Posted on 12/01/2005 1:49:24 PM PST by Graybeard58
The issue splits both parties, forcing Bush to build an unusual coalition in push for reform plan.
WASHINGTON - When George W. Bush spoke out for immigration reform early this week, he probably knew he was reaching into a hornet's nest. But by all accounts, this incendiary issue lies near the president's heart - going back to his days as governor of a border state, Texas - and thus it remains a focus of his second term, even as some analysts pronounce his effort moribund.
Political observers also declare his Social Security plan dead, but with immigration there's a key difference: Democratic lawmakers have not linked arms in firm opposition to Mr. Bush's ideas, as they did with Social Security. In fact, if Bush is able to thread the needle with Congress on a plan that achieves both of his goals - enhanced border enforcement plus a temporary-worker program that deals with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the US - it could be his "Nixon in China" moment, analysts say.
That is, as a usually conservative president, Bush is reaching for the center as he addresses a tough issue made even tougher by 9/11. It is an issue that divides both parties, and therein lies the special political challenge Bush faces.
Moreover, it is his own Republican Party that presents the bigger obstacle, at a time when he can ill afford to lose any support from his staunchest backers.
Republicans divide roughly into three camps: a hard-line, antiimmigration camp; a pro- business camp, which welcomes the influx of cheap labor; and a group in the middle that is not sure what to think and could be swayed by a strong, sustained push by the president, says Tamar Jacoby, an immigration expert at the Manhattan Institute think tank.
Democrats also have their law-and-order camp, which feels threatened both in the workplace and culturally.
But as a political element, "the fracture is deeper and the stakes higher within the Republican Party, in part because of how virulent the hard-liner strain is, and in part because they're in charge," says Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.
The hard-line wing of the GOP represents roughly one-quarter of the party, but it is intensely vocal. Its most outspoken member in Congress, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) of Colorado, may get more media air time than the speaker of the House.
Mr. Sharry sees the divisions among Democrats over immigration more as fissures than as hard fractures.
On one side, there are "those who see immigrants as minorities who are struggling to live the American dream and are sort of this generation's members of the New Deal coalition. They're our grandparents, they're us," Sharry says.
"The countervailing pressures within Democratic circles come in part from some in labor [unions], who see the competition for workers and the lack of enforcement targeted at employers as leading to exploitation of immigrants and harming wages and working conditions of US workers."
Other pockets of hostility come from some in the African-American community who are suspicious that immigrants are taking away jobs, and from some environmentalists who see population increases due to immigration as adding to the burden on natural resources.
For both parties, immigrants who become citizens - and therefore potential voters - represent a rich trove of support. In particular, the race is on for the votes of Hispanics, now the largest minority in America and one whose political allegiance remains in flux.
But as Bush and his advisers look at the prospects for his reform ideas, they know they face an uphill battle. In the Pew Research Center's report released Nov. 17 on Americans' views on foreign policy, the president scored particularly poorly on immigration policy. Only 24 percent of the public approves versus 54 percent disapproval.
Even Republicans are unhappy, with 36 percent approval and 43 percent disapproval. Among Democrats, the disapproval rating is 72 percent and among independents, 52 percent.
"This dissatisfaction is politically relevant because the general public places a far higher priority on issues of immigration than do opinion leaders," the Pew report says. "Fully 51 percent of Americans say reducing illegal immigration should be a top foreign policy priority for the nation."
On Monday, Bush delivered a speech on immigration reform that sought to recast the debate, focusing more heavily on the enforcement angle than in the past. But he refused to back down on his controversial guest-worker idea. Under his proposal, he would allow foreign workers to enter the country for a limited period, probably three years, to fill jobs that Americans are not willing to do. Opponents of the plan call it an "amnesty," a label Bush rejects.
On the enforcement side, the president touted initiatives such as the program that returns illegal immigrants from Mexico to their hometowns rather than just sending them across the border. He also promised high-tech detection systems to enhance border protection, faster deportation proceedings, and stronger enforcement inside the US.
So far, Congress has been stymied by the issue, and has put off any action until next year.
But in his speech, Bush was adamant about maintaining both sides of his proposal.
"The American people should not have to choose between being a welcoming society and a lawful society," he said Monday at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz. "We can have both at the same time."
ping
Ping to post 1.
Therein is the big lie. We can have both. But not according to Bush. It's either the law or welcoming. So far, he has welcomed every illegal from south of the border instead of the law.
One that he could have easily avoided by making his proposal be available only to people who are not in the country illegally. Even if (for whatever demented reason) he still has his sights on offering the program to illegals as well, there's no credibly legitimate reason why he can't postpone that goal for the sake of implementing a guest-worker program that far more people would be willing to sign on to. At least that would move things forward. But he just won't give in.
I know that his critics often get accused of being unappeasable, but it's his insane refusal to let go of amnesty for illegals - the one thing that's holding everything up in all this, and the least popular aspect of anybody's proposals - that makes him the most unappeasable of us all.
How 'bout we invade Mexico and just take it over? We'll fence off Mexico's southern border, get rid of all the corrupt politicians and cops, throw all gang members in prison, put teachers in Mexico...they have oil, right? *wink*
All three groups, so described, are morons.
How about:
* A pro-immigration, anti-illegal camp who believes legal immigration is a boon to the country and should be streamlined (reduce paperwork delays and snafus that last for years) and increased under certain programs (some with citizen track, some not), but that illegal immigration is bad for everyone (except the cheap labor cheats who should bear the brunt of a crackdown) and needs to be stomped, period.
"The hard-line wing of the GOP represents roughly one-quarter of the party,"
And 80% of the public.
Fat chance!
plus a temporary-worker program that deals with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the US - it could be his "Nixon in China" moment, analysts say.
Or it could be his Clinton and Monica moment. He's already had his LBJ drug plan moment.
as a usually conservative president, Bush
Oh, please! That dog don't hunt.
Republicans divide roughly into three camps: a hard-line, anti-ILLEGAL immigration camp; a pro-business camp, which welcomes the influx of cheap illegal labor; and a group in the middle that is not sure what to think and could be swayed by a strong, sustained push by the president doesn't think, says Tamar Jacoby, an immigration expert at the Manhattan Institute think tank.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Are you sure? I can see this stuff passing through Congress with a coalition of Chamber of Commerce Republicans and generally traitorous Democrats. To get the Democrats on board they will need to make the amnesty and path to citizenship a little more robust. And they will probably need to back off some on the enforcement too but that won't bother the open borders Republicans much as they don't have any intention of actually enforcing that stuff anyway. That scenario terrifies me. I think that something nasty like this coming out of the Senate is almost a certainty. There are a lot of good conservatives in the House that would really fight it but the House leadership (Hastert and Dreier) both favor this type of solution so I can imagine them along with a little arm twisting from the White House allowing a good House enforcement only bill to be ruined in the House/Senate Reconciliation Committee. We'll be told to shut-up and support the "Grand Compromise".
I'm not saying it is a certainty but I think it is within the realm of possibility.
Why wouldn't we just do that here?
Not sure if you are responding to me or another poster(I think you may be replying to post 9), but i agree with what you saying. I would never count out the business lobby and the Dems to sell out America.
Sorry, I was responding to Post #9. I'm not quite sure how I screwed up.
Good point. I was just trying to be "inclusive." ;-)
What a load, immigration reform could be a uniter issue if only the 1 percent lobbyist group for the ethnic hustler big business axis of evil woul be told to shove it.
It's easier to let them invade us.
Propoganda piece for a "complete" border control, guest worker, amnesty deal.
The posting so far pretty much proves out the theme of the story.
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.