Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 1:14 PM

The Silly Immigration Spat

Andrew Romano


A new McCain ad, "God's Children," targeting Latino voters

Of all the fights Barack Obama and John McCain could pick with each other--Iraq, health care, taxes--immigration is perhaps the silliest. Why? Because the Democrat and the Republican don't actually, you know, disagree.

Advertisement

Not that this minor hitch has stopped them, of course, from throwing punches at a series of Latino-centric events over the past three weeks. Appearing yesterday at the annual National Council of La Raza conference in San Diego, Calif., for example--NCLR is a non-profit focused on helping Hispanic Americans--Obama accused McCain of "walk[ing] away from... comprehensive reform when it bec[ame] politically unpopular." And in his speech today to the same audience, McCain plans to slam Obama for "vot[ing] for and even sponsor[ing] amendments that were intended to kill the legislation." That's on top of Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a top McCain surrogate, declaring on a recent conference call with reporters that Obama "was AWOL" and "working against us" during last year's heated immigration battles in the Senate.

Is there any truth to these attacks? Sure. In the spring of 2007, Obama voted for five amendments--later dubbed "poison pills" by critics--that largely tweaked the bill's guest-worker provisions. Supported by labor unions and liberal interest groups and designed to make the bill more "expansive, balanced, and fair," the amendments nonetheless upset the "carefully crafted, but always fragile, compromise package that Democrats and Republicans [had] cobbled together." (Although, as one commenter notes, conservative Republicans had much more to do with torpedoing the bill than Obama.) Similarly, McCain backed away from the failed legislation after conservative criticism almost collapsed his Republican primary campaign, emphasizing a "secure the borders first" approach meant to pacify the right and even admitting at a Jan. 30 GOP debate that he "would not" vote for the bill again if given the opportunity. So when it comes to standing firm on immigration reform in the face of political pressure, neither candidate deserves a perfect score.

But that doesn't change the fact that both Obama and McCain crossed party lines to pursue legislation that would include tighter borders, a crackdown on employers who break the law, a new guest worker program, 700 miles of fence along our southern border and a pathway to citizenship (with penalties) for illegal immigrants currently in the country--or the fact that both candidates plan to enact similar initiatives once in the White House.

It's well-known that McCain co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform with archliberal Ted Kennedy, risking his reputation among anti-amnesty Republicans--and, consequently, his nascent presidential campaign--in the process. Now, despite his "secure the borders first" rhetoric, the Arizonan still says comprehensive reform is a "top priority... today and tomorrow." 

While the stakes weren't quite as high for Obama, he did partner with Martinez in 2005 to lay out the "first principles" of reform, then spent the next year negotiating with an elite group of senior senators to hammer out the final compromise. In fact, Obama's contribution was substantial enough to elicit praise last May from McCain himself, who lauded the Land of Lincolner for "commitment to this issue, and [for] working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process." And a month later----long after Obama had voted for the amendments in question--Martinez sent the senator a note thanking him for his "support." "While it failed, your backing of this important legislation meant a lot to me personally," Martinez wrote. "I know that standing firm in the face of extreme pressure has not been easy." Not exactly the kind of thing you'd say to someone who was "working against" you. Or "AWOL."

Of course, it's easy to see why McCain in particular is making a mountain out of this molehill: Latinos will be one of November's decisive voting blocs. As I've written before, experts predict that 9.2 million Latinos to cast ballots this fall--a 21 percent increase over 2004. (In the Democratic primaries, Hispanic turnout was up 42 percent.) What's more, many of these votes tend to be concentrated in a quartet key swing states--Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. In 2004, George W. Bush received record Latino support (for a Republican) of between 40 and 45 percent, which propelled him to victory in each of those crucial contests--and the election overall. The problem for McCain is that McCain is trailing Bush by 15-20 points among Latinos, and Obama's beating John Kerry's final numbers by 10. That's one reason the latest polls show him leading in Colorado and New Mexico and closing in Florida and Nevada. The math is pretty simple: if McCain loses two of those four states, he'll probably lose the White House. Which is why he's telling Latino audiences that Obama can't be trusted on immigration----despite his previous praise. And it's why Obama is responding in kind.

Ultimately, this silly spat doesn't tell us anything new about the candidates' (identical) stands on immigration. What it does prove, however, is that both senators are willing to play politics with the issue when necessary. If that comes as a surprise, you may want to crawl back into your hole--and set an alarm for November 5.
 

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Dan 1 (July 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM)

Pcrat100,

Let's let the facts get in the way of your opinion - here are the roll calls for CIR -  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00228

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00235

Which party was it that primarily voted against the bill and against cloture? Hmmm...Looking at the last vote there were 53 nays and 37 of them were repugs.

The fact is, once the far right got a hold of the issue, there would be no legalization program and the so-called moderate republicans, which is a contradiction in terms, cow-towed too their base.

But once again, let's not let a little old thing like the facts get in the way.


Posted By: pacrat100 (July 15, 2008 at 3:05 AM)

Didn't we go through this in the 80's?  We gave amnesty to illegals, made it easier to get in, and said that would be enough/  Now fast forward to the new century.  After the amnesty, illegal immigration grew and now they want it again?  They can forget it...  Maybe we should follow the procedures of the 'enlightened' Europeans that constantly complain about us, or even better mirror the policies of the countries that most of the migrants come from.  

1) It would make sense to only give dual citizenship to those that are here legally (born to citizen parents, visa, green card, or in the process of getting the latter two), that would eliminate  the problem of legal kids with illegal parents.  

2) Implement the employment checks, make sure that the social securrity numbers match the person wanting the job.  (that would eliminate the passive illegal hiring and also protect  the legal holder of the number.  It won't be perfect at first, but how many goverment programs are perfect right out of the box?)  

3) Place those that use numbers in jail for a amount of time and automatically deport them, (no going through a judge) then place a ban on them getting any future consideration for citizenship.  Maybe it could be expanded to include that being caught would mean a lifelong ban.  It may be a deterence if they know that they could not be citizens if they are caught at all.

4) And darn it....  Improve the visa system....  If we need them to help out in this country, then we got to fix the visa program.  We got to make it easy for them, but safe for us.  Get the lawyers out of the way and let the people who have a better knowledge of what needs to be done do it.

5) Qoute from Dan 1 'It was the conservative base that killed this bill that killed this bill long before any amendments ...'  Bull,  I'll probably be voting for Obama, that is if he doesn't step on his crank with golf shoes, but both sides killed the bill  And both sides typically blamed the other.  The bill wouldn't work becouse they put a bill together becouse of public pressure, then slapped amendments on it that people wouldn't aprove of, and left it to die on the House floor.  We've got to balance between enforcement and fairness.  But if we don't get it right now, we'll be going through this again in a few more years.  I have questions on why Obama wanted to place admendments on the bill, but I don't blame McCain when he and Kennedy walked away from it.

6)  Tell the Mexican goverment to shove it on their complaints about our policies.  Money sent from the U.S. makes up a very large portion of the Mexican economy.  And their policies towards other Central and South American immigrants are by far worse then ours.    I've read in other stories that if we sent back all Mexican illegals back, that their economy would collapse...   But so would ours!  Maybe not as much, but it'd still be a major blow.  And we don't want to commit national suicide by cutting our own throats, and we don't want to have a Zimbabwe in place of a democratic goverment in Mexico.  They had a democracy in name only for many years, but they are well on the way to bootstrapping themselfve to a higher level.  We don't want them to go go back to a one party rule, where the money only went to a small goup of people.

I'll get off my soapbox,  I just had to comment seeing all the bull that reporters and pols keep putting out...   And don't get me started about the so-called activists and talking heads!  If you want to flame me  you can contact me at pacrat100@hotmail.com.  I just love a good debate.


Posted By: Libertad (July 14, 2008 at 7:56 PM)

paulte

Are you a KKK? Yes of course, you look miserable