A Fence AND A Guest-Worker Package?
The ugly duckling issue (Michael Barone, Washington Times)
Republicans face the bigger political split on immigration. A large part of their base feels strongly about the issue and wants border security beefed up and immigration cut. But Democrats are split, too. Part of their base -- including many black politicians and voters -- sees immigrants as competitors for low-skill jobs. Most Democratic politicians have been willing to support generous guest-worker and legalization provisions. But not all their base is on board.
A columnist is tempted to say the politicians should toss aside political concerns and do what they believe is in the public interest. Easy enough to say. But something just like that may be happening.
Politicians act out of some combination of calculation and conviction -- the proportions vary. On immigration, some politicians, of both parties and on both sides, are visibly acting out of conviction. And not just the noisy restrictionists, like Rep. Tom Tancredo, who wants a border fence.
These conviction politicians include Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and John McCain of Arizona, who favor relatively generous guest-worker and legalization provisions, and Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, who favor a less generous version. Add to this list George W. Bush, who seems poised to take an unusually active role on the issue.
The route to agreement is to give all these conviction politicians much of what they want. A fence, high-tech border-security and identification devices, some compromise on guest workers and legalization -- all could be part of an omnibus measure.
As for the calculation politicians, as they try to assess the political landscape and reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings of various polls, they appear to be concluding that inaction -- or blocking action now that the issue is so visible -- poses more political risk than action.
Earlier this year, I wouldn't have given a comprehensive immigration-reform package much of a chance. I'm inclined to rethink that assessment, given this column by one of our most astute observers of American politics.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 05/10/06 22:09 | American Politics | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Very interesting how the immigration debate has played out politically. I thought it would be tough for the pro-immigration forces to muster the support for a legalization bill, but the Republicans in the House gave us the best gift ever in HB 4437 (the illegal immigrants are felons bill). This really forced people to choose sides and mobilized the latino community - both legal and illegal. Then Tancredo and others came out saying that they really were not in support of actually deporting the 12 million illegal aliens in the states, which made their political position lose all coherence...not in favor of deportation, but not in favor of legalization, which, by default, left Tancredo and company in favor of the status quo, I guess?
Maybe the biggest accomplishment Bush has left in him is a bilateral agreement with Mexico on the immigration issue. Mexico has cautiously indicated that they will cooperate with the US on immigration given the right framework, with a amnesty/legalization being an essential part of that framework. Fox and Bush (both lame ducks) could hammer out that agreement without fear of the nationalist repercussions on either side. Fox has also belatedly realized that Mexico's "look the other way" policy regarding immigration and smuggling has led to disaster along Mexico's northern border.
PS The big winner in all of this will be Texas, as US-Mexico trade, travel, and commerce continues to grow.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 13:52 on 05/11/06
What is Barone's reasoning for concluding that Bush wants to push this issue? I read that article yesterday, and I don't think Barone supports that conclusion.
My opinion is the same: I don't get the feeling that something will be done. Barone's column does give me pause: he's smarter and more experienced that I am. But I didn't think this column was so convincing.
Posted by NotsignedinEvan @ 17:32 on 05/11/06
that would be
...than I am.
Posted by NotsignedinEvan @ 17:32 on 05/11/06
What is Barone's reasoning for concluding that Bush wants to push this issue? I read that article yesterday, and I don't think Barone supports that conclusion.
He sort of just assumed it, didn't he?
Given the disarray in the administration's policy shop during the second term so far (thank you, Karl Rove, and thank you, Josh Bolten, for booting him from policy), I think it's hard to assume they're going to push ANY single policy more than a week at time. But on this one, the President has seemed more inclined to continue to talk about the issue, and to raise its profile by pushing it to Congress (blasting Sen. Reid for inaction, and later meeting with leaders).
It's an interesting gamble. On the one hand, the administration desperately needs a "win," and a comprehensive, bipartisan reform would definitely count as a win (and would give Bolten's reconfigured policy team some nice momentum). On the other hand, elements of the reform will piss off vocal members of the GOP base, and that's never good.
What's your take?
Posted by Kevin @ 09:58 on 05/12/06
Immigration reform isn't a new thing for the Bush administration. It's certainly been on the backburner since the summer of 2001 when Bush was really pushing it, but Bush has long been an advocate of a guestworker program. Adding beefed up border security to a policy he's been in favor of all along shouldn't give Tancredo's crackers much to complain about.
Besides, when has pissing off vocal members of the GOP base ever bothered either of the Georges Bush. As long as this one keeps the tax cuts coming I think he's ok.
Posted by Tom Hanna @ 16:53 on 05/12/06
I seriously hate when administrations choose to go for "wins" for the sake of wins (or even when an element of this strategy is at play).
I'm still skeptical that anything ultimately gets done. There are too many complicated issues, too many divergent political interests. And the political interests are often different long and short-term.
Looking at past immigration policy "reforms" (they all look like mere changes to me ;) it seems that the effects were rarely what the legislators intended. I don't doubt that that will also be the case here if something happens.
Posted by Evan @ 18:49 on 05/21/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.