Posted on 05/18/2007 2:04:44 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - One of the nation's most vexing political and social issues — how to deal with millions of illegal immigrants — can be solved only if Congress and the White House embrace the same can-do spirit that marked this week's tentative deal. Don't count on it.
Forged in secrecy, the proposal now faces the harsh realities of the public arena, its fate in the hands of politicians averse to compromise or taking chances. In particular, the 2008 presidential candidates seem determined to play politics with immigration: They're changing their tone and positions, or hedging to meet election-year demands.
"In terms of all the senators running for their parties' presidential nominations, this is sort of like receiving a mysterious package in the mail and trying to figure out what's inside. It could explode in their faces or be 10 pounds of fudge," said Ross K. Baker, political science professor at Rutgers University.
A cross-party coalition of lawmakers — from liberal icon Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., to conservative Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — signed off Thursday on a bill that would offer legal status to most of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants while also toughening border security. The effort suggests that some politicians are adequately motivated to address the immigration crisis before the 2008 elections.
It may be President Bush's last chance to claim a significant domestic policy victory before the end of a second term hit by scandal, war and plummeting approval ratings. It's the first major opportunity by the Democratic-led Congress to get something done. And it's the best chance Washington will get anytime soon to control the nation's porous borders and bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows of the law, confronting economic and national security concerns.
Immigration control is no longer an issue just along the nation's borders, but one that touches virtually every state. It tends to divide people more along regional and economic lines than by party — a maker of strange bedfellows. Business leaders and some Democrats are united to extend the flow of cheap labor into the country. Conservatives and some populist Democrats speak in unison about closing the nation's borders before doing anything else.
Compromise on such a complicated issue would be tough any time in U.S. history. These are unusually divisive times.
"The public's approval of Congress is very low, as low as the president's, and we think one reason is all the conflict there," said Carol Cassel, professor of political science at the University of Alabama.
It is no accident that presidential candidates reacted so cautiously — and politically — to news of the deal.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois said he wouldn't prejudge the bill, but worried that some provisions were not "just and humane."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she'd study the package to make sure it "does not lead to the creation of a new underclass."
Former Sen. John Edwards, who is running on a more liberal platform than he adopted in his failed 2004 race, expressed concerns about a "poorly conceived guest worker program."
The leading Republican candidates seem even more tortured.
Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona distanced himself from negotiations he once championed, then suddenly re-emerged Thursday to take part in the news conference.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson flatly rejected the deal as a "bill of goods," while writing separately on a political blog that Congress needs bipartisanship. "Too often, what we are seeing isn't an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics."
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he is willing to compromise on language allowing legalization for illegal immigrants, but only if the bill requires tamperproof ID cards and a database of foreigners. He sounds tougher on immigration than in his days as mayor, when Giuliani billed himself as one of the most "pro-immigrant" politicians in America and argued against a GOP bill restricting immigration.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney opposes the deal because it would allow virtually every illegal immigrant to remain indefinitely. A year ago, he sounded more open to immigrants.
"With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are," Romney told a New Hampshire newspaper. "Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."
Romney once stressed what needed to be done. Now he stresses what he doesn't want done.
It's a shift in tone and emphasis tailored for the presidential campaign trail, the last place you'd expect to find a can-do spirit.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Ron Fournier has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, right, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, left, are interviewed at the White House in Washington, Friday, May 18, 2007, about the bipartisan immigration deal that would grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully is drawing criticism from across the political spectrum. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) (L) accompanied by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (C) and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) speaks during a news conference on immigration reform legislation on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 17, 2007. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Millions of angry constituents might have something to do with this.
Now why do you suppose they felt the need to add that...?
SNORT.
Yeah, guess what side “reporter” Ron Fournier is on.
US President George W. Bush (C), with US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (L) and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, makes a statement on immigration at the White House in Washington, DC. Senators and the White House clinched a deal Thursday on bringing 12 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows and securing US borders, which could boost Bush's legacy.(AFP/Jim Watson)
LOL.. I usually don’t include most Editor’s Notes.
Now I need to see if Tom Raum delivers a piece as well.
If we contact our Congresscritters and give them hell, then I am confident that passage of bill will be delayed due to the need for further study. In other words, the bill will be killed thru non-action.
Hey Norm!
I have this idea, and I thought maybe you might comment on it.
Is it just me, or does it seem extremely odd that the War funding thing is followed so quickly by this secretive, very suspect immigration thing? Are we seeing smoke and mirrors here? Obfuscation? Muddying the waters with too much input?
Just a thought.
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine
Are we seeing smoke and mirrors here? Obfuscation? Muddying the waters with too much input?
Orchestrated mayhem and chaos.. Perish the thought. ;-)
These have been pressing issues for years..
Now all of a sudden the rush on so many fronts?
Things change, Things stay the same..
Windy and sunny here today .. :-)
Note to the AP: Oh, we know Mr. Fournier. His reputation proceeds him....
Forged in secrecy, the proposal now faces the harsh realities of the public arena, its fate in the hands of politicians averse to compromise or taking chances. In particular, the 2008 presidential candidates seem determined to play politics with immigration: They’re changing their tone and positions, or hedging to meet election-year demands.
***Umm, not Duncan Hunter, whom they casually disregard. He’s been right on target for years on this issue.
... a bill that would offer legal status to most of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants while also toughening border security.
***what a buncha baloney
The effort suggests that some politicians are adequately motivated to address the immigration crisis before the 2008 elections.
***Translation: They need to sweep it under the rug as fast as possible before the voting public gets a say in the process and it becomes a real campaign issue that someone like Hunter can take full advantage of. It’s similar to what happened with Buchanan several years ago when he was making waves about immigration, but this time there’s a staunch republican conservative making the same waves. Bucky boy went off the reservation; Hunter will NOT.
It may be President Bush’s last chance to claim a significant domestic policy victory before the end of a second term hit by scandal, war and plummeting approval ratings.
***Hah, look how he messed it up. He turned his tin ear to the people and hoped for some middle ground that only exists on the left side of the political spectrum.
It’s the first major opportunity by the Democratic-led Congress to get something done.
***And they manage to shaft the American public at the first chance they get.
Immigration control is no longer an issue just along the nation’s borders, but one that touches virtually every state.
***True, that’s something I’ve kept quiet about so far because the rudybots were too abusive. But Duncan Hunter is hitting resonance with the public everywhere he goes. This issue has LEGS.
It tends to divide people more along regional and economic lines than by party — a maker of strange bedfellows.
***One of the reasons why I’ve been saying that Hunter has cross-party appeal. Now we’ll see how right that was.
Business leaders and some Democrats are united to extend the flow of cheap labor into the country.
***Look no further for the payoff.
Beautiful here too. I’m not able to enjoy it much as I’m recovering from a vicious case of Burger King food poisoning last night. Arrgh. What was I thinking?
It’s still AMNESTY!,and if Ted Kennedy likes it, you know its a BAD DEAL!
Must've been all that trans fat ;)
Seriously, hope you're feeling better :)
It’s the NonTransFatsy Oil, I reckun ;-)
.. all the joints are going to it.. I’m resisting BK for now but will eat KFC no problemo. ;-)
I sent the first E-mail (or any kind of communication for that matter) I have ever sent to a politician today to oppose this bill. I’ll be watching her vote.
ap on yahoo
fyi .. timeframe
What’s next for immigration deal
Fri May 18
A look at the next steps for an immigration overhaul plan worked out by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House:
SENATE CONSIDERATION
The Senate plans to open debate Monday on the bill and consider amendments throughout next week. Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., has set a Memorial Day deadline for completing the measure, but it’s unlikely the complex plan can be finished that quickly.
HOUSE ACTION
Democratic leaders are waiting for the Senate to pass a bill before they consider one in the more-polarized House. They plan to act on immigration in July, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., has told President Bush she won’t bring up a bill unless he can promise at least 70 Republicans will support it.
CONFERENCE
If the House passes a version, House and Senate negotiators would have to blend the two bills into one. The House and Senate then would each have to pass that product. It would then go to Bush for his signature.
ENACTMENT:
Bush has said he’s eager to sign the measure into law by August, when Congress adjourns for four weeks, returning Sept. 4.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.