Past October 26th, president George W. Bush signed into law a controversial bill authorizing construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, shining the spotlight on illegal immigration 12 days before the U.S. midterm elections.
At a White House bill-signing ceremony, Mr. Bush said the law, which allows for the creation of a 1,100-kilometre-long fence along a third of the U.S. border with Mexico, would make the frontier more secure.
He called the bill "an important step toward immigration reform. "Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades, and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise," he said.
Mexico’s president-elect Felipe Calderon, during a state visit to Ottawa, said the United States committed a "huge error" in choosing to build a fence between itself and its southern neighbour, comparing it with the Berlin Wall.
Mr. Calderon said the fence would be expensive to U.S. taxpayers and lead to more Mexican deaths. About 400 Mexicans died trying to cross the border last year, he noted.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he accepts U.S. concerns about a safe and secure border, but added: "We obviously caution against things that can cause unnecessary barriers, not just to trade, but to the ordinary exchange of tourism and social relationships between our countries."
Will There Be a November Surprise?
New America Media, Commentary, Frank Sharry
Editor’s Note: Construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border will never happen, the writer says. But the red-hot issue of immigration will play a key role in hundreds of congressional races. Frank Sharry is executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Immigration Forum. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation’s leading immigrant rights advocates.
Immigration was a red-hot issue in Congress last month, and it’s a red-hot issue in the upcoming elections in November. What does all this mean for those fighting and hoping for reforms that respect immigrants, reward work, restore rights and reunite families?
First, let’s look at what Congress did and didn’t do.
In September, the House Republican leadership aggressively moved to enact sweeping anti-immigrant measures cherry-picked from the Sensenbrenner bill (HR4437). It had them approved by the House and then tried to attach them to must-pass appropriations measures. Fortunately, this enforcement-only push was thwarted on a bipartisan basis by Senate supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
Even though "Sensenbrenner-lite" was thwarted, both chambers did approve another immigration measure. We like to call it the Fence to Nowhere bill. The official name is the Secure Fence Act. But since it’s now clear that the full 700 miles of fencing the bill calls for is unlikely to ever be built, we’ve given it a more accurate name.
Here’s why the full 700 miles of fence is unlikely to be built:
NOT ENOUGH MONEY: In Washington parlance, the Secure Fence Act was an "authorization" bill, not an "appropriations" bill. As Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) candidly admitted, "It’s one thing to authorize. It’s another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it." At most, the current budget allows for some 90 miles of additional fencing.
IT WON’T WORK: Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol, Customs and state and local officials along the border all recognize that 700 miles of fence might sound good in Washington, D.C., and on talk radio in the heartland, but not on the border. Most will oppose a 700-mile fence either quietly or openly. To the extent resources are made available, look for more agents and technology, not double fencing.
IT’S THE POLITICS, STUPID: The so-called Secure Fence Act was enacted not for policy reasons but for political reasons. The vote wasn’t about border protection, but about incumbent protection. Some members of Congress voted for it to fool voters into believing they "are doing something" about border security. Others voted for it so they wouldn’t have to face 30-second campaign ads saying they voted against border security. But trust me on this: Very few of those who voted for the bill actually believe the fence will be built or that it will work.
So, Congress debates immigration for two years and ends up with a lousy fence bill?
I’m afraid so. But here’s the good news. Almost the entire Sensenbrenner bill, enacted in December 2005 in the House of Representatives, has been defeated for now. This is no small accomplishment.
What accounts for this remarkable victory? First and foremost, the millions of immigrant workers and families who took to the streets in 2006 not only woke the sleeping giant; they scared the nation’s political class. Secondly, the fact that the Senate passed a flawed but architecturally sound comprehensive immigration reform bill in May of 2006 provided a stark contrast — and alternative solution — to the harsh, punitive enforcement-only approach. Finally, the bungling House Republican leadership made itself the issue — again — when it decided to call summer "hearings" rather than negotiate in good faith. The cynical attempt to blame the minority for inaction and to use immigration as a wedge issue to turn out dispirited "base" voters was so transparent and ridiculous it did not pass the political laugh test.
What now? The elections of 2006.
Since the House Republican leadership decided to make immigration a political issue, the elections will be enormously important in determining the future fate of immigration as a policy issue. Should the House Republican strategy of playing the anti-immigration card work, expect a new version of the Sensenbrenner bill next year in Congress. If it doesn’t work, or even backfires, then comprehensive immigration reform may turn out to be one of the big winners in the upcoming elections.
What to look for? There are literally hundreds of races in which immigration is a hot topic (see the new Web site tracking these races at www.immigration2006.org). Here are just a few bellwether races we will be watching closely.
ARIZONA 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE: Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), one of the strongest supporters of comprehensive reform, is retiring. In the Republican primary Randy Graf, an enforcement-only hawk, won his party’s nomination by emphasizing his hard line on enforcement. His Democratic opponent, a woman named Gabrielle Giffords, strongly supports the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive reform approach. Graf threw down the gauntlet when he said, "If this issue can’t be won in this district...the argument can be made that it can’t be won anywhere in the country." So far, most polls have the Democrat Giffords with a commanding lead.
PENNSYLVANNIA SENATE RACE: Incumbent Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is battling for re-election against Democrat Bob Casey. When Casey said he supported the Senate comprehensive bill, Santorum went on the attack. In a desperate attempt to come from behind, Santorum is focusing most of his ads criticizing Casey for being "pro-amnesty." Casey has refused to back down and shot back, asking Santorum why after 12 years in the Senate he hasn’t addressed the issue. Hardliners and comprehensive reformers will be watching this one closely, with each side poised to claim victory depending on the outcome.
COLORADO GOVERNOR’S RACE: Republican Bob Beauprez is trying to come from behind in his race against Democrat Bill Ritter by claiming his opponent is soft on illegal immigration. This race is getting ugly, in a state where the debate over immigration has already been fouled by harsh rhetoric and tough new state laws. If a hard line on immigration fails to work in the hard-line state of Colorado, what does that say about the political punch of a hard line?
Of course, even if the use of immigration works as a wedge in some races and in some areas of the country, what are the implications for the Republican Party’s future? If it continues to alienate immigrant voters — the fastest group of new voters in the nation — how can Republicans remain the dominant political party for much longer?
Stay tuned. The policy and political crosscurrents of the immigration debate will continue to roil communities and states. Times are tough for immigrants in many areas of the country. But if this year’s stalemate in Congress and the failure of the anti-immigration card in the elections are any indication, this debate just might be headed in a more pro-immigrant direction.
