SENATE FALTERS ON IMMIGRATION REFORM
The Senate's decision to slam the door shut on immigration reform Thursday represents an enormous failure that borders on dereliction of duty. Congress has walked away from the problem and left the broken immigration system for someone else to fix. All because the people's elected representatives could not muster the courage or political will to deal with a controversial topic.
The only real issue before the Senate was whether the reform legislation improves the chaotic status quo, which is rightly deemed unacceptable by both advocates and opponents of immigration reform. But instead of voting on the merits of the package, the Senate punted. By a margin of 53-46, members voted against limiting debate. This stalling tactic opens the door to an endless stream of amendments and could have postponed a final vote on the merits until Doomsday. This was not the Senate's finest moment.
As Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lamented afterward, the failure to act carries a high price. Instead of establishing pathways to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants who live in the shadows, there will be more immigration raids that terrorize businesses and immigrant communities. State and local governments will continue adding to the volume of conflicting ordinances that characterize our patchwork system of immigration laws.
For President Bush, who sought to make immigration reform his crowning domestic achievement, this represents a severe setback. Although he had lobbied hard for the bill and even threw an extra $4 billion into the enforcement pot to revive debate earlier this month, 37 senators from his own party - including the two from his home state of Texas - voted against curtailing debate.
For opponents of the immigration bill, this is a hollow victory. They cannot claim to have solved the immigration problem because they never offered solutions other than building fences and demanding large-scale immigration round-ups. The former won't work - not for long, anyway. Ultimately, people find ways over, around or under fences. Mass deportations aren't a solution, either. "It sounds good," President Bush said on a visit to the border region in Arizona last April. "It won't happen."
Ultimately, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, immigration reform will be back on the legislative agenda. It's just a matter of when. Like the epic struggle against segregation that ended with the passage of civil-rights legislation, it may take a few years and a few stumbles to get to the finish line, but this issue is too important to remain unresolved. Immigration, too, is a controversial topic, and it, too, is a matter of simple justice.
---
The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Friday, June 29:
THE SPEECH BUSH DIDN'T GIVE
U.S. senators who tried for two years to solve this nation's immigration dilemma met a bracing truth Thursday: Too many Americans distrust their comprehensive plan to regulate the flow of foreigners into this country and its economy.
Immigration reform now lies in ruin. That doesn't mean supporters of a broad immigration bill will or ought to surrender. It should, though, force them to admit they didn't do the hard work that would convince Americans to back their efforts to reduce illegal immigration and control the legal immigration our economy needs.
Specifically, they never admitted how spectacularly they and their like-minded predecessors failed to keep their word after Congress rewrote immigration law in 1986. They didn't do the difficult work that would have kept a respected, pro-business lawmaker such as Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, from recently telling a New York Times reporter how much he regrets his vote for that bill 21 years ago: "I thought then that taking care of 3 million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all. I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it." The proponents also had no retort when Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he had supported the 1986 law "based on the very same promises we hear today. . . . I will not vote to make the same mistake twice."
Thursday's devastating defeat didn't have to be. Suppose that after the 2004 election, President George W. Bush had leveled with his fellow Americans:
"Back in 1986, the people who write this nation's laws made promises they didn't even attempt to keep. They promised you they would control our borders, stop our employers from hiring illegal immigrants and give legal status to 3 million people who were here in violation of the law.
"But in succeeding years, Washington broke its pledges - all except the one about legalizing those 3 million people. Members of Congress who'd voted for the bill stopped talking about enforcement, let alone demanding it. They had placated big business and immigrant communities full of potential voters, and they'd gotten what they wanted from President Reagan-his signature and his morning-in-America endorsement: 'Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders.'
"Those pieties of 1986 have rung hollow ever since, and until we get square with you, the American people, (U.S. Sens.) Ted Kennedy and John McCain and I and everybody else in Washington who wants to fix immigration will get just as much of your trust on this as we deserve.
"Now, though, this cause has what it needs, a president committed to fixing this mess before he leaves office. You may not like me, but you know how I get when I'm resolute. I won't flinch.
"What matters more is that, on this issue more than most, you voters terrify Congress - Republicans and Democrats, Senate and House. Unless you give your permission, reform won't happen.
"So here's what we in Washington have to do. We have to enforce the 1986 law we've got. It may take us a couple of years to gear up, and you may not like what you get. Expect higher prices for the goods and services you purchase when we start forcing employers to abide by that law.
"But we will show you that government can make a good-faith effort to do what it's supposed to do, which is enforce the law. We're not just going to spend more money on border control. We're going to cut the flow of illegal immigrants.
"This time, though, don't judge us by our gauzy promises and our optimistic predictions and our billions spent for border agents and technology. Judge us by whether we succeed.
"Because when we show you that we know how to enforce a law, we'll earn your support for a new one. I could say a lot today about what we'll gain from the new citizens and legal guest workers and other benefits a reform bill will give us, but until I earn your trust, I don't have the right to say any of that."
That would have been a fine speech for Bush to give in 2004. Just as it would be a fine speech for him, and for Democrats and Republicans who want immigration reform, to give in 2007.
After Thursday's vote, those who want a comprehensive immigration bill have to find a radically new way forward.
Do they want to be seen now and always as ruthlessly tactical, as their Senate supporters were this week in trying to silence debate on a bill that - whether you favor or oppose it - unarguably would change the fabric of America?
Or will they recognize that Washington has to climb out of a hole it dug 21 years ago? A hole that got perilously deeper each year the demands of the '86 law didn't even get lip service from our members of Congress and our presidents?
---
The following editorial appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday, June 29:
IMMIGRATION BILL FAILS: A MERCIFUL ENDING
Sometimes the only thing you can do for a badly wounded animal is put it down. Any disappointment in the Senate's inability to pass immigration reform must be tempered by an acknowledgment that the bill had become so mangled that it needed to be put out of its misery.
No one was totally happy with the bill. Often that is a sign of fruitful negotiation. But this proposal so compromised principles on both sides of the argument that in the end few had the stomach to keep fighting.
Both Democrats and Republicans were opposing the bill when a procedural vote ended the fiasco Thursday. The vote sent a clear message to President Bush, who personally lobbied for the bill, that his low poll ratings have made him a paper tiger in his own party.
Conservatives kept harping about the need to make America's border with Mexico more secure. The dead bill would have done that. It included not only increasing the Border Patrol, but also adding fencing and electronic surveillance at key spots.
The stickier point that still has most Americans scratching their heads is what to do with the 12 million or more people who have entered this nation illegally.
The defeated bill included a path to citizenship, but it was decried by critics as granting "amnesty." That was hardly the case, unless you deem anything short of deportation as amnesty.
The bill called for fines, fees and other steps before eligible persons could apply first for legal residency and then for citizenship. It's not amnesty when you have to pay a fine for what you did.
But the path had problems. For example, it treated all illegal residents the same; an earlier version made clearer, proper distinctions between new arrivals and those who had lived and worked in this country for years.
What happens next is a guess. Immigration will likely be a hot topic in the 2008 elections. Some steps are proceeding to make borders more secure. Immigration officials are making more raids to catch undocumented workers. But not enough is being done to sanction the companies that hire and often exploit them.
America must find the will to balance its immigration concerns and its Statue of Liberty ideals.
---
The following editorial appeared in the Dallas Morning News on Friday, June 29:
BUSH LOST ON IMMIGRATION BUT WAS ON RIGHT SIDE
The senators who voted Thursday to cut off debate on the immigration bill did the nation no good deed. We're particularly disappointed that Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn sided with the bunch who effectively killed it.
The two knew, as did everyone else, that the vote to limit debate was a way to get the legislation yanked off the floor. Now Americans have little more than a lick and a promise that the Senate will get back to work on the issue this year or next.
President Bush, on the other hand, deserves enormous credit for pushing immigration to the top of Washington's domestic agenda. His stand on behalf of a better immigration system is like what he did as governor when he pressed legislators to overhaul Texas' school funding system. Ironically, he lost that battle too, again because some Senate Republicans went south on him. But he was right when he warned Austin about a coming crisis, just as he has been correct to encourage Washington to find a saner way of dealing with immigration.
We hope he and immigration reformers like Sen. Ted Kennedy keep the battle going. Mr. Kennedy also worked valiantly to find a compromise that would satisfy enough senators to win passage. Mr. Kennedy, the president and several others tried to build a coalition from the center out, usually the only way to get a victory in Washington.
They didn't succeed this time, but it's better to take on a good fight and fail than not to take it on for fear of losing.
It's also best for the nation to solve this problem sooner rather than later. If Congress waits two or three more years, we'll have another million illegal immigrants. We'll have more employers looking the other way when it comes to hiring illegal workers. And we'll lack enough agents to protect our borders. This is one problem that will only get worse with time.
---
The following editorial appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on Friday, June 29:
THE DEFEAT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM DEALS A BLOW TO ALL AMERICANS
The Senate came to a contentious dead end on the issue of immigration reform Thursday. It's a failure that will be felt way beyond the borders of Washington.
Americans lost big Thursday. They can thank a group of Republicans and a handful of Democrats who cried amnesty without offering reasonable alternatives. These naysayers got their wish by torpedoing a vote that would have ended the debate and moved the bill toward passage.
Guess what? The bill included a $4.4 billion provision for increased border security. It's a cruel irony that these lawmakers voted to make our borders less secure.
The winners? How about unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants? This bill's failure lets them off the hook. There would have been much stronger rules requiring employee verification. Tamper-proof cards would have helped weed out undocumented workers and opened up the job market for U.S. citizens who claim they are deprived of jobs that go to cheap, illegal labor.
Rejecting the bill also closed doors for American companies who need high-tech workers who would come here under a temporary work visa. Now high-tech companies that can't find enough qualified workers here will send the work overseas, hurting the American economy.
The bill's failure also makes it more difficult for law enforcement, since an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants will remain unchecked. Although the majority of them are law-abiding folks, there is a criminal element that will continue to live here with little fear of being discovered by a thorough immigration system.
This bill wasn't perfect, but it was a compromise that offered something to both sides of the immigration debate. Now, nobody gets a thing, and the saddest part is that immigration reform will remain in legal limbo for two more years because of the 2008 election season coming up.
All that's left are the hard feelings from a bitter debate that too often vilified people with principled objections.
Immigration now becomes the focus of advocacy groups intent to make senators who opposed this bill accountable at the polls. As well they should be. Expect a backlash from the expanding universe of Hispanic voters. But all Americans had an interest in seeing this issue resolved.
The scorecard reads 37 Republicans and 15 Democrats and one Independent voting against the bill. To their credit, Florida Sens. Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson voted for the bill.
They understood the bipartisan strength it would take to hold the bill together. Now, as Martinez noted, the burden shifts to others to see what solutions they will offer.
They had a workable answer in their hands, and dropped it.
All Americans lose.
