| Wednesday, April 12, 2006 |
| The walk-back |
GOP leaders in the House will drop a provision in their version of an immigration reform bill making illegal entry into the United States a felony.
Over in the Riehlworld (congrats on the 7 million hits, BTW), they're kinda trying to have it both ways, just like the Republicans in Washington. Riehl yesterday:
This is absolutely ridiculous!
Immigrant Bill Fallout May Hurt House GOP
Yesterday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a joint statement seeking to deflect blame for the harshest provisions of the House bill toward the Democrats, who they said showed a lack of compassion. "It remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony," Hastert and Frist said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fired back that "there's no running away from the fact that the Republican House passed a bill and Senator Frist offered one that criminalizes immigrants." What is the problem with these Republican legislators? They did not pass a bill that made immigrants illegal, they passed a bill that called illegal immigrants precisely what they are. And now they are going to run away from it? What a disgrace.
And Riehl today:
I don't care about immigration violations being elevated to felonies. As it stands, it is a misdemeanor. That, in a word, is illegal - it doesn't need to mean anything more than that. But here is the real rub and the obfuscation within that element of the greater debate.
Do you realize that this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the immigrants, illegal or otherwise recently marching in our streets? Were one to ever come to trial, it is quite apparent that at the time they entered the country the violation was a misdemeanor. And I doubt very seriously if any judge would permit them to be charged as felons, given that the crime was not elevated to such a level until after they had initially violated the law by entering the country.
Keeping it real, Riehl, if you want illegal immigration enforced, elevating it to a felony would provide greater impetus for law enforcement (like the difference between hunting down shoplifters and hunting down burglars...) If you are for the Sensenbrenner solution, then the felony issue is not a non-issue at all. Lax enforcement of the current laws -- and almost no enforcement against employers -- is at the heart of the problem. I'll bet if you started making the hiring of illegal migrants a felony, and started arresting employers and fining them into oblivion, things would change in a hurry... and if the employer magnet dried up, the border encroachment would begin to dry up as well , or at least slow down. (Public opinion would also be very different if we had waves of illegal migrants sitting idle in the U.S. rather than working...)
As I think you and I agree, it's the GOP, not the Democrats, who can't make up their minds. They want to be both compassionate conservativos who are Latino-friendly at the polls, and tough talking border enforcers who would round up every last "coyote" client and ship them back over the border, pronto. And they think they can use the George W. Bush, Texas governor model as the blueprint for long term GOP growth nationwide. Trouble is, you can't. Latino votes are concentrated in four states: New York, Texas, California and Florida, and in three of the four, they are set in stone and won't swing the outcome in the electoral college, because those states are hard-set as Dem or Republican. In Florida, Hispanics vote Republican on the main, but that is unusual -- and only happens because Cubans have the sweetest immigration deal going.
The House bill, in the end, was what most of the GOP base wants. The Senate bill is a desperate attempt on the part of Bill Frist (and John McCain) to be all things to all people. The Dems want amnesty, plain and simple, because it would help them at the polls (most Hispanic voters are Democrats, and most of those protesters out there will vote Democratic if they are legal, or are made legal). Republicans are in a no-win situation. They don't want to be tagged as Prop 187ers, but their base is demanding action on the borders. And as usual, it's middle class Americans of all ethnicities, who are losing jobs and losing wage stability, including legal immigrants (and permanent residents,) who are on the road to getting hosed.
Hastert and Frist backing down on the "felony" piece just means they've realized they're in a whole, and they're trying to stop digging.
Update: The "carnivorous conservative" clarifies:
...I do not care if illegal immigrants are classified as felons, nor have I ever insisted on any form of mass deportation. I have made my position clear in several posts, most notably this one.
I have no doubt that Left and Right could come together on this issue once the border is sealed. Deport criminals, deadbeats and riff raff and let the rest of our South of the Border visitors stay, while providing for assimilation through language and appropriate civil compliance. The make it a felony position was the politicians position and they have already punted it away. Were it being given up during reconciliation to gain support for a barrier and genuine enforcement, I'd feel a heck of a lot more comfortable. But the too quick to compromise milquetoasts todays Republican leaders seem to be, including Bush by the way, give up too quickly and hardly stand and fight for anything. I am so disgusted with Frist and the like right now, I don't even want to think about their future in Congress, or anywhere else.
I think Riehl is correct, in part, that there can be agreement on this issue, if not between left and right, then between center-left (where I sit) and right. We should take immediate steps to halt the brazen overrunning of our southern (and northern) borders, put real teeth in immigration enforcement measures (including against employers,) get some real effort out of Mexico on law enforcement on their side of the border, and back Vicente Fox down on the issue of open border trucking and shipping (in other words, just say no). On guest workers, I'm probably harsher than most. I'd be for a limited -- very limited -- guest worker program, mainly because it would allow us to identify those coming across to work, and it addresses what I've said repeatedly: the fact that many of those who come over here don't want to be citizens -- they just want to work and send money back home. But even with a guest worker program, employers should be compelled to prefer American workers, and to demonstrate not only that they can't find American workers, but that they are paying a prevailing, competitive wage.
As it is, no more than a third of workers in even the lowest paying industries -- including agriculture -- are illegal migrants, so the idea that Americans, and legal immigrants, won't do these jobs is absurd. I'm not for all-out protectionism, but the federal government should not be in the business of encouraging this race to the bottom, giving employers free reign to bring back sharecropping by importing the poverty of neighboring countries. Nor should we be subsidizing the Mexican economy via remittances that are tax-free on our end, and which reduce the potential Social Security returns to our federal coffers had those jobs been held by citizens or legal residents.
As for people who may have overstayed their visas, and are currently in the country working or going to school and being productive: sure. Let them pay a penalty and apply for residency, I suppose. But it should be on a case by case basis, not a blanket amnesty program, earned or not.
Previous:
Quick takes: Monsters and critics
Si no podemos (or, don't mess with Dobbs)
Quick take headlines: Demands and disbelief
Thus sayeth Rush Limbaugh
Deal ...or no deal? (take two...)
A bridge to nowhere
Deal or no deal?
About that immigration compromise...
Immigration divide
The flag bearers
Tags: immigration, Politics, border, MEXICO, McCain, illegal aliens, Illegal-Aliens, Illegal immigration, Mexico, Mexican flag |
posted by JReid @ 12:07 PM   |
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment