Thread: congressman may lose seat for pro-immigration views

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008446



JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL

Is Cannon Fodder?
One GOP congressman may lose his seat for his pro-immigration views, while another offers a compromise.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:01 a.m.

Timing is everything in politics. Late next month, just as the conference committee that will decide the fate of an immigration bill gets down to business, a GOP primary for a Utah House seat in the country's most conservative congressional district may set the boundaries for any legislation that has a chance of passing both the House and Senate.
Illegal immigration is the key issue in the race, and should five-term incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon of Provo lose to a restrictionist challenger, look for House Republicans to dig in their heels and block any bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

"House Republicans are already spooked about immigration, and should one of our own lose on the issue, you will see panic break out," one GOP congressman told me. At the same time, several GOP pollsters, led by Whit Ayres, say their surveys show it is vital that Republicans pass some immigration bill this year to prove they can govern.





That's why it's good news that the glimmer of a workable compromise surfaced this week, courtesy of Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, head of the Republican Study Committee, a group of 115 conservative House Republicans. Mr. Pence, proud grandson of an Irish immigrant, says the only bill that can pass in this year's hothouse environment may have to be one that couples stiffer border enforcement with a no-amnesty guest-worker program.
His proposal (which can be found here) would have the U.S. government contract with gold-standard private employment agencies such as Kelly Services to establish offices called Ellis Island Centers in countries that supply the most illegal alien labor today. The centers would provide an incentive for illegals to leave the country and apply for guest-worker visas in the U.S. that would be granted within a week by matching workers with jobs employers can't fill with American workers. They would also make criminal and other background checks. Guest workers would be able to apply for citizenship, but they would have to follow current rules with no favoritism over those now waiting legally in line.

"It would encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers," says Mr. Pence. "They would benefit from no longer living in fear or in the shadows of life and they could return home for visits. And since employers who hired anyone without such a visa would face stiff fines, it would make it increasingly difficult over time for those who weren't legal guest workers to get jobs."

His proposal is already building bridges between the warring immigration camps. Tamar Jacoby, a pro-immigration scholar at the Manhattan Institute, says the Pence approach is a middle ground that bypasses the cumbersome federal bureaucracy. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a fierce opponent of President Bush's approach to immigration, is also conciliatory. "A guest worker program I think can be on the table if it does not contain an amnesty," he says.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Pence's approach immediately drew fire from the extremes of the debate. Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, who helped organize an economic boycott by illegal aliens earlier this month, demands "immediate legalization without conditions." He opposes any guest-worker programs, calling them an infringement on the rights of those who want to come to America.

Just as hostile was Rep. Tom Tancredo, leader of Congress's anti-immigration hard-liners. He posted an appeal to his supporters on the Web site of his political action committee to "call Pence at [his Washington office's number] and let him know that you do not support his 'no amnesty' amnesty," He says the Pence proposal is merely "dressed up amnesty."





Given the virulence of the attacks on him by both sides, perhaps Mr. Pence is on to something. An approach along these lines may be the only thing that can pass Congress this year should Mr. Cannon go down to defeat. Right now, things don't look good for the Utah Republican. His standing among party activists has clearly been weakened by the images of recent mass demonstrations of illegal aliens. In the final round of voting at the GOP state convention two weeks ago, Mr. Cannon was outpolled, 52% to 48%, by political newcomer John Jacob. Because no one won the necessary 60% of the convention vote to avoid a primary, the two will go head to head at the ballot box June 27.
Mr. Jacob, a wealthy businessman, has already spent $335,000 of his own money on the race and pledges to spend close to that from now until the primary. Two years ago, Rep. Cannon faced a similar primary challenge, from former state legislator Matt Throckmorton. Mr. Throckmorton benefited from $80,000 in radio and billboard ads donated by anti-immigration groups upset by Mr. Cannon's strong support of a guest-worker approach. But Mr. Cannon outspent him 8 to 1.

The final Dan Jones & Associates survey in that race gave Mr. Cannon a 58% to 17% lead over the challenger. Mr. Cannon got exactly that--58%--with all the balance going to Mr. Throckmorton. "What the incumbent usually has in polls is what the incumbent gets," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. "They are the known quantity, and they rarely get above their final poll number." Mr. Cannon currently leads Mr. Jacob, 48% to 28%.

"There's clearly some anti-incumbent toxicity out there," Mr. Cannon admitted to Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News. Indeed, only one of the state's three other GOP congressmen is publicly backing Mr. Cannon. Gov. John Huntsman told reporters he wasn't making an endorsement in the race. "I'll be waiting (until after the primary). That's only fair."

A loss by Mr. Cannon would have profound political consequences. Conservative activist Grover Norquist has called the Utah congressman "the president's strongest ally in maintaining a pro-immigrant GOP." Mr. Cannon has long been one of the few members to point out the genuine need the U.S. economy has for new workers. He has publicly chided some of his colleagues for "demagoguing the immigration issue--some to raise money, some for attention." He has pointed out that some anti-immigration groups have ties to environmental and population-control extremists.

But Mr. Cannon has also had a political tin ear on immigration for some years, and that may prove his undoing. Despite his claim that he has been "working against illegal immigration for ten years," until early May his campaign Web site failed to list immigration among the 11 top campaign issues it touted.

He is also haunted by a speech he made in 2002 while accepting an award from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Captured by C-Span, the speech included Mr. Cannon's statement that "we love immigrants in Utah. And we don't make the distinction very often between legal and illegal. In fact, I think Utah was the first state in the country to legislate the ability to get a driver's license based on the matricula consular [a Mexican government ID], and of that I'm proud." Mr. Cannon says his remarks were taken out of context, and he sent out a videotape to every delegate to the GOP convention carefully explaining his immigration stance.

His challenger, Mr. Jacob, appears to be a conventional conservative. But he has made ugly statements about immigration. He told the Salt Lake Tribune that hiring undocumented workers is tantamount to slavery, an absurd and offensive comparison. He asks, "Why are we creating this subculture that, like in France, will burn out cars?"--never mind that illegal aliens have been largely peaceful and law-abiding (with the notable exception of the Salvadoran MS-13 crime gang).





That Mr. Cannon is now an underdog in a Congressional district where the new Dan Jones poll still shows President Bush enjoying a 65% approval rating is a sign that the politics of immigration are changing. Here are other signs:
• Rep. Tom Osborne, the legendary University of Nebraska football coach, who lost a GOP primary for governor this month, says he was defeated in part because he backed a bill that made children of illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition rates at Nebraska colleges. "I don't think [voters] really understood" his position, he told the Associated Press.

• Rep. Chris Shays, a leading GOP moderate from Connecticut, told me his recent town-hall meetings in his upper-income district have convinced him he must oppose citizenship for illegal aliens.

• Of the 17 House Democrats who face the toughest races this fall, 13 voted for the get-tough bill passed by the House last December. And some of the 17 Republicans who voted against the enforcement-only House bill are having second thoughts. Rep. Mark Souder, who saw his vote percentage drop about 10 points against the same hapless challenger he faced in the 2004 primary, says, "there is a pot boiling out there. We've got to secure the border first."

• Even Sen. John McCain, one of the main backers of a comprehensive immigration solution, made a bow to the passions behind the immigration issue when he addressed the same GOP convention in Utah that rebuffed Rep. Cannon. "The present system is broke. It's a failed federal policy," he told the GOP delegates. "We need a comprehensive approach, but first we have to fix our borders."





When John McCain talks about securing the border first, you know the politics of the debate are shifting. That means supporters of a rational approach that goes beyond mere fence-building and enforcement have to be realistic about what is possible this year--especially should Rep. Cannon lose.
So far, the White House and Republican National Committee are behind the curve. Last Friday, the RNC circulated a memo by Matthew Dowd, a strategist who worked on both of President Bush's two campaigns. "The comprehensive approach that emphasizes both security and compassion is unifying, not polarizing. It is supported by Republicans, independents and Democrats," the memo said. "Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."

That may be true, but the Bush administration frankly has to acknowledge that its weak poll numbers and clumsy post-Katrina image have hurt its standing on the immigration issue with Republicans in Congress. "There is not a lot of credibility right now with the administration on securing the border and enforcing the law," Rep. Ric Keller of Florida told the Washington Post.

So long as that perception holds, look for Speaker Dennis Hastert to hold firm on his position that he won't bring a House-Senate compromise immigration bill to the floor if it doesn't enjoy the support of a majority of GOP lawmakers. Right now, House insiders say about 75% of his troops are adamantly opposed to adopting even a weakened version of the Senate's path-to-citizenship approach.

The longer the stalemate continues, the more both President Bush and the GOP Congress may eventually view what Rep. Pence calls his "rational middle ground" as a useful strategy. The Pence bill is too heavy on discredited enforcement methods for my taste, but the more urgent political priority is to pass something this year. In policy terms, doing nothing would only make the immigration problem worse and push the debate into the overheated environment of a presidential campaign, which could result in even worse legislation. As for the politics, South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham told the Los Angeles Times that if congressional Republicans can't get a bill passed, "we will do to Bush on immigration what Democrats did to him on Social Security. It would be a signal to the country at large that we as Republicans, who own the whole government, can't solve hard problems."

For all its limitations, Rep. Pence's proposal is an innovative idea that can be used as a platform on which to build upon in the future. In the current political storm, it may be a port worth seeking shelter near.

They would benefit from no longer living in fear or in the shadows of life and they could return home for visits.

I stopped right here. I could go no futher. They are too comfortable and will not stop living here. Also, they are not that afraid because they will storm the streets with Mexican flags. That statement is a joke.

"Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."

What did he knock his head on this morning???

"We need a comprehensive approach, but first we have to fix our borders."

I'm starting to here "secure our border first" or "secure the borders is first and formost"

What they are still not saying! I'm agianst the guest worker program and giving amnesy to millions of illegal aliens.

That's what we want to hear and I will take nothing less.

Dixie

THIS is where the rubber meets the road, folks!! Take a good look at these Reps and their "problems"....it's heating up in the House

• Rep. Tom Osborne, the legendary University of Nebraska football coach, who lost a GOP primary for governor this month, says he was defeated in part because he backed a bill that made children of illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition rates at Nebraska colleges. "I don't think [voters] really understood" his position, he told the Associated Press.

• Rep. Chris Shays, a leading GOP moderate from Connecticut, told me his recent town-hall meetings in his upper-income district have convinced him he must oppose citizenship for illegal aliens.

• Of the 17 House Democrats who face the toughest races this fall, 13 voted for the get-tough bill passed by the House last December. And some of the 17 Republicans who voted against the enforcement-only House bill are having second thoughts. Rep. Mark Souder, who saw his vote percentage drop about 10 points against the same hapless challenger he faced in the 2004 primary, says, "there is a pot boiling out there. We've got to secure the border first."

Rep. Tom Osborne, the legendary University of Nebraska football coach, who lost a GOP primary for governor this month, says he was defeated in part because he backed a bill that made children of illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition rates at Nebraska colleges. "I don't think [voters] really understood" his position, he told the Associated Press.

Oh, I'd say they understood only too well, Tom.

John Fund, Wall Street Journal, that says it all.

Every time he is on Lou Dobbs, I want to scream. All he ever does is make the case for them. That he sounds a bit negative (just a bit) gives me some hope.

He's still pushing Guest Worker though. Guest Worker programs have never worked in any country that tried it. Guests that never go home. I'm sure they will be just as hard to find as those elusive OTM's and others that never show up for their hearings....or they will anchor themselves with a anchor baby or a phony marriage.