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.
“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!”
Been hearing that (and other things) for far too long. I no longer believe it until I see it happen.
Not only non-enforcement, but outright rewarding of breaking the laws.
Can you imagine any other group of lawbreakers having the cojones to march in american cities and call for their ‘rights’? Just to state the obvious, if they aren’t here legally they have no rights.
Every law should be enforced or taken off the books. Written law cannot and must not be ignored, arbitrarily or selectively enforced or it's not law at all. It then becomes only a tool of despotic government.
“Crazy Aunt Conservative” is a little clunky. How about just “Crazy Legs”? :)
That sounds like some kind of degenerative disorder. :-P
LOL. Yeah, it kinda does, now that you mention it.
Still like it better, so :P back at you.
Ping!
What - we’re not planning on giving them green cookies as a part of their pardons?
I have reconciled myself to a democrat winning too. I'm a realist/moderate and I think you are the crazy aunt who has decided it is all or nothing. As a result, you and I both will get nothing. 2006 pretty much proved that.
I voted straight Republican in 2006...And "our guy" won. Yay. He must have misplaced all of his campaign material during the victory party, though, because he's acting like a complete jackass, and I feel like kicking myself for voting in a guy who is so at odds with everything I believe in. If the Republicans need the right-wing, Bible-thumping, gun-toting vote, well, then they'll nominate a guy we can vote for.
Off topic note: Googling ‘crazy legs’ brings up some interesting results...
Hmmm... Amnistia? I’d be more inclined to give that idea some thought, if they’d at LEAST have the courtesy to protest in f****** ENGLISH.
This is exactly what I mean when I say "all or nothing"
Well alright, then, we understand each other. :-)
“I think you are the crazy aunt who has decided it is all or nothing. As a result, you and I both will get nothing. 2006 pretty much proved that.”
When it comes to the sovereignty and security of our country, you betcha....there is no middle ground. You do everything in your power to keep it, or you give it away. You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Your attitude is like the greedy uncle who has taken the middle ground so that he can continue to line his pockets. All or nothing and attempts at election shame are nothing but OBL rhetoric. May as well be playing the race card. Won’t work on anyone I know.
Like I said in post 71. I'm a realist and when 2008 comes, we will lose. When it is all or nothing, it will be nothing.
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.