A Break to the Border

So far as we can tell there were no new political scandals revealed on Wednesday, a sort of cool breeze of news to temporarily break the summer heat, so it seemed a good opportunity to look around at what else is going in Washington. There is apparently an immigration reform bill being considered in Congress, and the people pushing it are probably hoping the public is too distracted to notice, but all those scandals might wind up hurting the legislation’s chances of passage.
Immigration is one of those issues that defy the usual partisan and ideological categories, so the politics are complicated enough to begin with. The business wing of the Republican party has long championed unfettered immigration because it expands the supply of labor and thereby lowers its cost, while the working stiff wing of the party has opposed it for precisely the same reason. The union dues-paying working stiffs of the Democrat party once opposed illegal immigration with identical motives, and although their party loyalty has lately seemed to trump their economic self-interest there is still plenty of resistance in the ranks, while the professional politicians of the party have been eager to register a few million more voters that can be relied on to vote a straight big-government ticket. The multi-cultural liberals have also favored illegal immigration because they think it would be racist not to, and because they’re confident that they won’t be facing new competition for their sensitivity-training businesses and queer studies professorships, while the mostly white nativists of the Republican party and the mostly black nativists among the Democrats have been opposed.
A similarly mixed-up coalition of Senators has cooked up the current proposal, and they’ve tried to offer something for everyone. The bill would provide a “pathway to citizenship” for most of the illegal immigrants already in the country, but supporters are quick to insist that it’s not the same as amnesty, a word which tests badly in all the polls and focus groups, and they cross their hearts and hope to die as they pinky swear that this time it will be accompanied by the long-awaited crackdown that finally secures the border. Those tough-on-illegal-immigration provisions of a bill that would essentially legalize illegal immigration are the ones being touted by the bill’s Republican proponents, most prominently the former rising conservative star Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and an advertising campaign running on all the right-wing talk radio shows touts the bill as a severely right-wing program.
There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to be skeptical, however, and they seem to increase as the bill winds its way through the labyrinthine processes of the Congress. The Democratic-controlled Senate is intent on having their favored parts of the bill enacted before the country gets around to the messy business of enforcing the border, and the conventional wisdom of the moment is that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will show the necessary backbone — or cussed stubbornness, depending on your point of view — to kill the bill unless the border is secured first. Some wavering by the waver-prone Speaker of the House has many conservatives nervous that the Republicans will cave, but the representatives in his caucus are almost certain to hear from a compelling number of their constituents.
Although the tough-on-illegal-immigration provisions are appealing to the average conservative, and the “pathway to citizenship” not especially abhorrent is combined with border security, there is little trust in the promises being made. The past several decades of illegal immigration have justified this doubt, and the past months of revelations about governmental perfidy have only increased it. Democrats pushing the bill have reportedly asked President Barack Obama to keep his distance from the debate, lest his scandal-tainted brand tarnish their efforts, but at this point their entire party is being regarded with a heightened suspicion. The entire government, for the matter, is suddenly in position to argue “Trust us.”

— Bud Norman