Thread: WSJ: Blurring the Borders

Blurring the Borders

Democratic divisions on immigration reform.

BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, May 4, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Let's imagine that over the coming weeks Republicans defy gravity and get behind comprehensive immigration reform. Let's assume it then falls to the new Democratic majority to close a deal. And let's consider the fortunes of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez.

Mr. Gutierrez is the eight-term Democrat who has evolved from bomb-thrower to statesman on the immigration front. Somewhere amid all the shouting over amnesty and fences, the liberal Mr. Gutierrez realized that most of his Latino and immigrant constituents just wanted results. In March he teamed up with his ideological opposite, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, to introduce a comprehensive reform that provides both border security and a citizenship path for 11 million undocumented immigrants.

This was brave, and Mr. Gutierrez quickly discovered what happens to brave politicians. "We expected much better from Congressman Luis Gutierrez," spat Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association, and the Al Sharpton of California. Mr. Lopez detailed his "repulsion" to the legislation and declared it a "major sell-out . . . of our community." He's been joined by other radical Latino groups--as well as social-justice and union outfits--in voicing opposition to pretty much anything less than full and immediate amnesty for all current, and future, immigrants.





It's accepted wisdom that the fate of immigration overhaul hangs on the Republican Party. Given how many years the GOP ruled, how little it accomplished on immigration, and how openly it aired its disputes over the issue, that's understandable. It's also true that if Senate Republicans, led by Arizona's Jon Kyl, fail in coming weeks to move toward the center on issues of legalization and a guest worker program, the immigration debate will be dead in the agua.
Yet this GOP-focus has tidily masked thorny Democratic divisions on immigration. Left-wing minority groups and blue-collar unions are already working to peel away Democratic votes for any "bipartisan" immigration reform. The new majority wants to keep the focus on Republicans, but the reality is that any final deal could come down to whether Democrats are able to keep their own party on board with reform.

Chipping away from one side are extreme Latino and social-justice groups--of the type currently targeting Mr. Gutierrez--who want an immigration free-for-all. Folks like Mr. Lopez (nicknamed "Negativo Lopez" by detractors), remain opposed to a legalization process that would require immigrants to "touchback" in their country, to go to the end of the waiting line, or to pay penalties. This crowd argues that a guest-worker program is little more than indentured servitude, and want even less border enforcement.

Call these folks the loony left, divorced from political reality, but don't think for a moment they are lacking an audience in today's Democratic Party. They are also organized. In March dozens of these groups--the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, to name a few--released the "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform," outlining their demands. Expect them to target far-left congressional liberals, arguing that a vote for any of today's bipartisan reform proposals is a license to allow corporate America to "abuse" and "degrade" immigrants. And expect them to make some headway.

Chipping away from the other side are anti-immigrant unions. Not that all unions are anti-immigrant, mind you. Some, such as Andy Stern's Service Employees International Union and UNITE-HERE have in fact been valiantly working to get a bipartisan immigration compromise done. This is part leadership, part pragmatism. Mr. Stern in 2005 led a high-profile breakaway of seven unions from the AFL-CIO, with a promise to focus more on recruitment. Many of those breakaways represent growing industries and already boast significant immigrant memberships. Their bosses rightly see any immigrant path to permanent citizenship as the potential for many more dues-paying members.

But they face blowback from the AFL-CIO, rooted in old-line manufacturing, and representing a largely native-born population that feels threatened by job-seeking immigrants. Chief John Sweeney is too politically astute to take a blatant anti-immigrant line, so his clever strategy has instead been to make common cause with the aforementioned liberal groups and demand sweeping new immigration rights. Mr. Sweeney, an old Washington hand, knows this is a political nonstarter. But it gives him cover to shoot down any workable immigration compromise, which has been his goal all along. Behind the scenes, the AFL-CIO is likely to be more honest about its fears; it will target manufacturing-state members and those in the Congressional Black Caucus, arguing that more immigrants will displace blue-collar and black workers.

Finally, no one should forget that many moderate Democrats are facing the same sort of anti-immigrant sentiment in their conservative districts as fellow Republicans. Democratic freshmen such as Iowa's Bruce Braley, Indiana's Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth, and Texas's Nick Lampson, all felt the need to take potshots at "illegal immigrants" and "amnesty" in their tight congressional races last year. Some, such as Pennsylvania's Patrick Murphy, praised a border fence and complained about illegals taking "American jobs." This might not equal Tom-Tancredo-talk, but it does mean that some moderate Democrats will be under pressure to vote against any bill based around giving immigrants citizenship.





Last year's Senate vote for the McCain-Kennedy compromise shows this pressure from unions, left-wing rabble-rousers, and pro-fence constituents can take its toll. The bill got 62 votes, barely enough to survive a filibuster, and this was in part because Democrats lost four of their own: Byron Dorgan and Debbie Stabenow worried about displaced American workers; Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd complained about "amnesty." And the latest crop of Senate Democratic freshmen--Ohio's Sherrod Brown, Missouri's Claire McCaskill, Montana's Jon Tester--would seem even more vulnerable to some of those arguments.
So keep your eyes on Republicans, and see if they have the political smarts and guts to seize this reform opportunity. But if they do, it's the Democrats who'll have to buck some powerful friends to see this through.

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110010025

It's pretty darn obvious the American people barely factor in the debate on Capitol Hill. This should be called legalization to turn over our country to the minority Hispanic community, it's by and for only the benefit of illegal aliens and their radical supporters in this country. These writers never bother to mention the rule of law anymore

Here was my response to Ms Strassel:

First of all, Ms. Strassel, this is not about immigration reform. This is about passing a series of laws to circumvent existing law that has never been enforced.

Secondly, there is nothing in your so-called "immigration reform" of benefit to the majority Americans. It is all about pandering to a minority group and the business lobby.

Thirdly, you barely speak of the concerns of the American people. Why don't you talk about how much we as taxpayers are subsidizing these low- skilled, illegal workers and how astronomically high those numbers are going to go if any amnesty bill passes and the number of low-skilled workers and their families quadruples. Benefits include taxpayers subsidized health care, schooling, food stamps, housing, etc... Not to mention a massive influx of people to drain our natural resources.

And, what about the American worker and minorities who will be subject to suppressed wages or forced out of the job market altogether???

I wonder why you do not advocate employer sanctions and the withdrawal of taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens and thus encourage them to self-deport and repatriate back to their own countries.

It a shame the WSJ editorial board has turned its back on the American people in this debate. I may have to cancel my subscription.

Originally Posted by olivermyboy

It a shame the WSJ editorial board has turned its back on the American people in this debate. I may have to cancel my subscription.

If it's Friday, you can count on the WSJ to publish another editorial calling for open borders.

I suggest that you do cancel your subscription over this. I did two years ago, and I don't miss the journal a bit.