August 28, 2006
Internecine -- The Home Game
I had a spirited discussion with my brother-in-law yesterday. He and I agree on much, but not on immigration. I got a little cranky and thought I should share it with all of you.
We have argued the merits and the economics around here but the politics are now becoming clear. I'd like to ask my more restrictionist blog brothers if they have buyer’s remorse on their intransigence, which is a rhetorical device for me to suggest that they should.
Congress will come back from an August recess for a short session before heading home to campaign for the midterms. My nine months of optimism are coming to a close. The idea of a conference committee hammering out a bill of this size and divergence in a month -- two months before an election -- is preposterous. Ain't gonna happen. That, my brother-in-law and I can agree on.
A few months ago, Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard asked the House GOP members if they were going to follow [Rep.] Tom Tancredo over a cliff by insisting on an enforcement-only solution, against the wishes of business, free-traders,, minority groups, and high-ranking party politicians. The answer, many weeks later is a resounding "well, gee, I guess so...the water down at the bottom of those rocks looks pretty warm."
By refusing to compromise, the Tancredo wing of the party has prevented an immigration bill and helped make the party look feckless right before a six-year midterm which is historically difficult for the President's party. So my questions to the Tancredoites around here are:
- By preventing any bill, you have kept the status quo on immigration for at least another year, more likely many depending on the vicissitudes of elections and public opinion. Do you believe the status quo is better than a compromise security + guest worker + citizenship path that might have some elements you don't like? Are your interests better served with no bill?
- Failure and intransigence will clearly hurt the GOP in the November elections and contribute to the severe risk of losing at least the House. Do you believe you'll get a better bill out of a Democratic -- or at least less Republican -- House?
- Chances are slim, but perhaps not yet none. Seeing the real danger, would any of you get behind the Pence compromise (which includes much we both hate) just to get something done to give the GOP an achievement to run on and not wait for the Democratic 110th to write?
Rep Tancredo is one of 535 legislators. Let him influence a compromise but don't let him derail the train.
Immigration Posted by jk at August 28, 2006 10:47 AM
Yes, JK, you are right, Tom Tancredo is only one of 535 legislators, but the sway he holds is driven, for lack of a better word, by the market. The public, who give and take away the jobs our recumbent class wishes to have, wants border security. They may not agree on much else, but they, along with the framers of the constitution, are solidly behind "protect the borders." If enough people don't feel this way, then Tom Tancredo will have to reaquaint himself with the private sector and your ideas will carry the day. If, on the other hand, people believe that in a post 9/11 world porous borders are a bad thing, the Tom Tancredo wing will flourish and we will get border security. People buy what they want.
Posted by: sugarchuck at August 28, 2006 12:56 PMNo doubt Speaker Pelosi will get right on that: send Chairman Rangel out to fix it up.
Pardon the flippancy, but there is a loud, demagogic wing that wants security ONLY (I want security too, remember I just don't want to starve the engine of economic growth), there is an electoral plurality that would like security and prosperity.
Posted by: jk at August 28, 2006 2:03 PMFirst I will flippantly but honestly answer your questions:
Yes, the status quo is better than most of what I heard.
Yes, my interests are better served with no bill, since there is no illusion that the problem is, in any way, solved.
I disagree with your premise on the third question but even so, if a Democrat majority is in place for the 110th I see no reason why Republicans won't fillibuster just like the Dems have.
As for the "Pence compromise" I have to say it is so unlikely that I've not given it much thought.
Sorry JK, but I just don't see immigration as the GOP Waterloo that you do. Conventional wisdom is that the Dems are expected to sweep the '06 races. But I see more and more evidence that those same Dems are afraid they won't live up to the conventional wisdom. Yep, that's me... still whistlin'.
Posted by: johngalt at August 29, 2006 3:37 PMThanks for the candor. But I will not join you in choosing the status quo. The border is lawless and porous, we have no idea who or how many are coming across and for what purpose; honest people who just want to work must pay coyotes and risk their lives in crossing; it seems foolish to enumerate all the problems. Yet you and my friend Rep Tancredo will not compromise anything away to get additional security. I just don't see who is served.
We differ on election predictions and I hope you are right. My point, however, is that under no serious scenario will you have a 100th that is more devoted to border security than the 109th, so your intransigence will cost you two years of status quo lawless immigration or result in a worse bill.
Posted by: jk at August 29, 2006 4:32 PMUmmm, that's the ROYAL you, right? If it was up to me you can bet there would have been a bill!
As for 2 more years of "lawless" immigration, by my estimation that's been going on in earnest for closer to 80 years.
Reagan compromised in '86 and it took 20 years for the issue to regain traction. I'd rather keep it on the front burner.
Posted by: johngalt at August 29, 2006 4:52 PMI always consider you noble, yet never monarchic, jg.
My point was that the failure to compromise did not do any of the enforcement-only people any good. They could have achieved great gains in border security.
They all are presumably grownups who know legislation is about compromise and deal-making. That’s Madisonian Democracy. I want to teach Iraqi Imams and Mullahs that it's worth it to give up something to get something sometimes -- and I cannot even convince a Congressman of my party from my home state.
Posted by: jk at August 30, 2006 10:42 AMMajor Garrett reported on 'Special Report' last night that both houses are expected to put $270 million for additional border fencing into security bills before the end of the session. And we didn't even have to agree to give 12 million more dubious votes to the DNC!
Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2006 10:59 AMAs a dues paying mmeber of the VRWC I saw it too. Two hundred seventy whole million, huh? Then the problem is fixed! Now all I need is a new gardener.
Posted by: jk at August 31, 2006 12:58 PMThat's right, because your old gardener Ernesto can now earn more per hour building fence by the mile near Tijuana! Skip and Buffy finally have the opportunity that's been denied them lo these many years by unfair competition from "those who will do the jobs Amer'cans won't."
If we're going to throw money at a problem then hiring illegals to do federal work is the most efficacious. I recently heard Senator Allard talking about the cost estimate for the Senate plan: $210Bn, if I remember correctly.
Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2006 6:50 PM | What do you think? [9]