http://www.recordonline.com/archive/200 ... 05-22.html
May 22, 2006

Immigration Reform Seems Unlikely This Year
Doug Cunningham

We know now that immigration reform will not happen this year. In no way, shape or form will anything notable occur on the Washington front.

The first sign that immigration reform was going down was when Mexican flags started showing up in some of the early protests. This was indeed a deep irony: the protesting people wanted to become citizens of the United States, and to convince lawmakers and current citizens of their deep and heartfelt desire they vigorously waved ... the flag of Mexico.

It was one of many disconnects in a debate that now is not even remotely tethered to reality.

The flag move, however, inflamed those who oppose easing the path to legal immigration. See ... they don't want to assimilate. Right then, immigration reform began its downward spiral.

Another disconnect is how thoroughly President Bush is being beaten up on this, by pretty much all sides. Some of this, perhaps a good deal of it, is self-inflicted. Peggy Noonan, former speech writer to President Reagan, noted that Bush's speech last week was as if he had just discovered this issue. Whoa - something to talk about, his people think. And it's not about Iraq and it's not about phone calls. Yes, indeed, happy days are here again.

Maybe not. Bush's base, insofar as it remains, is disaffected, to say the least, and is possibly in revolt. As in, "what part of illegal immigration is hard to understand?"

Here in the East, this control of the border thing can seem a bit academic. After all, everyone coming here has to come from Canada (they're not exactly flocking here from there), by air (where pretty much everyone is subject to mistreatment by security workers, not just the foreigners), or by sea (which is sort of, kind of, controlled).

The border in Arizona or New Mexico is not so neatly controlled. If we are serious about orderly immigration, and if we are serious about security, we need to get control of this border, and now. A fence does not seem such a bad idea. And we know that the border can, in fact, be controlled; the Minuteman patrols have proven it so.

Too, Bush is pummeled by the Democrats. I find this to be among the most puzzling things in this debate. Most of what Bush is advocating are things that Democrats, also, advocate, and you respond as if he's acting at the behest of the devil himself. Knee-jerk reaction? Force of habit?

And then we have Mexico, where economic development in some quarters consists mostly of taking payments and remittances from ... workers in the United States. To judge from the still-increasing number of places that wire money, this is a growth industry. It is a growth industry for Mexico, too, make no mistake.

Mexican President Vicente Fox is said to have been worried that Bush's sending of National Guard troops would "militarize" the border. It is, of course, a sign that the debate has shifted, from simply expanding the legal path to immigration to stopping some of it. It is this shift that most worries Fox.

More than that, would it be bad if the border were militarized? I'm not sure it would.

Among other things, we will not have serious debate on genuine immigration reform until we get control of the border. It may seem quaint here, or in Washington, but nothing gets done until we at least get a handle on the problem.

Even with that opening, I think it's more likely nothing happens. It is an election year, and Republican voters are more than a little bothered (witness the bloodbath in Pennsylvania's primaries last week). Democrats are not cutting him any breaks at all. And some of those who purport to want to be citizens are waving Mexican flags. Not this year.

Doug Cunningham is business editor. He can be reached dcunningham@th-record.com, or 346-3202.