Thread: Debate over illegal immigration comes home with surprising t

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-e ... iontop-hed

Debate over illegal immigration comes home with surprising twists

Congress may be deadlocked on what to do about illegal immigration, but in the last week there was plenty of other talk on the subject. One surprising thing is how illegal immigration — logically a concern across a nation's borders — also has become a state and local topic.

Part of the reason the discussion moved out of Washington is because members of the House and Senate took it there. Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., held a hearing in Philadelphia to listen to mayors and others. The senators are trying to build support for the Senate's version of illegal immigration legislation that emphasizes a guest-worker program and a means for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here to proceed toward citizenship. (This also is the approach favored by President Bush.)

Meanwhile, Rep. Ed Joyce, R-Calif., held a hearing at a U.S. Border Patrol station in southern California. He and fellow House Republicans are trying to promote their approach to the issue, which emphasizes more border security.

Some Democrats discounted the value of the illegal immigration hearings, more of which are planned. They argue that the Republicans are trying to substitute the media attention that they attract for the hard work of making sure that a House-Senate conference committee reaches a compromise. Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-Calif., commented, ''This issue will be decided in the next three years, not the next three months,'' and said a compromise will not be reached before the November elections.

Rep. Rohrbacher has been deeply involved in the issue, and if he is right about the time line, that is bad news to some. One would be Louis Barletta, mayor of Hazleton, who testified before Sen. Specter's meeting in Philadelphia. Mr. Barletta asked for Congress's help in his city's efforts to deal with illegal immigrants, including penalizing landlords who rent to them. But, the senators also heard from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who estimated that of his city's 3 million immigrants, 500,000 are there illegally. Mr. Bloomberg said, however, that New York's economy would collapse if they were deported.

There is one other illegal immigration ripple worth noting. Sen. Rick Santorum has made illegal immigration the topic of the first TV ad in his re-election campaign. The ad charges his Democratic challenger, Bob Casey Jr., with siding ''with Ted Kennedy and the other liberals.'' The bill Sen. Santorum objects to was written by Sen. Specter, of course. This isn't the first issue upon which Pennsylvania's Republican senators disagree, and Sen. Specter commented, ''Sen. Santorum is entitled to his views.''

Good election strategy? In a series of national polls over the last two months, illegal immigration ranked third or fourth among top concerns among likely voters, behind the economy, Iraq and health care. Polls also show that opinions vary by state, with the obvious southern and southwestern states having the biggest worries. But the case being made by Hazleton Mayor Barletta and his coal region colleagues, and the political course steered by Sen. Santorum, show that at least some officials in this state consider it top-of-mind too — at least until Washington makes up its mind.


Copyright © 2006, The Morning Call

Folks, Isn't the SPP and the North American Union due for completion in 2010? If it's implementation isn't stopped!?

illegal immigration hearings... "This issue will be decided in the next three years, not the next three months,'' and said a compromise will not be reached before the November elections."

Me thinks we need to put on our fog lights... the smoke is getting thick.

Folks, Isn't the SPP and the North American Union due for completion in 2010? If it's implementation isn't stopped!

YUP, PAT.......can you see why they're playing footsie with this? They're hoping that more LaRaza friendlies will be elected in '06 to sway the House vote as well as dragging the border security into limbo until the "agreement" has come to fruition.

The mex election was a top priority for them also. They put a lot of work into getting Calderon in the seat which stops messy opposition f/the south.

IMHO, I don't trust very many Repub House members that claim they're for "tough border security first." I smell a big assed rat running around these meetings.

, Oh 2nd, I needed that laugh, thanks!

YUP, PAT.......can you see why they're playing footsie with this?

Yup, back at cha! I think so too, just wanted to make sure I wasn't alone on thinking that.

IMHO, I don't trust very many Repub House members that claim they're for "tough border security first." I smell a big assed rat running around these meetings

I don't trust them, either.
I've got a head cold, and can still smell them, too!

Pat:

I read somewhere that all of this stuff is supposed to come together in 2010. If I can find the information, I'll pass it along to you.

There's way too much hincky stuff going on. And trust me, , you are not alone in thinking this.

I don't think it's the 3rd priority for American voters either. I think it is #1.
There's not much we can do about Iraq to leave now isn't wise but to continue isn't wise either if we intend to continue to treating the war like a political issue.
We can do something about illegal immigration and we can get rid of the illegal aliens here. However, Iraq entered into the arena of the absurd last week when the Iraqi government debated arming the insurgents to get rid of foreign fighters. The foreign fighters the insurgents want to get rid of are us. Still you can't criticize the Iraqi government too much when our senate not only debated but passed a far more ridiculous bill with consequences that will ultimately be worse for America.

''This issue will be decided in the next three years, not the next three months,'' and said a compromise will not be reached before the November elections.

I wonder if it will be decided AT the November elections. Some of these people are going to be voted out of office. They are going to lose their jobs because they did not do what voters wanted. When that happens, I think they'll they start hopping real quick and get things done in less than 2 years if they want their party to be in office in 2008.