Posted on 04/12/2007 9:42:14 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The terms of the immigration debate have turned less friendly for illegal immigrants as lawmakers and the Bush administration struggle to reach a deal in the next few weeks.
The landscape for an immigration overhaul has turned upside down in only a year, with a different party in control of Congress and new political realities for President Bush and the chief congressional negotiators.
Bush — in search of a domestic legacy — has morphed from cheerleader on the sidelines to broker in the fray, dispatching Cabinet members for lengthy daily meetings with senators on Capitol Hill.
Last year's GOP point man, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) — whose moderate stance on immigration defined last year's approach — is hanging back, wary of angering conservatives while he struggles to keep his presidential run going.
And while Republican divisions were highlighted last year, this time it's Democrats — eager to show they can lead — whose fissures are on display.
In an ironic twist, the outlines of a potential deal have moved to the right — toward a more difficult road to citizenship for the nation's roughly 12 million illegal immigrants — even as the power in Congress has shifted to Democrats, who overwhelmingly favor a more permissive approach.
The White House has floated a proposal that would require illegal immigrants to pay fines as high as $10,000, face long waits and return to their home countries in order to be eligible for citizenship — far tougher conditions than in a bipartisan measure passed by the Senate last year and backed by Bush. The immigrants also would be denied a right to bring family members to the United States.
A bipartisan House measure introduced earlier this year would add a new mandate that undocumented immigrants go home before gaining legal status — a requirement that many Democrats and pro-immigrant groups have decried as "report to deport."
The changes reflect a new political calculus for Republicans, who fear that any plan passed by the centrist Senate will become more permissive toward immigrants in the more liberal House and during final Democratic-dominated negotiations.
Democrats, in turn, recognize that any immigration plan must have substantial GOP support in order to have a chance of being signed into law, so they are considering tougher measures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., has told Bush he must deliver 70 Republican votes before she will attempt to pass any immigration bill.
The White House said the proposal floated recently was part of an effort to find an immigration plan the president's party could agree on.
"Those were discussion points on which consensus was beginning to build among Republican senators," said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman.
As Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., his party's point man on the issue, huddles with Republicans and Bush's team in search of a deal, other Democrats are impatient to pitch their own, more immigrant-friendly plan. Many advocates of an overhaul, including immigrant advocacy groups, business interests and organized labor, are adamantly opposed to the framework under discussion.
"This is the kind of gut-wrenching moment that happens before a deal is about to be cut and before legislation is about to start moving," said Angela Kelley, the deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a private group pushing for an overhaul.
Bush and Democrats regard the tricky issue as one of their few areas of potential compromise during a year dominated by partisan clashes on the Iraq war. Strategists in both parties say the 2006 elections — which punished many vocally anti-immigration candidates — showed that voters support action on the issue.
But the clock is ticking on attempts to compromise, with the Senate set to debate immigration next month and most insiders seeing August as a deadline for action by both chambers.
"There are plenty of Democrats who would rather just walk away and say the Republicans are racist, and the Hispanics will vote for us, and then we'll do something" after the 2008 elections, said Tamar Jacoby, an immigration expert at the conservative Hudson Institute who has consulted with the White House and Republicans on the issue.
Last year's effort collapsed as House Republicans revolted against the Senate-passed measure, calling it amnesty. They rejected Bush's call for a "comprehensive" deal that included both a temporary guest worker program for new arrivals and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here. Many conservative Republicans, particularly in the House, still are adamantly opposed to any such measure.
Now GOP leaders have tapped Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, one of those who hung back from the comprehensive approach amid a tough re-election fight, to lead negotiations on a compromise.
McCain's office, meanwhile,denies that he has scaled back his once-prominent role.
"The more members that are involved the better, but he is thoroughly engaged and totally committed to finding a solution," said Eileen McMenamin, McCain's spokeswoman.
Privately, senators in both parties and strategists on the issue say he has faded from the forefront of immigration negotiations — leaving his staff to track them and a confidant, Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, to mediate — while he waits for the right moment to weigh in.
"He'll be there if they emerge with a bipartisan bill — he'll be there standing with everyone else — but it didn't pay for him to be the lonely guy," Jacoby said.
Demonstrators calling for immigration reform march during an immigration protest rally, Saturday, April 7, 2007, in Los Angeles. Marchers filled the streets to demand amnesty for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. (AP Photo/Stefano Paltera)
Deport’em.
Bush takes a stronger stance AFTER the losing the house and senate? Nice game plan.
“...many Democrats and pro-immigrant groups have decried as “report to deport.”
They say this as if it’s a BAD thing.
President Bush has lost so much of my respect on this matter.
I have no idea how a President of the US can effectively say that illegals are great to have as he has for years. To start to wake up now seems so disingenuous. He knew the truth before. What’s changed for him?
Congress needs to pass legislation proclaiming that the US is a nation of laws, no matter how few are enforced.
He’s probably trying to keep the hard-liners from going third party next year. “Yeah, sure, we agree with you! Vote Republican! We’ll get the immigrants out THIS year, I swear!”
Yeah, I don’t like bashing Bush much, but I’m with you on this one. It doesn’t make sense.
Every immigration agent in the state should have been sent to that demonstration.
My question in this matter is “Which law (or laws) do I get to break with impugnity—and get rewarded for it too! Do I get to pick and choose?
You obviously want the immigration laws enforced. But please don't tell me you want every law on the books rigorously enforced. It would turn the US into hell on earth.
The 1986 Amnesty bill increased illegal immigration. There was supposed to be fines and back taxes and all that, but it did not happen. They just want to fool us into opening the floodgates even more.
FYI, my nerd score was 99 (and I wasn’t even trying by going for the obvious).
When we’re talking about 12 - 20 million criminals, I’d settle for “moderately enforcing the law” as opposed to almost completely ignoring it.
gnurd?
“Which law (or laws) do I get to break with impugnity”
If you are not a celebrity, you can break quite a few minor ones. You can hire your neighbor’s kid and not pay minimum wage, collect an I-9 form, or even withold SS taxes. You can even say nappy headed hos without losing your job.
Now if you are a conservative celebrity, you can break nearly zero laws as Rush found out. If you are a liberal celebrity, you can break a few more but not as many as a lower profile person.
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.