The Blue State

Senate GOP digging own party an election year grave on new immigration proposal

There is no magical answer to find some common-ground solution between the House and Senate regarding a comprehensive immigration bill.  House Republican Rep. Jeff Blake of Arizona told a group of conservative bloggers yesterday that he predicted the House will not support any bill that allows possible citizenship for illegal immigrants.

In knowing that both chambers of Congress need to approve any bill before it heads to the President for signing, then one might ask with all the House opposition to a citizenship bill why the Senate is proposing just that?  The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow on a bill that, as explained in the Washington Times, would grant certain citizenship rights for more than 10 million illegal immigrants.  The Senate bill would also protect employers who hire illegal immigrants from penalties, and increase by 2 million the number of foreigners per year that can be allowed to enter this country legally.  Even if the Senate passes the measure, it heads to the House where, as expected, it will not pass.

After three straight impressive, well-disciplined election cycles for the Republicans -- 2000, 2002 and 2004 -- most pundits question this almost mindless immigration strategy.  This bill will not pass the House.  Why are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot?  Even more importantly, why all of a sudden is there so much disorganization on the part of the GOP?

Many would attribute this disorganization to President Bush's low poll numbers.  Because this is an election year, the House GOP would rather distance themselves from a President whose approval rating is in the low-30s.  In other words, the scandals that are plaguing every corner of the GOP establishment are creating an election year culture on Capitol Hill that I would call an "every man for himself" strategy.  No GOP House member wants all that corruption baggage.  Many House Republicans, especially those above the Mason-Dixon, will run as independent Republicans in an attempt to try to make themselves look disconnected from the Washington establishment.

This strategy is being played out in the current immigration debate, and it is being met by sharp opposition by Republicans over at the Senate.  Republican Senator Lindsay Graham knows this strategy, and took a rhetorical shot at the House Republicans, warning them that if they do not pass the immigration bill that the Senate wants, then they will no longer be in majority:

"I don't want my own party to marginalize the president on an issue ofgreat national importance," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a keybacker of the Senate compromise. "We have the White House, we have theSenate and we have the House. If we can't solve this problem becauseit's politically too hard for us, people are going to turn to anothergroup to solve this problem."

This is very significant.  What we are seeing here is an intra-Republican strategy being invoked, where the Republican Senate leadership is trying to scare the Republican House about the November election in order to get them to favor a more comprehensive immigration package.

The problem, obviously, is that the House Republicans are already scared about the election.  They know that if they support any bill with "citizenship" in it, their anti-immigration conservative constituents will either not show up at the polls or vote for another party.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has a rule that he will never bring a bill to the floor unless he knows that it has the support of a majority of Republicans -- which is exactly why a Senate comprehensive immigration bill that favors citizenship will not pass.  Democratic Senator Dick Durbin put it best:

"If Speaker Hastert insists on the 'majority of the majority,' [immigration reform] is dead."

With the House not budging, the Senate Republicans are digging an even bigger hole for their party this election year by sending the Republican-controlled House a bill that will not even reach the floor.

Cartoon: Linguistic Police

(By Monte Wolverton, Cagle Cartoons)

White House tries to break "the ice" of opposition in House over immigration reform

It is becoming rather evident that the immigration debate will climax with a showdown between President Bush and the House Majority Leadership of Jim Boehner, Roy Blunt and James Sensenbrenner.  By the Senate passing a comprehensive immigration package, the media attention focuses directly at the House, a body that opposes any sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  With Bush, Senate Republicans and Democrats in both Houses firmly in support of a more comprehensive bill, the House Republicans are cornered into their own political faction, as Sunday's Washington Post explains:

Bush is trying to thread the needle by pushing the Senate to backenough get-tough measures to placate deeply skeptical conservatives inthe House, aides said. The strategy is predicated on first getting theSenate to pass with the widest possible margin a bipartisan bill thatwould tighten border security and would provide millions of illegalimmigrants a chance at citizenship. Then the president and his aidesplan to shift their attention to the House.

A senior Bush advisernoted that House conservatives are themselves divided, pointing toThursday's trip to Arizona as an illustration. Aboard Air Force One,conservative Reps. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and John Shadegg (Ariz.)suggested to Bush that they are prepared to back a plan that wouldoffer many illegal immigrants a new route to citizenship, according tothe official. But Bush's biggest obstacle is the House GOP leadershipteam, including Majority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Whip RoyBlunt (Mo.), who are cool to the Bush plan. "The ice ain't going tobreak overnight, we know," the Bush adviser said.

Regardless of how much pressure the White House puts on House Republicans, the ice might not break at all.  GOP Congressmen are telling fellow party strategists that each weekend when they travel back to their home districts, the number one subject of concern during town hall meetings is amnesty.  There is no way that these Republicans will be able to justify to their socially conservative constituents that a guest worker program is the better way to go.  This is looking more and more like a losing fight for Republicans.

The looming security danger along the border

Interstate 5, the freeway that stretched from Blaine, Washington through my hometown of Seattle and down past San Diego, has just been reopened after a shooting at a U.S-Mexico border crossing:

Border agents had pulled over the SUV after reports that the driver hadpicked up a group of suspected illegal immigrants yesterday afternoon.When the driver tried to veer back into traffic on Interstate 5, theofficers fired, officials said.

Following the President's call to send 6,000 National Guard troops down to the border, many Americans have mixed feelings.  Just about everyone believes that this is something that needed to be done, at least in the short-term.  However, most also worry that it will over-extend the National Guard as they continue to be pushed to their limits, thanks to the continuing war in Iraq.  So sending down the National Guard might be a better short-term solution than something you'd want to continue enacting years from now.  Eventually, leaders will need to put more emphasis in new technology rather than relying just on man-power.  President Bush probably understands this fact, but needed to act quickly because of his eroding political support within the conservative base.

Lastly, from a personal standpoint, the possibility of firefights along the border will rise.  Don't get me wrong: the National Guard is fully capable force.  On the other hand, they do not have the same experience as the border patrol whose job it is to monitor the situation down there.  Depending on the rules of engagement, the worry is that an increased presence along the border will increase the likelihood of our side getting shot at, therefore increasing the potential of a large-scale firefight.  Such large skirmishes would impact diplomatic relations with Mexico, which is maybe what some conservatives want.  We will see how this plays out.

On immigration, GOP House majority stays the course and gets nothing done

What did I say earlier today about House conservatives not wanting to budge on immigration?  Now Sensenbrenner is rhetorically firing back at the Senate and Bush:

"He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, alot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House,"Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call."That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now thepresident appears not to be interested in it at all."

From what transpired today, it is safe to say that President Bush's speech on Monday only encouraged House Republicans to give voters the best possible reason today as to why they don't belong in majority.  This hyper-partisanship has led to egotistical inaction at the highest levels of government to the point that Republicans are fighting amongst themselves and getting nothing done.  Democrats need to present themselves as a party that promotes cooperation and transparency.  They also need to explain to voters that America has been through too much divisiveness to continue staying the course on the road that leads to more inaction.

Rove might not get what he wants on immigration

After the White House got the message yesterday that Congressional Republicans would not budge on immigration following the President's Monday primetime address, White House adviser Karl Rove is meeting with GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  And so far, it has backfired:

"It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on. Either you'regiving amnesty to people who are here illegally, or you aren't," saidRep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Politically speaking, Karl Rove is better at running election campaigns than he is at creating alliances with Congressmen.  If he thinks that he is going to simply waltz in there and get a bunch of stubborn House Republicans to ignore all the criticism that they have been getting from their constituents each weekend regarding immigration, then he has a lot to learn.

I am still not giving up hope that the Senate version of immigration reform will win out.  But on the other hand, serious concessions will need to be made in order to sway social conservatives in the House.  Once that happens, the bill might be so altered that it will look entirely different than what most Americans want.  In the case that the House gets its way, then the Democrats might want to think about a filibuster -- a move that most Americans could support if it is explained to them correctly.

The fact that the Senate is even talking to the stubborn House confirms the conclusion that the Republicans care more about getting any bill passed than passing a good bill that most Americans prefer.

Why both sides have problems with Bush's proposal

In theory, finding a middle ground solution might make you loved by all sides of the political spectrum.  Haven't we all been waiting for that kind of approach these days?  But in practice, the scheme of wanting it both ways runs the likelihood of angering both sides.  Such was the case with Bush's speech last night, especially with the issue of immigration being as polarizing as it is.  The far-right and far-left are dominating the debate.  There are the Minute Men and other social conservatives on one side, and pro-amnesty marchers on the other (for the most part).  So when Bush tries to approach the subject right down the middle, he is only asking for political fallout.

This is precisely what the reaction on both sides has been, as explained in Tuesday's New York Times:

White House officials said in a briefing for reporters Mondayafternoon that the president was calling for $1.9 billion included in asupplemental budget bill now before Congress to be used for hisproposals.

Some of the border state governors, Democrats inCongress, and others immediately raised questions about thepracticality of the plan. Mr. Bush's broad approach also drew tepidreviews from some House Republicans and conservatives, whose support hewill need as he grapples with a problem that has defied decades ofproposed solutions: the continued economic imbalances between theUnited States and its trading partners to the south.

Although Bush should expect to see a short-term bounce in his poll numbers as a result of his speech, the mood on Capitol Hill will likely be one of indifference.  House Republicans will not budge from their earlier conservative proposal.  They want border security first and immigration reform second.  So you can bet that the following quote from Bush's speech did not help out relations with House Republicans:

"All elements of this problem must be addressed together -- or none of them will be solved at all," he said.

That kind of approach, although most Americans agree with it, is not something that will fly with the House GOP.

Bush walks tight rope in speech on immigration

The President's speech came and went.  Several hours ago he used his first ever domestic-related Oval Office speech of his presidency to appease both sides of the political spectrum on immigration.  I am sure everyone will agree that he did not hit a home run.  But he did surprise many strategists, who expected that he would run to the far-right when it came to rhetoric.  In fact, some of his speech might have angered social conservatives.  Take this one, for example:

We must alwaysremember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, andthat every human being has dignity and value no matter what theircitizenship papers say.

When I heard him say that, a red light went off in my head, as I thought to myself, "I can imagine confederate flag-waving Republicans from Alabama throwing stuff at the television about now."  The average conservative would argue that no one on American soil that is not a citizen does not deserve the same amount of "dignity" that normal citizens deserve.  Furthermore, citizenship is more than about just "papers," it is about loyalty and supporting the American cause at all cost.  So I could imagine why many conservatives might have jumped out of their kitchen chairs in anger.

As far as my progressive view is concerned, President Bush did move one step closer to at least doing something about the border crisis.  500,000 Mexicans crossed the border into the United States last year without getting caught.  Sending National Guard troops down there is a short-term solution that is necessary.  But it is not the final answer.  We need an increased guard presence along with a pledge from Congress to invest in better technology -- because technology is what we will eventually rely on to fully secure our borders, seaports, railways, airports and bridges.  Ever since the September 11th attacks, GOP lawmakers have made giving away tax cuts to the rich a higher priority than investing in 21st century technology to protect our infrastructure.  Now it is the House's turn to cooperate with the President, Democrats and a majority of Americans that want a comprehensive immigration bill.

The only time the President referred to "technology," he meant building fences:

At the same time, we're launching the most technologically advanced bordersecurity initiative in American history.  We will construct high-techfences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in ruralareas.

When you build a fence, all smugglers have to do is dig under -- that should be simple logic right there.

Although I do think the President could have elaborated better, at least he is bringing attention to the problem, unlike the GOP Congressional majority.

Monday Editorial: A short-term border plan for the wrong reasons

After much thought, I am in almost 100% agreement with Republican Chuck Hagel, who is worried that if President Bush sends 5,000 U.S. troops to the border then our military will be put in even more strain.  They are over-extended in Iraq.  There are clearly not enough troops in Afghanistan.  It is not fair to our men in women in uniform to send them to the border unless, out of the blue, he announces an immediate reduction or at least a timetable for a certain number of troops to leave Iraq.  That certain number should be greater than or equal to the number he wants to sent to the border.

Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the short-term idea of sending the National Guard down to patrol the border region.  But because it is only a short-term plan, it will not solve the problem permanently.  This is just an example of President Bush trying to do anything to save his base before the 2006 midterm elections.  If he wanted a long-term solution, then the right thing would be to invest in better technology -- because technology will eventually be the future of U.S. security when it comes to our borders, ports, railways and the rest of our transportation infrastructure. 

This is not a knock on our soldiers.  They are up to the job.  I just do not approve of this Rove-like tactic of playing politics with a huge issue like immigration by throwing a bunch of National Guard soldiers to appease social conservatives.  I am also worried about how over-extended they are throughout the world.  But then again, when it comes to integrity, I never really expected much out of this President to begin with.

Poll: 61% disapprove of Bush immigration policy, and conservatives get nervous

Heading into the big speech tonight, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are somewhat skeptical about the President's immigration policy, as illustrated by this latest Newsweek Poll:

 

Meanwhile, pro-amnesty groups are collaborating together, and will respond to the President's speech with one unified voice, says the Washington Post:

The We Are America Alliance of 41 immigrant resource groups, unions,churches, day laborers and Spanish-language disc jockeys opposes Houselegislation that would criminalize illegal immigrants, but it willlobby Congress and compromise to realize its goal of obtaining legalresidency for many of the 11 million people who live in the shadows.

The way I see it, this is a lose-lose speech for the President.  He has a unique opportunity to offend both sides of the political spectrum.  The immigration groups above are ready to respond together against the President if he shifts to the right.  But then on the conservative side, there are many groups that will not forgive the President if he favors something along the lines of the McCain-Kennedy bill, which would give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.  The President will offend somebody!

Red State, the conservative equivalent of this web site, voiced skepticism about Bush's speech and warned the conservative base not to expect much good out of it:

You see, that's the sole purpose of this speech.  It's not aboutgetting tough on border enforcement, the end goal of this, and anyother action Bush takes towards the border, is, and always has been,amnesty and open borders. 

If he was serious about securing the border, and he's willing to go sofar as to deploy National Guard troops, then why not start buildingsome serious fencing?

This sense of nervousness within the GOP base will spell trouble this November.  Tonight could be a breaking point for Mr. Bush that helps push his party over the edge of a cliff.  A column in Monday's San Francisco Chronicle outlines the challenge for Republicans.