Log-In Email:    Password:    
  Remember me
Register  |  Forgot Password?  |  Change Password  |  Update Email
Things Fall Apart
Why the center didn't hold on immigration.
by Fred Barnes
07/09/2007, Volume 012, Issue 40

Increase Font Size

 | 

Printer-Friendly

 | 

Email a Friend

 | 

Respond to this article



The what-ifs in the sudden death of immigration reform are intriguing. What if Senate majority leader Harry Reid hadn't pulled the immigration bill from the floor when it was close to passage in early June? What if Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona had come up earlier with their enforcement-toughening amendment that would have prompted, for the first time, a sweeping crackdown on those 3 to 4 million foreigners who have overstayed their visas? What if Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had twisted arms to get more Republican votes for the bill?

Fascinating what-ifs all, but mostly irrelevant. Immigration reform was defeated by a conservative revolt that spread to the wider public. Senate opponents, gloating over their success in killing the bill, were essentially correct in insisting the American people had rejected immigration reform. By the time the key vote came last week, the bill's core supporters--President Bush, Kyl, Graham, Democratic senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and the business community--had already lost the argument over immigration.

The issue touched off a national debate that gripped middle-class America, much as President Clinton's health care initiative did in 1993 and 1994. In both cases, the more people heard--not all of it true--the less they liked the legislation. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found that a majority of Republicans and independents opposed the immigration bill. Democrats were split evenly.

Worse for Democrats, the poll suggested the reelection of some Democratic members of Congress might be jeopardized if they backed immigration

reform. "Demagogic attacks are not ineffective," Greenberg found. "In terms of the battleground districts, immigration attacks are more likely to play a key role in Democratic rural and exurban districts where opposition towards immigration is stronger and Democrats hold a smaller advantage."

So Democrats in Washington, with the exception of Kennedy and senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Ken Salazar of Colorado, were not enthusiastic about the bill. Reid was lukewarm at best. And all five Democrats running for reelection in red states in 2008--Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia--voted to kill the bill.

The excuses some senators used to explain their "no" votes and mask their political motives were laughably lame. Harkin said he feared some workers could have been denied jobs "because of errors in a government database." Republican Pete Domenici of New Mexico told the New York Times that the supposed secrecy in which the bill was drafted created confusion and "caused it to flop." Actually the bipartisan drafting sessions were widely reported and attended by more than a dozen senators. Domenici is up for reelection next year.

Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas switched his vote during the roll call from yes to no. "The country's not ready," he told the Washington Times in justifying his reversal. "I thought we were, but just concluded the country's not ready." Brownback voted for a more liberal immigration bill last year. This year he's seeking the Republican presidential nomination.



CONTINUED
1 2  Next >
Print This Article



Search   Subscribe   Subscribers Only   FAQ   Advertise   Store   Newsletter
Contact   About Us   Site Map   Privacy Policy