It is not semantics but a political reality. In the Senate under the current rules, 55 is not enough. You need 60 to be filibuster proof.
The other point is that Republican Senators from Frist on down can't seem to envision an immigration bill without an amnesty attached to it. I mean amnesty as in "path to citizenship". Get a work visa in nearly any other country and see if it provides some automatic "path to citizenship." It won't. Typically they are one to three years, often renewable, but completely distinct from the immigration or citizenship process. This is not rocket science, even for third-wortld countries.
Frist must deal not only with the GOP majority, which includes Collins, Snowe, McCain, Chafee, et.al., but also, the 45 strong Dem opposition, which has the luxury of being united because they want the issue not the bill. Other senators like Sessions have a plan and there are plenty of amendments that will be voted upon.
The big problem confronting Frist is what do about the 12 to 20 million who are already here. None of the proposals on immigration reform are viable unless the borders are sercured first. It is like having a water pipe break in your basement. First you need to turn off the water, then you can deal with water damage.
To assert that there's some overwhelming problem in crafting the solution that GWB prescribed in March 2004 - a 3-year, once-renewable work visa - is just the height of disingenuousness. Any conservative Republican who supports that position is living in intellectual denial.
We already have H1B and H2B visas, which just need to be expanded. Again, what we have is a political kabuki dance in the Senate. It is all about the future Hispanic vote, the largest and fastest growing minority.
When you look at states like California, where according to the 2000 census figures, Mexican-born residents total 3.9 million out of a population of around 34 million, you can understand the political significance of what is happening. In 1990 Mexican born residents were the largest foreign born group in 18 states. In 2000 they now constitute the largest group in 30 states. Add this to fact that 33.1 million or 11.5% of our total population is foreign born, you should be able to understand the political significance of what is happening. The GOP is trying to avoid being labelled as the anti-immigration party by the Dems.
You can't disguise that fact with mere semantics, and Republicans ignore it at their own electoral peril (did you see that 5 of 7 members of the Herndon, VA town council were ousted last week due to last year's controversial and widely-opposed support for a "day laborer center"?)
I live a few miles away from Herndon and am very familiar about what happened. The point is that not every state and every Congressional district is the same. Taking a strong anti-illegal immigrant stance may not work in Southern California or Florida. Each GOP and Dem must judge the mood and predeliction of their constituents. Both parties are trying to take both sides of the issue and appeal to everyone. Their stance depends on what audience they are talking to.
My solution for Bush and Frist is to explicitely seperate these issues. As you say, "first turn off the water." The amnesty crowd is holding border security hostage to "reform" which really equates to amnesty, as it is currently proposed.
I want Bush to table all issues regarding immigration except securing the borders. No new initiatives against illegals who are here already for right now or the employers who hire them (again, for right now). No new proposals about a possible amnesty or some sort of crackdown. Just table it until the borders are secure.
Then turn the question of the borders over to the DOD. I have some fairly specific (though likely flawed) ideas about expanding the role of the Coast Guard to be a general border guard with further responsbility as a rapid reaction force for any domestic disaster or as the lead agency responding to a domestic terrorist attack.
And only when we have clear control of our borders do we open up the question of what to do with the 12+ million who have come here illegally.
By the way, very nice post summarizing and expanding on the key issues in the immigration debate. No simplistic answers and no slogans, just very good analysis and supporting facts. Nicely done.
Your statement illustrates the crux of the problem: in fact both parties want to do precisely nothing, preserving the status quo while painting the other party as either obstructionist (Rats) or heartless (Republicans).