Will There Be a November Surprise?
New America Media, Commentary, Frank Sharry, Posted: Oct 26, 2006
Traducción al español
Editor's Note: Construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border will never happen, the writer says. But the red-hot issue of immigration will play a key role in hundreds of congressional races. Frank Sharry is executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Immigration Forum. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation's leading immigrant rights advocates.
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Immigration was a red-hot issue in Congress last month, and it's a red-hot issue in the upcoming elections in November. What does all this mean for those fighting and hoping for reforms that respect immigrants, reward work, restore rights and reunite families?
First, let's look at what Congress did and didn't do.
In September, the House Republican leadership aggressively moved to enact sweeping anti-immigrant measures cherry-picked from the Sensenbrenner bill (HR4437). It had them approved by the House and then tried to attach them to must-pass appropriations measures. Fortunately, this enforcement-only push was thwarted on a bipartisan basis by Senate supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
Even though "Sensenbrenner-lite" was thwarted, both chambers did approve another immigration measure. We like to call it the Fence to Nowhere bill. The official name is the Secure Fence Act. But since it's now clear that the full 700 miles of fencing the bill calls for is unlikely to ever be built, we've given it a more accurate name.
Here's why the full 700 miles of fence is unlikely to be built:
NOT ENOUGH MONEY: In Washington parlance, the Secure Fence Act was an "authorization" bill, not an "appropriations" bill. As Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) candidly admitted, "It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it." At most, the current budget allows for some 90 miles of additional fencing.
IT WON'T WORK: Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol, Customs and state and local officials along the border all recognize that 700 miles of fence might sound good in Washington, D.C., and on talk radio in the heartland, but not on the border. Most will oppose a 700-mile fence either quietly or openly. To the extent resources are made available, look for more agents and technology, not double fencing.
IT'S THE POLITICS, STUPID: The so-called Secure Fence Act was enacted not for policy reasons but for political reasons. The vote wasn't about border protection, but about incumbent protection. Some members of Congress voted for it to fool voters into believing they "are doing something" about border security. Others voted for it so they wouldn't have to face 30-second campaign ads saying they voted against border security. But trust me on this: Very few of those who voted for the bill actually believe the fence will be built or that it will work.
So, Congress debates immigration for two years and ends up with a lousy fence bill?
I'm afraid so. But here's the good news. Almost the entire Sensenbrenner bill, enacted in December 2005 in the House of Representatives, has been defeated for now. This is no small accomplishment.
What accounts for this remarkable victory? First and foremost, the millions of immigrant workers and families who took to the streets in 2006 not only woke the sleeping giant; they scared the nation's political class. Secondly, the fact that the Senate passed a flawed but architecturally sound comprehensive immigration reform bill in May of 2006 provided a stark contrast -- and alternative solution -- to the harsh, punitive enforcement-only approach. Finally, the bungling House Republican leadership made itself the issue -- again -- when it decided to call summer "hearings" rather than negotiate in good faith. The cynical attempt to blame the minority for inaction and to use immigration as a wedge issue to turn out dispirited "base" voters was so transparent and ridiculous it did not pass the political laugh test.
What now? The elections of 2006.
Since the House Republican leadership decided to make immigration a political issue, the elections will be enormously important in determining the future fate of immigration as a policy issue. Should the House Republican strategy of playing the anti-immigration card work, expect a new version of the Sensenbrenner bill next year in Congress. If it doesn't work, or even backfires, then comprehensive immigration reform may turn out to be one of the big winners in the upcoming elections.
What to look for? There are literally hundreds of races in which immigration is a hot topic (see the new Web site tracking these races at www.immigration2006.org). Here are just a few bellwether races we will be watching closely.
ARIZONA 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE: Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), one of the strongest supporters of comprehensive reform, is retiring. In the Republican primary Randy Graf, an enforcement-only hawk, won his party's nomination by emphasizing his hard line on enforcement. His Democratic opponent, a woman named Gabrielle Giffords, strongly supports the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive reform approach. Graf threw down the gauntlet when he said, "If this issue can't be won in this district...the argument can be made that it can't be won anywhere in the country." So far, most polls have the Democrat Giffords with a commanding lead.
PENNSYLVANNIA SENATE RACE: Incumbent Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is battling for re-election against Democrat Bob Casey. When Casey said he supported the Senate comprehensive bill, Santorum went on the attack. In a desperate attempt to come from behind, Santorum is focusing most of his ads criticizing Casey for being "pro-amnesty." Casey has refused to back down and shot back, asking Santorum why after 12 years in the Senate he hasn't addressed the issue. Hardliners and comprehensive reformers will be watching this one closely, with each side poised to claim victory depending on the outcome.
COLORADO GOVERNOR'S RACE: Republican Bob Beauprez is trying to come from behind in his race against Democrat Bill Ritter by claiming his opponent is soft on illegal immigration. This race is getting ugly, in a state where the debate over immigration has already been fouled by harsh rhetoric and tough new state laws. If a hard line on immigration fails to work in the hard-line state of Colorado, what does that say about the political punch of a hard line?
Of course, even if the use of immigration works as a wedge in some races and in some areas of the country, what are the implications for the Republican Party's future? If it continues to alienate immigrant voters -- the fastest group of new voters in the nation -- how can Republicans remain the dominant political party for much longer?
Stay tuned. The policy and political crosscurrents of the immigration debate will continue to roil communities and states. Times are tough for immigrants in many areas of the country. But if this year's stalemate in Congress and the failure of the anti-immigration card in the elections are any indication, this debate just might be headed in a more pro-immigrant direction.
See Related Commentaries
Immigration Matters
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Linda Sapp on Nov 10, 2006 at 23:17:45 said:
A fence is the beginning of the mind games that politicans would play with us. A fence can not seperate a family or group of people who's ideologies are one.
A fence is only a construction project in reality. How many politicians will get a "kickback" for this fence? How many states will use "undocumented workers" to help build it? How many Tribes will tolerate this insaneness once again? Sovereignty and all it stands for allows for Tribes to speak out and stand together. The indigenous peoples on both sides of the "border" should stand together and send a message to the politicians in both countries. Many of these who supposedly represent us have never even been to the Reservation, invite them --make noise! Have a summit and discuss what you can do. Our numbers are also what defeat us. We are silent & invisible. But as a sovereign nation, we can stand against this travesty! The federal government is supposed to honor our Tribal government. Make it so! The fence is only a politician’s way to pork barrel a project for greedy construction companies and themselves!. A fence can not separate us if we do not let it! Stand up and be heard! Flood the papers and the White House with a letter or email campaign against this waste of money! Stand up or shut up!The Americas should unite all Indigenous Peoples and rally behind their needs. Bad & greedy people including some of our own will never let this happen. We need to unite and be heard. Silence denotes approval! Tribal rights should take preference for use of Tribal lands. Where is a bright, smart attorney to wield our big stick!Who is not an immigrant? ONly the Indian peoples who were here for thousands of years before all the rest. Yet we manage and we tolerate and we work side by side with all races. We are the true peacekeepers!
Mac on Nov 02, 2006 at 05:11:27 said:
Dear Larry Chaplin:
You seem so annoyed..even envious about "the Hispanics, speaking little or NO English with wads of cash." that sent money to their home countries. Do you think the money was stolen? Could they have been working 16 - 18 hour days without eating out, car notes, and went without all the american-pie-mamma-I-made-it trimmings we Fall-dow-and-worship-us US CITIZENS hold so near and dear? Larry immigrants work very hard. "illegals" work even hardr BECAUSE they are have "no papers". I'll tell you one thing...I am not going to hire some anyone other than a nice hardworking hispanic to finsh my basement next month...and I'm not going to check for his "imigrant status" either! They get the job done. Also, I hate to be the one to tell you this but Hispanics overtook Blacks as the largest minority during the last census. They are SECOND not THIRD behing whites. But that's the issue isin't it...The US may be "browning over" yikes!!!
Margaret on Nov 01, 2006 at 06:32:46 said:
Like it or not, legal or illegal, all foreigners see each other as immigrants, and it is only those who do not like third world foreigners, legal or illegal in our country who get angry at them, attack them and lobby against them.
This is a good article and I agree with its analysis on the Fence. However, what I don't agree is their assesment on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
"... Secondly, the fact that the Senate passed a flawed but architecturally sound comprehensive immigration reform bill in May of 2006 provided a stark contrast -- and alternative solution -- to the harsh, punitive enforcement-only approach."
I think that this reform bill was equally harsh on immigrants. The enforcement-only bill was included in its content in a more subtle way.
Those who introduced anti-immigrant bills have opened a can of worms which have divided our country and embarrased us internationally. It has given anti-immigrant Republicans and others more amunition to demonize foreigners, and that is unfortunate.
Both parties need too much growing up to do and it will take many years to change the unfriendly image that our country has created for itself.
Ruth Coneys on Oct 29, 2006 at 11:24:58 said:
I would like to know how many of the people who are against the immigration reform ever worked in a field cutting vegetables, fruit, and your own yard work?
I was ONE in 300 people who worked in the fields (only American born citizen)
No one else had a green card but they worked very hard and did get minimum wage, and did not complain. And they cannot get social services or unemployment benefits either, their children do not get free lunch, because they do not have a green card. Hopefully this will help people who don't have any idea what they are talking about. Unless you want to get off your last A** and pick your own vegetables, fruit or do your own gardening Shut the H*** up
People who were sent by the unemployment office, would show up watch how the work was done and left without getting out of their cars, they stayed a whole 15 minutes, and the few (around 5 ) tried it for about 10 minutes and said it was too hard and went home, and these so called American born, English only speaking people, never came back
Young Hispanic on Oct 27, 2006 at 13:25:22 said:
I think the only think this 700 mile fence does is increase hard working people\'s taxes, the fence wont stop hispanics from coming in they will come in so it is just a waste of money. Any one who disagrees thats fine, but it\'s the truth. Another thing is the majority of hispanics coming in illegally or legally are hard working they work harder than U.S citizens so if they are getting the job done and doing it properly why fix something that doesnt need to be fixed?
David on Oct 27, 2006 at 00:24:30 said:
It's easy to say the border will not be built, but the fact is it will. The American people will require it to be built and will hold politicians accountable. In fact 700 miles will prove to not be enough and more milage will be built in the future. This is only the beginning my friends. When you have 20 million people plus rush a border in any part of the world, you cannot expect nothing to happen. American people are very naive .. but they are finally waking up to what is happening. I'm not blaming the people for coming .. I hold corporations at fault and also the mexican government for not doing enough. Anyone who uses the race card is an idiot. Just look at our country today. We have people from all over. But my friends, the gravy train cannot go on forever. Look at the emergency rooms closing in LA, the overcrowded schools, the competition of labor driving wages down. Dont think the American people are going to just let this continue without a fight.
Bob Woodward on Oct 27, 2006 at 00:10:39 said:
You are correct in saying that the issue of immigration is tough on immigrants. LEGAL immigrants are having a tough time with the massive number of ILLEGAL immigrants swarming across our borders. I have the utmost respect for people who legally apply to come to this country. These people wait for years to complete the application process and are still motivated to come here. Those are the people we want as new citizens here, people who respect our laws, not the millions who disregard the rule of law and "steal" their way across our borders.
The US has every right to manage legal immigration to this country to ensure that our resources are not stretched beyond the number of people that we can reasonably support. There is no anti-immigration movement in this country. Clearly define this as an anti-illegal immigration movement when you are discussing this issue please.
k on Oct 26, 2006 at 22:58:51 said:
This isn't China or Germany! It saddens me this adminstration is continually lyINg to US! who do you think cleans his "house" rest assured they're not white or black!!if this were the case have ALL the Senator/Congressman hire "new" house keepers better yet have their wives DO IT! thank you for your explanation on the "authorization" and "appropriations". when it comes to Moral Turpitude I DONT! want to hear a Republican say anything about Democrats!
Thank you again-this is the first i've read and I like what I read!
Antipolitical on Oct 26, 2006 at 19:03:13 said:
It is pointless to argue this issue. The pro-immigration camp obviously advocates open borders and favors a complete halt to any efforts to restrict the flow of people (or goods) across national boundaries.
Liberals support this for political reasons (identity politics).
Neo-conservatives support it for political reasons as well (serving their corporate masters a large helping of cheap labor).
The average American opposes it for obvious reasons, but who cares what they think? If any dare to speak out about the high crime, depressed wages, unwanted cultural changes and other social and economic costs associated with absorbing large numbers of poor, low skill, immigrants who can't and don't want to assimilate they must immediately be attacked as backward, racist fools.
There is a clear conflict of interest here. That's not uncommon in politics. What bothers me is how disingenuous both sides are about their reasons for their positions. Like I said, arguing this is pointless. Both sides know what they want and really don't give a damn about the wants and needs of their opponents.
This issue will be resolved at the ballot box and in the streets. Blogs and news stories are nothing but worthless propaganda. Action matters, not words.
Geoff Miller on Oct 26, 2006 at 16:29:14 said:
Deportation. Worked just fine in the '50s. Coupled with stringent employer crackdowns and the US wouldn't have an illegal immigration program. Just one that allows immigrants of all cloth to apply and strive to join our country.
Robert Morrow on Oct 26, 2006 at 13:13:23 said:
Randy Graf v. Gabrielle Giffords: #1 race in the USA for conservatives in 2006
Call 520-887-2984 www.votegraf.com
Folks, this is a code red action alert! Randy Graf, who is a rock solid economic and social conservative, is in a key race in a swing congressional district against ultra-liberal Gabrielle Giffords. If Randy Graf wins, despite all this adversity, it will send a huge MESSAGE we are serious about protecting our borders and we do NOT want our borders so undefended that a guy can cross the border on elephants with a 6 piece mariachi band playing and get no response from the Border Patrol.
This is a classic race of a conservative vs. a liberal in a district Bush won in 2004 with 54% of the vote. Randy Graf is rated “A” by the NRA, he will STOP illegal immigration; he supports Bush on Iraq; he will cut taxes and spending; he will defend traditional marriage; he supports Israel. Randy Graf is endorsed by Eagle Forum, Concerned Women of America and he is pro-life.
Gabrielle Giffords is being funded by big unions, including getting $5,000 from the radicals at the NEA, homosexual radicals, pro-abortion Emily’s List radical feminists, Sierra Club environmental socialists, and of course the trial lawyer lobby. One of Gabrielle Giffords most disturbing contributors is Citizens for Global Solutions, which is basically the United Nations political action committee who gave Giffords $3,000 from their PAC. Citizens for Global Solutions is the group that fought John Bolton so hard and CSG DOES NOT BELIEVE IN US NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, THEY WANT AN UNELECTED ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT RUN BY THE LIKES OF GEORGE SOROS and all those nuts clapping and laughing when Hugo Chavez called Bush the Devil and said he could smell sulphur. And CSG loves, loves, loves, Gabrielle Giffords who loves them back. Giffords is also a big ACLU supporter, of course.
Folks, what more do you need? Call Graf’s HQ immediately at 520-887-2984 and get involved. Either travel to Tucson to GOTV or you can make phone calls from your home like I am. You can give money at www.votegraf.com This is the #1 race in the USA for conservatives and this is a code red action alert.
520-887-2984 and go to www.votegraf.com to volunteer, give money and get email alerts
520-887-2984 and go to www.votegraf.com to volunteer, give money and get email alerts
Dear Republicans, Conservatives, Patriots and Activists,
I sure do see a lot of grassroots firepower on my email address book. I have turned on my grassroots turbo jets and I am focused on getting Randy Graf elected to Congress in Arizona #08 and I hope you join me. Randy Graf has truly earned our precious support and volunteer time. Graf HQ 520-887-2984. www.votegraf.com
Hey, are any of you sick seeing people on elephants and 6 piece mariachi bands being able to cross the US border while the Border Patrol does nothing? I sure am. Randy Graf will STOP illegal immigration and he is a rock solid conservative on both economic and social issues. His opponent, Gabrielle Giffords, is an open borders, United Nations -loving ultra-liberal with an "F" rating from the NRA. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?!!
Here are ways to help:
1) Call Randy Graf HQ at 520-887-2984 and tell them you want to volunteer and give money
2) Travel to Tucson the week before Nov. 7th to get out the vote for Randy Graf.
3) Make GOTV phone calls to Arizona voters no matter where you live in the USA.
4) Send out Randy Graf info to your email address book. If you email list is not complaining, then you are not sending out enough emails.
5) Post Randy Graf contact info on conservative and immigration sites.
6) Call into radio stations and appeal for money and volunteers for Randy Graf.
7) Tell all your political friends to call 520-887-2984 and go to www.votegraf.com .
That's about it. Please note: mental telepathy does NOT work in getting Randy Graf elected. If we want Randy Graf to win, we have to knock on a door, make a phone call, send out an email or send in money.
So let's do it, have fun and send a MESSAGE that we want illegal immigration STOPPED and a MESSAGE that we want true, principled conservatives in Congress. Have a great day!
Sincerely,
Robert Morrow 512-306-1510 Austin, TX - grassroots ninja warrior
Douglas Frederick on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:45:58 said:
Two notes to include in the immigration discussion:
The "aliens" we are trying to keep out are mostly descendants of our country's first inhabitants, many of whom were wiped out by those who came to this country with no papers, who paid no entry fees at the border, and who couldn't and wouldn't speak the "native" language.
N. V. on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:50:14 said:
Mike Boettner:
You miss a very large point. A lot of the \"enforcement\" and \"anti-immigration\" bills, were so prejudicial to legal immigrants and recent naturalized citizens that they have motivated a lot of the \"newly naturalized VOTERS (LEGAL)\" against these pol\'s...
Believe it or not Mike - you don\'t have to be born here to become a LEGAL citizen and LEGALLY vote - just ask those funny guys that came over on the Mayflower...
Hank Lema on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:34:00 said:
Mexico is giving out free latter's. What a total waist of money 700 mile of fence. I think it cures nothing only thing it does increase my taxes.
Jonathan Rocheleau on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:26:20 said:
I have a question for those of you fighting the efforts to restrict illegal immigration.
Do you believe we can just open our borders completely to any and all that want to come live in this country?
If yes, you're naive and/or crazy.
If no, WELCOME ABOARD!
If you agree we have to put some limits on the number of people allowed into this country - you're with us. That's all we're asking for.
Most sane, rational people agree that we have to have some limits. All we're asking for is that those limits are enforced.
That's it - end of story. That's all this is about.
We're not saying we don't like mexicans. All we're saying is that it's been agreed to that we can allow X amount of mexicans to come into our country per year.
If you want to debate that number - let's have the debate. THAT is where all this wasted argumentitive effort should be spent. But to argue against allowing us to stick to the agreed upon limit is insane.
g callahan on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:18:42 said:
you stupid liberals have yiour way and in a few years the u s will be a third world country
Eric Lay on Oct 26, 2006 at 09:01:32 said:
I think the immigration issue is a real threat to many republicans in congress and they need to realize that.We talk about building a 700 mile fence?Just think about it, who is doing the construction the same people we talk about are the same people that are going to build the fence.Like the issue above says it sounds real easy in washington DC, but i can bet on one thing if the fence is built the labor is coming straight from the same people crossing the border.
JW Kopp on Oct 26, 2006 at 08:50:50 said:
Clearly you are not in favor of controling our borders and would that we be open to anyone that wants to come here.
I would support a clear cut bill on immigration as long at it provided for strong enforcement and penalties for those who violate the law.
It appears that most people who want lax laws on the border issue are not the common working person whose wages are depressed because of the flood of illegal immigrants. It also appears that those are the same people that will cry for investigation upon investigation if, by chance, something really bad happens because of lax border enforcement that you seem to desire.
I will lobby my congressman for funding of the bill and if he won't do it, there is an election in another two years.
Larry Chaplin on Oct 26, 2006 at 08:41:43 said:
Typical of New York, Washington D.C. and California far left Democrats. Here in Texas there is a hugh burden on the tax payers. Also especially in southern California. Several years ago before I open a bank checking account I would go to a medium size grocery store to cash my Social Security check & later had it electronically deposited. Several months we receive our funds on a Friday because the 3rd falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a Monday holiday. There was ALWAYS a line of Hispanics speaking little or no English buying Western Union money orders with CASH! No way these men are paying the I.R.S. and F.I.C.A. taxes that paid at a high rate for well over 30 years. Later I went to a Western Union check cashing store near a Kroger store because the money orders were free with electronic transfer. I was suprised that a majority of the m.o. purchasers were Hispanic, speaking little or NO English with wads of cash. By the way Hispanics are a relatively small minority being third behind whites and blacks.
Josh on Oct 26, 2006 at 08:11:41 said:
Mr. Sharry:
Although I absolutely respect your right to express your views, I think that you are being intellectually dishonest. Here's why. No where in your editorial to you use the terminology "illegal immigrant", or "illegal immigration". Instead you use the terms "immigrant" or "immigration" while discussing this issue. You see, some of us are extremely "pro-immigration". Some of us know the value of the ability to come to this country legally, ethically, and honestly to take advantage of all this great country has to offer. What we are not, however, is pro "illegal immigration". That is what this debate is all about. Why not call a spade a spade, and use the proper words to discuss the issue. In my opinion, it is because rather than being intellectually honest, you would rather characterize those that you do not agree with as "anti-immigration" when the truth is that most of us that you would characterize this way are in fact anti "illegal immigration".
Ted Daum on Oct 26, 2006 at 07:53:33 said:
Not mentioned in this commentary is that, in addition to being ineffective for its intended purpose, and an ignorance-based wedge issue, it would be an environmental disaster. It would cut right through the ranges that many species of animals depend on for their survival. The only beneficiaries would be the Halliburtons or other right-wing cronies that would reap billions in its construction.
Mike Boettner on Oct 26, 2006 at 07:50:31 said:
It's funny how you can twist this around to be anti-immigrant. It is anti "illegal" immigrant. That's the subject.
-->Your line, "If it continues to alienate immigrant voters -- the fastest group of new voters in the nation" and what implications it has on the GOP.
Well, it doesn't really matter does it? They are not citizens therefore they can't vote.....right?
Ahh.....legally anyway. hence...legal
Or did I miss something?