I remember having a conversation with a Republican back when we tried to pass immigration reform in 2006. The argument centered around border security... of course. He thought that immigration reform must follow increased border security, which on the face of it seems like a reasonable request. Where the problem lies is in what kind of answer you give to the question: "How do you determine that the border is secure?" It was this sort of problem that was to unravel the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform during Bush's presidency.
As the Senate takes up the issue of Immigration again, we see some of this debate returning. We continue to see this debate because we don't share any common motivation for reform. The gang of eight senators, which includes Democrats and Republicans, are attempting to pass a bill with a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The opposition they have received from Republicans opposing that pathway has tried to focus attention towards the debate over the border. You're going to hear a lot of noise about how much "I want to support immigration reform... but you know... that pesky border" or "This administration can't be trusted to secure the border". It seems so sincere until you dig into how someone like Rand Paul wants to ensure that the border is secure. He wants to pass an amendment to have congress vote, at some point in the future, on whether the border is secure. He wants to put our congress in charge of that determination. He wants this congress... the congress that couldn't avoid sequestration to do that. This is how to kill the whole idea of reform, but more than that it is how to simply kill the bill. Anybody who cares about reform won't accept putting that determination in the hands of a dysfunctional congress. Especially when the 80th congress, the "doing-nothing" congress, looks like a powerful agent of change next to the current one. The desire to kill this through subterfuge is what drives this sort of amendment suggested by Rand Paul. Otherwise there would be an effort to translate concern over that determination into the hands of an independent body outside of the administration... and congress. But...why the Subterfuge...why the "Sneaky Pete"? What's the motivation here to kill it without leaving fingerprints?
There are lots of pretty arguments on both sides. Those supporting a pathway argue that it is the only way we can bring people out of the shadows, and that our border will never be secure so long as we have over 11 million people who are undocumented. They argue that those who don't offer a pathway are in effect supporting that status quo. Those in the opposition argue that a pathway would undermine the rule of law, and act as a magnet for illegal immigration. I personally think we can make legal immigration more attractive than illegal immigration, while opening up a pathway to citizenship to bring people out of the shadows. That's my pretty argument. Some think that we could just have guest workers. Which would seem like a two tier system of citizenship. One group comprised of real citizens, and another that can work here without any hope of ever being allowed citizenship. A second class that we might welcome to do the kind of manual labor that we can't find anyone else to do. A second class that better not hope to move into skilled work, that is less welcome. This kind of immigration reform sounds hollow to me... to my ears...but it isn't my ears that matter. None of these pretty arguments make any difference. The reason for the sneaky amendment, and the reason that you hear Republicans who oppose immigration reform talking about the border and the rule of law instead of self deportation is because they lost the fastest growing demographic in the electorate by a margin that ought to make any Republican operative shudder. Why do you think Sean Hannity "evolved"?
We are lucky to have Republicans like Marco Rubio, in the gang of eight, diligently working on this issue. I believe Marco Rubio is an honest broker on this issue, and I believe that the success or failure of this recent attempt turns on what he can accomplish here. That being said... Immigration Reform doesn't need Marco Rubio. Immigration reform is coming with or without him. During that discussion in 2006, I said that our differences on this issue are irrelevant in the face of political reality. The last election has only illustrated that point with an electoral defeat that largely was dependent on the thumping Republicans received from Hispanics. Immigration reform isn't the only issue that Hispanics care about. Yet, you would be hard pressed to find someone in the Hispanic community who isn't aware of how the ever increasing number of deportations, even under the Obama administration, affects that community. It is hard to care about other issues as much, when you know people who have had their grandmother deported. George Bush could never have been president with out having made immigration reform part of his candidacy. The margin by which he won different states in 2000, as well as in 2004, would have made it impossible without the support he received from hispanics. The Republican party, bent on going the way of the Whig party, is who needs Marco Rubio. Every election, as demographics shift, they need someone like him more than they did in the last one. Having lost the popular vote five out of the last six presidential elections... they need him like oxygen.
No comments:
Post a Comment