Provocation of The Day: Immigration Reform Dead

A reader writes:

Is there anybody (*anybody*) out there that believes that a newly elected President Obama, faced with a financial crisis, a tough-to-sell huge spending bill (for infrastructure and so on), a tough-to-sell health care reform and cap-and-trade system, and presumable a myriad of international crises, would have any time, energy or will to spend political capital in passing an immigration bill in a Congress whose both Democratic majorities are largely based on surprise winners in red districts ?

Signed by an Obama supporter with a very personal stake in an immigration bill but a sad sense of political realities.

Do you agree?

Comments

I believe that Obama himself has stated that Immigration reform is something to accomplish in the 2nd half of his first term. Honestly, Hispanics and Latinos care about Health Care, Education and JOBS first and foremost. Ending the vilification of the undocumented worker is a first small victory enough, and in the mean time, getting Education, Health Care and Jobs will do more good than immigration for 99% of Latinos and Hispanics.

Posted by Steven R | October 24, 2008 2:30 PM

It's a plausible hypothesis. With all the other major issues facing this nation, immigration just doesn't seem to be the major priority it was a few years ago. (The issue didn't even come up in any of the three presidential debates.)

Posted by Darius | October 24, 2008 2:33 PM

I think that your reader may be in for a surprise. All those illegal immigrants could, if they had legal status, become union members. And considering the fields in which so many of them work, a lot would. How could any Democratic politician resist that . . . assuming the case was presented in that fashion.

Of course, there are a lot of other parts of our current mess (I refuse to dignify it by calling it a policy) on immigration which also need work. But once it is clear that something is going to pass, I think that the chances are the other bits will get addressed as well.

Posted by wj | October 24, 2008 2:34 PM

Do I agree? In a word, yes.

Posted by Chris O. | October 24, 2008 2:42 PM

Considering that the anti-immigration reform forces were shown up to be a complete paper tiger this election, I don't think your correspondent has much cause for concern.

Not a single election turned on immigration reform in any significant way. The whole issue just fizzled out completely. McCain was the most pro-immigration reform candidate in his party, as Barack Obama was in his. They both won their nominations, and then the most pro-immigration reform candidate of the two won the general election.

Anti-immigration folks are loud, but toothless.

Posted by Brian | October 24, 2008 2:49 PM

The tanking economy makes the immigration debate moot. Illegal immigrants will be the first to feel the pain of rising unemployment. The flow of workers across the border will slow down to nothing, and then reverse as many out of work migrants return to their families.

Posted by Chili | October 24, 2008 2:53 PM

It's no reflection on Obama whatsoever, but immigration is about Issue #12 on the radar right now.

Posted by TH | October 24, 2008 2:56 PM

Obama could make some changes in immigration law, without overhauling the entire thing. The elimination of the 10 year rule for adjustment, would allow those who entered legally, but become illegal subsequently to become legal again. By charging a fine of between $2,500 - $5,000 per person, this would be a good source of revenue to fund some other programs. There are millions that would gladly pay a large fine to become legal again.

Posted by michael ryan | October 24, 2008 2:56 PM

The pressure for immigration reform is already subsiding as the weakened economy leads many immies to self-deport. I'm sure an Oministration will suspend any and all enforcement efforts, unless the labor unions that prop up the Dem party add that to their list of things to do.

Besides, as it seems safe to assume that the Bam Camp has already raised more illegal contributions from overseas sources than ever in American elections -- all of which will be covered up afterwards -- there's a certain Faustian bargain to be maintained. Tightening immigration laws and increasing enforcement are not desirable goals for Bam's foreign constituents.

Until the first mushroom cloud rises over DC or Manhattan, I'm rather confident that Bam will return us to the willful blindness of the past. It also helps those parts of the business community that like the cheap labor thingy. Unless the unions scream blue murder, there's no reason for the Dems to rile the business community more than they already will by making entrepreneurialism more onerous than ever before in American history.

Besides, once we implement all the welfare state policies that all other nations have, no one will want to come to work in the US: Our permanent, long-term growth will be about as sclerotic as that of those other economies. They all became such flabby contenders by shackling themselves to the Nanny State solution, which is what the Dems now want to do with the USA.

Oh well. At least I live in a pro-American part of the country. :-)

Posted by MarkG | October 24, 2008 3:06 PM

No. This is something the Democrats have to do to keep the Hispanic community in the fold and doing it effectivly to compromise is not difficult; if done in the first 100 days then the political cost will not be huge. Similarly, Republicans will have to think long and hard on how to work this issue since they demographic shifts are plain and getting on the wrong side of Limbaugh is worth having a fighting chance at the Hispanic vote.

Another round of demonzing would kill any hope of gaining a bloc of voters and creating a second bloc, like the AA vote, that is generally solidly democratic.

I think immigration reform has greater political strength after an election where republicans lost the west and florida possibly becuase of the hispanic vote.

-Rhoda

Posted by Rhoda | October 24, 2008 3:07 PM

This is definitely not something that will come up early in an Obama administration. I can imagine something late in this term or early in his second term, but look at all the major items he has discussed the past few months. I imagine he will use all of his political capital enacting some form of universal healthcare/expanded Medicare, energy policy, and his education plan. The next tier of priorities appears to be infrastructure renewal.

This is in addition to the ongoing recession and financial crisis and the many international situations that will need to be addresses. Just those things will be a pretty full plate.

Posted by Courtney H | October 24, 2008 3:13 PM

The only time to do immigration reform properly is an off-year. Next year won't be that year: Lou Dobbs has his ratings to think about, even if he sounds like he's ranting about a country of his imagination these days.

I think there's potential for tweaking, but the root-and-branch reform to a system that is encrusted with years of crap seems unlikely, and there'll be no enthusiasm to fund USCIS anywhere near appropriately.

(The big immigration issue this year, if you hadn't noticed, was the number of people who applied for naturalization in the summer of 2007 before the big fee hike, and created a backlog that still isn't cleared. In fact, they're estimating that processing times won't revert to pre-hike levels until 2010.)

So, 2011? After mid-terms that aren't likely to be as good for the Dems? Kick the can down the road one more time...

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 24, 2008 3:14 PM

As Obama has said, a president needs to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Certainly detailing some staffers to work on a reform package is likely; the question is really how much time and effort it takes to build a political consensus. If the reform package doesn't excite much opposition on the face of it, then getting it passed should be no problem.

I think small incremental reforms are the likeliest to pass; a large, comprehensive attempt at reform would require a huge political effort. That energy will be going into economic issues at least for the next year or so, I'd think, plus major foreign policy concerns.

So, I'd expect to see some tinkering (more H-1B visas with more oversight? fewer ICE raids but more efforts to check on business compliance?) but not a major package any time soon.

-- Steve

Posted by Steve | October 24, 2008 3:16 PM

1. Someone, a month or two ago, noted that early Comprehensive Immigration Reform had much better chance with a McCain victory -- otherwise anathema to most CIR supporters -- because it's the one thing he could probably get accomplished with a Democratic Congress.

2. Those of us who support CIR are at least hopeful that an Obama victory would mean an end to the thuggery practiced by ICE under the Bushies (see Postville, Iowa) and implementation of other reforms that can be accomplished administratively.

Posted by linklaw | October 24, 2008 3:17 PM

I agree with Rhoda:

"getting on the wrong side of Limbaugh is worth having a fighting chance at the Hispanic vote.

I think immigration reform has greater political strength after an election where republicans lost the west and florida possibly becuase of the hispanic vote."

We have to turn around the Bush administration's legacy as quickly as possible so that Dems don't become just the second-worst party on immigration.

The solution of having those here pay a fee, learn English, and get in line to become citizens resounds with a majority of Americans- we just need to do a better job presenting the package and countering (or ignoring) the right-wing-noise machine on this (aka, Dems need to grow a pair). All that anti-immigrant hollering doesn't translate into voting power.

The Latino vote on the other hand... maybe worth holding onto and solidifying.

Posted by Jackie | October 24, 2008 3:34 PM

If we're looking at 9% unemployment, there will be no reform. Doesn't matter who wins. No way in hell something that couldn't pass when times were flush is going to be a go when times are bad.

Posted by Graeme | October 24, 2008 3:35 PM

Immigration reform was dead for a decade or more the day that folks in favor for it voted for a border fence (and other security measures) without demanding any permanent reform in return. The only way an immigration reform bill would be palatable in many districts is if it's sold as a compromise bill with strong security measures added on.

I think it's a no-brainer for a second-term project for Obama; especially since Biden would likely be too old to run and get tagged with anti-Mexican demagoguery. I also think that there's a lot that can be done with executive authority to reprioritize what we do with our immigrant population, immigration law, and border security.

For example, the Federal raid on a public day-laborer gathering place a block from my house in Baltimore without warning city or state officials ahead of time... probably won't happen in an Obama administration. You'll see a lot more punishment of large companies and particularly franchises that hire illegally, but things are already trending in that directly anyway.

Posted by Zach | October 24, 2008 3:41 PM

I agree with linklaw. Our current Immigration Law is a hodgepodge of amended, modified, revised and confusing requirements, without a sound policy foundation and badly in need of comprehensive reform. However, a great deal can be done administratively to address the concerns of legal immigrants and Latino citizens who are being harassed by ICE on a daily basis. In addition, withdrawing some of the millions Blackwater and Halliburton's subsidiaries are getting for their "security" work and that Boeing is getting to install nonworking cameras and equipment for a "virtual fence" would go a long way toward financing some of the badly needed infrastructure programs that have been proposed.

Posted by carolita | October 24, 2008 4:00 PM

Off the top of my head I actually see this as an issue in which he might try some incremental, consensus-based measures. Part of why I find Obama intriguing is that in my idealism I actually believe his desire to find common-ground solutions to thorny wedge issues. This might be a good one to shoot for, especially because while it can be polarizing, it's far less so than abortion, say, or gay marriage--and arguably of more significance to the economy than those two. Then again, as others have noted, its diminishing importance, and the evident powerlessness of the anti-immigration forces, make any analysis a bit more complicated. Another dimension might be this: A lot of the support for more liberal immigration policies is rooted in the Catholic church, and finding a way to get something done on this issue might help reach out to that constituency, which is hearing from some of their hierarchy that a vote for Obama is sinful because he's not anti-choice on abortion.

Posted by DairyStateDad | October 24, 2008 4:04 PM

Pelosi and other Dems take money from the Prison Industrial Complex. It will be hard to pry them apart. But I hope Obama is smarter than the louder voices out there on the Right. Ignoring the plight of millions of Americans, or just human beings IN America (and all their citizen family/friends/allies) will prove to be a very bad mistake for Dems should they follow that path.

Posted by nezua | October 24, 2008 4:28 PM

"Off the top of my head I actually see this as an issue in which he might try some incremental, consensus-based measures. "

I'm not sure how you reach consensus while there's a loud 'security first, reform whenever' voice. If that gets marginalized, there's room for consensus between 'security with reform' and 'reform with security' voices, because they're basically coming to the same conclusion from different directions. There's a good discussion from both sides here:

http://www.radioopensource.org/collapse-of-the-senate-immigration-bill/

As I hinted upthread, and carolita reiterates, the problem is that you get amendments and tinkering and election-minded tweaks that turn the implementation into a mess: ask two BCIS agents to interpret a rule and you'll get three responses. So while you can patch things -- for instance, reforming the H1-B's current twice-yearly visa-scalping and turning it a class that allows tech firms to recruit quality, not quantity.

I'm generally wary of bipartisan, non-congressional committees, but immigration is one of those issues where electoral politics has a truly distorting effect, so it might be a way to take it out of those machinations.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 24, 2008 4:31 PM

My guess is that they'll bring back 245(i) at least. It wasn't all that controversial and it's already on the books. It just expired on April 30, 2001. But it's unlikely that a huge change will come.

Posted by Jay | October 24, 2008 7:11 PM

On Oct. 17, 2008 Pelosi admitted no path to citizenship is realistic. I don't know if it's brave or plain dumb to say such a thing 3 weeks before an election where the Hispanic vote might swing 2-3 states.

Buried deep in an Associated Press story recently about the prospects of another economic stimulus package is this intriguing admission by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Illegal immigrants may never earn a path to U.S. citizenship.

Pelosi also said Congress would have to tackle the politically sticky job of overhauling immigration laws in the new Congress, after a bipartisan measure collapsed last year.

The estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally "are part of the U.S. economy. We cannot send them all home, and we cannot send them all to jail, so we have to address it," Pelosi said.

Any solution would have to be bipartisan, she said, so it may require sacrificing some of Democrats' past priorities, such as giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

"Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally," Pelosi said. "I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn't."

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/10/pelosi_no_path_1.html

Posted by kyra | October 24, 2008 8:05 PM

A couple of points and a couple of theories. Tell me if I am way off base. First, the fact that immigration is an issue far down the totem poll of importance could actually benefit any attempt to pass it. One of the reasons why immigration reform failed as it did was because opponents of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) were incredibly organized and motivated. Proponents of it were slack and unorganized (I work in the pro side of things so trust me when I tell you how unorganized we were!). The organization of those opposed to CIR was exacerbated by the high level of media coverage on the immigration issue during this period. By moving it off the table for a while, hopefully at least a year or so, there could result a cooling off period that would benefit proponents of CIR.

Second, the economic circumstances that we unfortunately face in this country could also benefit the passage of CIR. It is likely if not all but guaranteed that the number of undocumented immigrants coming into the country will diminish significantly with a downturn in the economy. Honestly, most of them come here for jobs. This reduction will remove much of the fuel that fires up the anti-CIR crowd--there may not be the motivation to come out in force as they did last time around. As a bit of an aside, I admit, it is crucial to understand that the driving force pushing those who support CIR is not that they want illegal immigration to continue but that we recognize that those who are here illegally have formed communities, have established families, and have made America their home. To drive them out by force is to act in a way that is incredibly destructive of these very families and communities... social structures that we hold dear. Most of us who support CIR thus conclude that while it is important to establish reliable enforcement measures going into the future, it is also important that for those who have already established themselves here... we need to allow them to stay if they meet certain benchmarks. Most of them will because most want to remain for their own and their family's own well being.

Finally (I apologize... I am getting wordy, I know!), as things look now the dems might very well get 60 seats in the Senate. This would override any filibuster attempt there. One of the things that we have to remember is that CIR didn't pass because Bush failed to get enough republicans to support it. The 'anti' immigrant crowd is largely within the base of the republican party. by sidelining that constituency it will be much easier 1. to get a bill past because of democratic support alone and 2. (this is more a guess) give enough cover among republican house members to vote in favor of such a bill.

Posted by TJ | October 24, 2008 8:24 PM