Thread: Bordering on a Victory

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4dybwn.asp

Bordering on a Victory
Bush may still do well with immigration reform.
by Fred Barnes
04/24/2006, Volume 011, Issue 30



THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE HAS FLIPPED in President Bush's favor. The public now firmly supports toughened border enforcement plus--and this is a big plus for the president--a system for letting illegal immigrants already in America earn citizenship. This has been Bush's position all along, though the president has been reluctant to trumpet it. The ones with the politically untenable position are Democrats who want an immigration issue (but not actual legislation) to use against Republicans in November, and Republicans who want merely to increase border security.

The upshot is that an immigration bill appears likely (but not certain) to pass when Congress returns from its Easter recess on April 24--and probably in a "comprehensive" form congenial to Bush and Republican congressional leaders. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have indicated they back this approach, not a bill simply calling for stronger border security.

The turning point came in March when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an immigration measure that tied together border enforcement, a program for bringing "guest" workers into the country, and earned citizenship. That meant that broad immigration reform was viable in 2006. Several earlier polls, notably one conducted by Republican pollster Ed Goeas, had found potential public support for earned citizenship, and the committee's action bolstered that support.

Once the committee acted, "the polls, indeed the whole atmosphere, changed to the pro-immigrant side," says Jeffrey Bell, a Republican consultant working for La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights group. Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California reversed herself and voted for the sweeping bill, as did Republican Arlen Specter, the committee chairman who had been uncommitted.

In a national survey in early April, the Washington Post/ABC News uncovered an astonishing level of backing for major reform. Asked whether they favored earned citizenship, only a guest worker program, or a sharp crackdown on illegal immigrants, 63 percent preferred earned citizenship, 14 percent a guest worker scheme, and only 20 percent for charging illegal immigrants with a felony and denying them work.

Earned citizenship would permit the 12 million immigrants living illegally in the United States to apply for citizenship. They would be required to work for six years, commit no crimes, pay back taxes, and learn English. Then and only then could they get in line to become citizens, a process that takes five years.

In the debate over immigration, those (mostly Republicans) favoring only beefed-up border enforcement had the upper hand initially. But that position lost much of its appeal after last December when House Republicans approved a bill that would enhance border security and make illegal immigrants guilty of a felony. Today, even some Republicans who voted for that bill say it could be politically harmful to their party by alienating Hispanic voters. Frist and Hastert pledged last week to block any felony provision from becoming law.

In the Senate, Democrats couldn't bring themselves to act decisively. They seemed to want to impede legislation and use the House bill to tag Republicans as anti-Hispanic. But when they balked at passing a bill just before the recess, it angered Hispanic groups that have been lobbying for a broad immigration measure. This pressure alone may force Democrats to relent and allow legislation.

But there is strong sentiment among partisan Democrats to hold tight and thwart efforts to pass a bill. They've put pressure on Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the architects of the Senate committee's bipartisan bills. Kennedy wants a bill passed, not an issue for the fall. Democrats have also urged Frank Sharry, a liberal Democrat who heads the National Immigration Forum, to back off from lobbying for a bipartisan bill.

For his part, Bush used his April 8 radio address to blame Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid for blocking a "promising bipartisan compromise on comprehensive immigration reform." He was referring to the Judiciary Committee bill. The president uses the word "comprehensive" as a euphemism for a measure that includes earned citizenship. He also uses the phrase "temporary worker program" as a proxy for earned citizenship.

Despite the support for his position, the president often appears defensive on the immigration issue. Last week, he was still trying to decide whether to jump aggressively into the debate and promote his position in speeches and in stepped-up lobbying of Congress. Bush was largely a spectator when the House and then the Senate Judiciary Committee dealt with the issue.

In his radio address, the president never mentioned the words "earned citizenship" or even the concept. He took pains to insist that his "temporary worker program" did not constitute amnesty for illegals. Amnesty, he said, would be "unwise because it would encourage others to break the laws and create new waves of illegal immigration. We must ensure that those who break our laws are not granted an automatic path to citizenship."

But the president did say America "must remain a welcoming society." And as he often does, Bush spoke of today's illegal immigrants as people who come to America for the right reasons. "It says something about our country that people around the world are willing to leave their homes, leave their families, and risk everything to come to America," he said.

When Congress returns, Bush may have no choice but to campaign energetically for passage of a broad immigration bill. "Republicans run Congress, and the pro-immigrant side has won the debate," says Bell. The situation is ripe for presidential intervention.

Bush has privately assured the pro-immigrant crowd he's on their side. But publicly he's endorsed the enforcement-only House bill and not the Senate measure. This has generated distrust of Bush's motives. So it's time for him to declare, loudly and publicly, what he wants--what he really wants. It's better enforcement, guest workers, and earned citizenship.


Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and author of Rebel-in-Chief (Crown Forum).

Do they think if they keep telling us this enough times we'll finally beleive it?

Nice try but no cigar Mr. Propaganda Artist.

yup more propaganda to brainwash the masses.....

He's no journalist, he is a propaganda artist and probably has a history of propaganda oriented articles.

His goal is to make those of us working for upholding our laws in accordance to our constitutional rights as U.S. citizens to feel down and defeated. The goal of his propaganda is to weaken your determination.

He wants you to think that President Bush is going to be the one who decides this, but he forgets to mention that President Bush's approval rating is 33% , and that he's the lamest duck in U.S. history at the present time.

I think he wants to make people even more angry at President Bush.

I know why this is interesting to me. I remember during the 2004 presidential campaign that a talk radio show host who was very pro-Bush was angry at this news organization because I think they were very pro-Kerry. I'm not sure but I think they were were saying things that were not favorable about President Bush. I can't remember the exact details except that the talk radio show host was very ticked off.

If you notice the last paragraph of his article, if he was actually against Bush, what he wrote could easily anger Republicans who disagree with President Bush, only to make things even WORSE for the Republicans.

So the question is, does this writer have ulterior motives ??

I think it COULD BE POSSIBLE because of what I remember from the 2004 elections.

After you read the article, did you feel angy at President Bush ?
I did.

I think that reaction may be just what he hopes to create.

the only thing the American people can be sure of is this -- OUR President and OUR Congress are not on OUR side ...

No, I just wanted to take this neocon beltway boy and put a belt around his arrogant neck.

In a national survey in early April, the Washington Post/ABC News uncovered an astonishing level of backing for major reform. Asked whether they favored earned citizenship, only a guest worker program, or a sharp crackdown on illegal immigrants, 63 percent preferred earned citizenship, 14 percent a guest worker scheme, and only 20 percent for charging illegal immigrants with a felony and denying them work.

I guess he thinks if he writes it, it must be true. Kind of like if you tell a lie enough people might start to believe it.


I especially liked this part.

The president uses the word "comprehensive" as a euphemism for a measure that includes earned citizenship. He also uses the phrase "temporary worker program" as a proxy for earned citizenship.

Kind of like Clinton with the meaning of the word "is" is.

I keep repeating this, but it bears repeating

Adolf Hitler, the ‘great dictator' concluded that the road to power lay not through force alone, but through ‘legal subversion' of the Constitution and

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself." . . . "How fortunate for governments that the people [states] they administer don't think." . . . The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over." . . . "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth" and "Tell a lie, tell it often enough and the people will believe it."

unfortunately for our government, the average citizens are now starting to join forces to make their voices heard ... Congress is only use to corporate America and special interests lobbyists, NOT united citizens