How did you let this happen?' ” Kyl said.

This capital city is accustomed to strange-bedfellow coalitions, as normally antagonistic groups unite briefly to pursue a common goal – perhaps a tax nip or regulatory tuck.

But the politics that govern the right to permanent U.S. residency have a history of creating some of the strangest collaborations. Take, for example, the diverse group that supports the bill that Kennedy is sponsoring with Arizona's other Republican senator, John McCain.

Immigration scholar Michael Teitelbaum said the coalition “lines up the Wall Street Journal editorial page and right-wing libertarians like the Cato Institute with left-wing liberals like the ACLU. And it brings in ethnic lobby groups, church groups, employer organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Chamber of Commerce.”

Teitelbaum, who served on a federal commission that studied immigration policy in the 1990s, said that over the past two decades “numerically small but well-organized and heavily financed interest groups” have outmaneuvered opponents who have been unable to pass legislation to restrict immigration despite broad support reflected in opinion polls.

Why the disconnect between policy and public opinion?

“Intensity trumps preference,” explained Grover Norquist, a conservative Republican strategist who finds himself allied with Kennedy in this fight.

Norquist fears long-term damage to the Republican Party and retribution from Latino voters if it calls for a crackdown on illegal immigration.

The pro-immigration coalition was active in 1986 when Congress passed landmark legislation that granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. The legislation was billed as a compromise that would follow legalization with penalties for employers who continued to hire unauthorized workers.

But while the amnesty went forward, work-site enforcement fizzled because counterfeit identity documents were readily available in a burgeoning underground economy.

Calls for a national identity card were defeated by civil libertarians who warned of Big Brother intrusions and by civil rights groups who feared that employers would shy away from hiring anyone who looked or sounded foreign. Now they are hard at work again, appealing for support in news conferences, such as one last month on Capitol Hill that brought together John Gay of the National Restaurant Association and Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza, an Hispanic civil rights organization.

On most issues Gay regards Kyl as his kind of guy.

“He's a good, pro-business senator,” Gay said. “He's with us on labor issues, tax issues. He's for permanent appeal of the (inheritance) tax.”

But on immigration, Gay is singing from the same hymn book as Muñoz and representatives of some of the country's most prominent labor unions.

“We both want the bill for different reasons,” Gay said. “Immigrant advocates want a way for their people to get citizenship and stop dying in the desert. Unions want to grow their membership. We want a stable work force.”

Gay acknowledged that their cooperation is not likely to last.

“If we get what we want on immigration, we'll continue on opposite sides of questions like wage mandates, health care mandates and union organization efforts,” he said. “We'll fight those battles later.

For the restrictionist side, an effort to form an alliance with environmental groups has run into problems.

The Sierra Club long has debated its position on immigration policy, and last year it reaffirmed its decision to remain neutral, turning back mobilization efforts by those who warn that immigration is adding tens of millions of Americans, which strains natural resources, cities and schools.

So immigration restrictionists such as Roy Beck rely on the Internet and talk radio to rally support and put pressure on Congress. Beck, a former environmental journalist, directs NumbersUSA, which says immigration policy has led to unmanageable population growth and corresponding strains on natural resources.

Beck says his side, which he calls “an amorphous blob of citizens across the country,” still has a fighting chance. He relies on help from CNN's Lou Dobbs and talk radio, which has stirred furious opposition to the McCain-Kennedy bill.

“Talk shows and public opinion are standing off this giant coalition,” Beck said.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies, warns that some radio voices are so extreme that they could turn millions of Americans away from the debate.

Referring to one of the more outspoken radio hosts, Krikorian said, “If Michael Savage is making a big thing out of something, I might even be turned off.”

Norquist fears long-term damage to the Republican Party and retribution from Latino voters if it calls for a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Screw the American people, we got to have them Latino votes. That is so lame brain. There are thousands of legal Latinos are against this also. Are they just dumb? They won't have a Party if they continue on this path.

Originally Posted by gofer

Norquist fears long-term damage to the Republican Party and retribution from Latino voters if it calls for a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Screw the American people, we got to have them Latino votes. That is so lame brain. There are thousands of legal Latinos are against this also. Are they just dumb? They won't have a Party if they continue on this path.

the CITIZENS fear longterm damage to OUR country by politicians that are more worried about the 'vote' than the people. Congress needs to start IMPEACHING and REMOVING this traitors from Congress --- put them in prison with the 'illegal aliens'