Today brought some promising news for those who would like to have an immigration bill and not just a campaign issue this year. House Speaker Hastert (Bushite seven of hearts?) and Senate Majority Leader Frist (the 10 of Diamonds, no matter how many symbolic stands contrary to the President's announced positions he may pretend) have jointly announced that they will look to take out the clause from the House bill that makes illegal immigration a felony. Furthermore, House bill author Sensenbrenner (9-Clubs) has indicated he would go along.
Give them credit for working through their spring recess, and for a quality jiu-jitsu move. If there's one thing that all spokesmen from both parties were consistently saying, it was that there was a need for some tough sanctions to back up the new laws. Why, then, the uncharacteristic leniency?
Downgrading the charges makes good sense, both politically and legislatively. The hardhearted approach was not working on this issue. "Immigration reform" threatened to become an issue that could nationalize the midterm elections in a way that the Iraq snafu couldn't. Even better, and more relevant, than running against Bushite foreign policy (which Congress can't even oversee properly, let alone have any control over) would be making the House Republican leadership itself the issue. Somehow they have established their "tough guy" credentials enough to be able to soften their stand.
Legislatively, it makes total sense, as well. Sequentially, the initial emphasis needs to be on getting the immigrants already in the country to register and enter the process. Later, when there is some control over the processes of naturalization and over the borders, then is the time to increase the severity of penalties for employers, workers, aid organizations, etc. who act against the new regime. Getting the sequence wrong will allow non-compliance, non-enforcement, and various forms of cheating to continue to rule in the fields, the border zones, and in the casual day labor recruitment lots in so many towns and cities. One has to make the crime a little less prevalent before it can be both so weighty and fully enforced.
I applaud the agreement, the apparent influence of the White House, and the progress suggested by this announcement.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Flapping About Immigration
"Congress Nears Deal on Illegal Immigrants"--so reads the headline on the AP story today which I viewed on Yahoo! a short while ago.
Sounds good, but unfortunately the headline is inaccurate. The deal was reached in the Senate, with the White House's blessing, but that does not equal "Congress". Apparently, this bill would need to be squared with the House's repressive and wrong-headed version, any association with which is liable to leave an unpalatable aroma.
In its rumored current form, the Senate compromise seems worthy of support, even if it also draws the support of President Bush, as McCain alleges. At least it recognizes that the essential first step is to identify a path which provides for some legal recognition of immigrants with well-established ties in the country. Along with major increases in border patrol, electronic surveillance capabilities, etc.--things that have justification and bipartisan support. Of course, the Devil's in the details.
By contrast, the House version features only punitive zeal and a Big Fence. If somehow it were to have been enacted, it would promise a variety of evil results: massive forced deportations, the (further) ghettoization of migrant housing neighborhoods, widespread evasion and further denigration of the rule of law, yet also a legal snare with long tentacles and heavy sanctions which can be wielded selectively and unfairly throughout everyday American society and commerce. A triumph for the political principle of "the criminalization of everyday life"*. Maybe even riots, on one side or the other.
The question is whether the House Republicans are prepared to accept the Senate version virtually in toto, or whether they are going to insist on something more resembling theirs in its basic approach. No doubt they will want to continue playing the Stern Father in the American Gothic set where they've been posturing on this one so far.
These are serious tactics, worthy of the dearly-departed King-Delay-of-Diamonds himself (and, for that matter, speaking of his predecessor, his whole Dick Armey!) Immigration policy is one issue that could have national resonance this year, and in ways that can bring sharp, uncomfortable contrasts between the national party positions and local dynamics. In the case of Democrats, some will be swayed by the perennial populist appeal of nativism (36 of them voted in favor of the House bill), but more will be hurt by a principled stand. The Republicans also are vulnerable to this tension on the issue, with a national leadership that seems of two minds. What I believe happened here is the deliberate creation of a wedge to allow some of the more Red-Meat Staters to run for re-election on the platform of having "done something"--or at least would've except for their lily-livered, soft-on-national-security opponents--to squash Mexican immigrants (as Bush's Iraq invasion was ultimately about having "done something" about terrorism).
But to "return to the previous question", no. I think there will be a nasty conference-committee game and the political wedge will be pushed back to the Senate, in the form of the challenge whether to go along with the nasty conferees. And they may end up back in the trap they were near before the current compromise, with 50+ votes for something but 60+ for nothing. It all depends on the strength of the leadership of the Ace of Hearts. Along with the concurrence of the Ace of Spades on the political soundness of the final bill, which will be marked with the flourishes of the Nine of Clubs (Sensenbrenner) and the Eight of Diamonds (Boehnert)**. This is where what remains of Bush's capital may be expended. If 'twere to be so, 'twould be done best.
*as opposed to "the criminalization of politics", as had been alleged by some opponents of Fitzgerald's investigation of Flamegate(I'm suggesting herewith we change the name to something a bit catchier). Which phrase, if you add "of war", would represent something I'd support. It should be criminal to play politics with war, as the Bushites have done.
**The Bushite deck of cards gives you a "frame" to present those who are criminally Bushist (as opposed to the Saddamite deck, which gives a framework to view those criminally Baathist). Naturally, the higher the power, the higher the level of card. To provide some framework through the suits, clubs are for the military-industrialists and ideological neocons, diamonds for the corrupt bastards, hearts are reserved for Bush-family members, hangers-on, and others who've achieved power through sucking up, and spades are for Republican political henchmen-hacks (sort of like "philosopher-kings" of their type). The guys who wield the sharp blades. It's necessary, but usually fairly easy, to distinguish the suit in order to assign a Bushite a card value.
There's a lot of flexibility in applying lower ranks, but once a guy gets taken out it freezes forever into place. The higher ranks are generally fixed. For example, Barbara Bush is the Queen of Hearts (whether Laura is a Bushite, and at what level, is not generally agreed upon), Jeb Bush is the King of Hearts, Alberto Gonzales is the Jack of hearts, etc.
The order of power of suits is not generally agreed: so, while it's understood that Rumsfeld's the Ace of Clubs, Cheney the Diamond, Dubya's the Ace of Hearts, and Rove's the Spade, that does not imply that one always has precedence in a Texas Showdown. Which never occurs, because like good Bushites they never disagree except when that's part of the strategy (see above with immigration).
Sounds good, but unfortunately the headline is inaccurate. The deal was reached in the Senate, with the White House's blessing, but that does not equal "Congress". Apparently, this bill would need to be squared with the House's repressive and wrong-headed version, any association with which is liable to leave an unpalatable aroma.
In its rumored current form, the Senate compromise seems worthy of support, even if it also draws the support of President Bush, as McCain alleges. At least it recognizes that the essential first step is to identify a path which provides for some legal recognition of immigrants with well-established ties in the country. Along with major increases in border patrol, electronic surveillance capabilities, etc.--things that have justification and bipartisan support. Of course, the Devil's in the details.
By contrast, the House version features only punitive zeal and a Big Fence. If somehow it were to have been enacted, it would promise a variety of evil results: massive forced deportations, the (further) ghettoization of migrant housing neighborhoods, widespread evasion and further denigration of the rule of law, yet also a legal snare with long tentacles and heavy sanctions which can be wielded selectively and unfairly throughout everyday American society and commerce. A triumph for the political principle of "the criminalization of everyday life"*. Maybe even riots, on one side or the other.
The question is whether the House Republicans are prepared to accept the Senate version virtually in toto, or whether they are going to insist on something more resembling theirs in its basic approach. No doubt they will want to continue playing the Stern Father in the American Gothic set where they've been posturing on this one so far.
These are serious tactics, worthy of the dearly-departed King-Delay-of-Diamonds himself (and, for that matter, speaking of his predecessor, his whole Dick Armey!) Immigration policy is one issue that could have national resonance this year, and in ways that can bring sharp, uncomfortable contrasts between the national party positions and local dynamics. In the case of Democrats, some will be swayed by the perennial populist appeal of nativism (36 of them voted in favor of the House bill), but more will be hurt by a principled stand. The Republicans also are vulnerable to this tension on the issue, with a national leadership that seems of two minds. What I believe happened here is the deliberate creation of a wedge to allow some of the more Red-Meat Staters to run for re-election on the platform of having "done something"--or at least would've except for their lily-livered, soft-on-national-security opponents--to squash Mexican immigrants (as Bush's Iraq invasion was ultimately about having "done something" about terrorism).
But to "return to the previous question", no. I think there will be a nasty conference-committee game and the political wedge will be pushed back to the Senate, in the form of the challenge whether to go along with the nasty conferees. And they may end up back in the trap they were near before the current compromise, with 50+ votes for something but 60+ for nothing. It all depends on the strength of the leadership of the Ace of Hearts. Along with the concurrence of the Ace of Spades on the political soundness of the final bill, which will be marked with the flourishes of the Nine of Clubs (Sensenbrenner) and the Eight of Diamonds (Boehnert)**. This is where what remains of Bush's capital may be expended. If 'twere to be so, 'twould be done best.
*as opposed to "the criminalization of politics", as had been alleged by some opponents of Fitzgerald's investigation of Flamegate(I'm suggesting herewith we change the name to something a bit catchier). Which phrase, if you add "of war", would represent something I'd support. It should be criminal to play politics with war, as the Bushites have done.
**The Bushite deck of cards gives you a "frame" to present those who are criminally Bushist (as opposed to the Saddamite deck, which gives a framework to view those criminally Baathist). Naturally, the higher the power, the higher the level of card. To provide some framework through the suits, clubs are for the military-industrialists and ideological neocons, diamonds for the corrupt bastards, hearts are reserved for Bush-family members, hangers-on, and others who've achieved power through sucking up, and spades are for Republican political henchmen-hacks (sort of like "philosopher-kings" of their type). The guys who wield the sharp blades. It's necessary, but usually fairly easy, to distinguish the suit in order to assign a Bushite a card value.
There's a lot of flexibility in applying lower ranks, but once a guy gets taken out it freezes forever into place. The higher ranks are generally fixed. For example, Barbara Bush is the Queen of Hearts (whether Laura is a Bushite, and at what level, is not generally agreed upon), Jeb Bush is the King of Hearts, Alberto Gonzales is the Jack of hearts, etc.
The order of power of suits is not generally agreed: so, while it's understood that Rumsfeld's the Ace of Clubs, Cheney the Diamond, Dubya's the Ace of Hearts, and Rove's the Spade, that does not imply that one always has precedence in a Texas Showdown. Which never occurs, because like good Bushites they never disagree except when that's part of the strategy (see above with immigration).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
