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).