Latinos are up in arms over the most recent round of audio tapes leaked out of Arnold Schwarzenegger's office that show the Governator engaging in a very frank and thorough discussion of the immigration issue. Condemnations are ranging from offensive and outrageous" to "abhorrent." But after you read the LA Times piece, go spend a few minutes reading the full 24 page transcript of Arnold's conversation (also provided by the Times, to their credit) , which paints a vastly different and more interesting picture of his views.

Here is some of what Governor Schwarzenegger said that caused such a huff, starting with questions about what to do if Mexicans in the United States on some kind of work visa program stay in the country and refuse to return home to Mexico and leading into a comment about the Simpson-Mazzoli bill:

GOVERNOR: Do you go back then and chase them down? Do you then make them criminals for staying here? Do you put them in prison for staying here? Do we have the prison beds, and do we have the supervision? Do we have enough of the personnel in the prisons, in the county jails for this stuff, to feed them and to guard them and all of those things? Do you round them up? Do you send them back?

Q: Well, those are the nitty-gritty detail questions that need to be answered in Washington. But I think --

GOVERNOR: But the most important thing here is -- you see, that's the interesting thing about it. That, for instance you call the 'nitty-gritty detail', but that actually is the biggest issue. Because why? Because our government in 1986 --

Q: The amnesty.

GOVERNOR: Has f***** the American people.

Q: Yeah, we've got twice as many illegals --

GOVERNOR: You see, because what happened, they said, "Look, we came up with a solution."

Q: Right. M-hmm.

GOVERNOR: And now 20 years later the government comes up again and says, "We are going to work on a solution."

Q: It's worse now.

GOVERNOR: And what happened was with the solution is that they said that if we give them amnesty and if we solve this, and we are going to go and track them down if anyone comes in here illegally, and we'll send them back, and the people that are providing jobs will be punished and all. No one enforced the law.

And later Arnold says this about assimilation:

GOVERNOR: It is changing, but in reality, I tell you. We can talk about what do we say when we get asked in an interview, and there are certain things you can't say. And one of the things that is, I think, tough for the American people to digest is that Mexicans, because it's next door, are holding onto their tradition and to their language much longer than the Polish did when they came over here, and the Germans and the Austrians when they came here, the French when they came here, because that was like you wanted to go and become part of America so quickly that you tried to learn the language. The older generation had always much more difficulty, as much as I have more difficulty getting up to speed with the computer. The older generation that is kind of like still with this new technology kind of stay away from it. But my son is on the computer and everything, and he's much better in English than I am, and he's 12 years old. So that's just the way it is. But I made an effort. But the Mexicans don't make that effort. See, they are building, as you saw down there -- you were down there, right, with the Mexican shopping mall?

Q: You bet.

GOVERNOR: Which is like a --

Q: Plaza de Mexico.

GOVERNOR: Which is like the -- yeah, the Plaza de Mexico, which is like a growth.

Q: On our side?

GOVERNOR: Yeah (SS)

Q: (SS) Linwood.

GOVERNOR: In Linwood. I mean, it's spectacular, when you see that shopping mall. Literally I felt I was in Mexico City, because I was in Mexico City for months and months and months doing my movies there. And it felt like I was down there. Everyone only spoke Spanish, every shop was in Spanish, every sign was in Spanish. They create a Mexico within California.

Q: You bet. And it's not just in that area. It's in (SS)

Q: Oh, I know.

GOVERNOR: And so you have to now bring all your brochures and everything in Spanish, all your government forms in Spanish, and all of this and all of that. So we have to make an effort, and I think that annoys people in California. It annoys people in America. They say, "Look, you want to come in here as a guest, but then behave as if you are a guest. That if you come --" I always compare the country to a house, your home. If you have someone coming to your home, he's going to say, "This family wakes up at 6:00 in the morning, and then they leave the house, or they go out running and all this. If I stay here I think I should get with the program here, you know? That's the way it is. And it's really funny what I've seen here in the Dehlson's house. Everyone does chores here. It's wild.

Q: They do?

GOVERNOR: Kids go and take out the trash, and the wife is doing the cooking, and Gary is there, he's going out shopping to get the food while she's doing the vegetables ready, he's getting the steaks. And so and so and doing this, and the grandmother is over there putting the flowers -- everyone is doing something. I'd better get with the program. So if I'm smart now, if I'm the guest, I go to his wife and I say, "Hey, what can I do?"

Q: That's true.

GOVERNOR: Right?

Q: That's a big part of it, absolutely.

GOVERNOR: Because I'm not going to say, "Well, in my house, I sit there and I read all day, no matter what happens around me, I read." Well, when you are a guest you don't want to go and sit in a chair while everyone is working and you keep reading your book because you love your novels. You go and get up in this one hour, at least you will then go and make an effort here, because I'm a guest here. Or, let me go out and get the flowers, to the wife, to the lady of the house. "I'm going to get some flowers for doing all of this," with a little message on it. So you do certain things. But what do we see in return? We see protestors carrying the Mexican flag.

Q: Carrying the Mexican flag.

GOVERNOR: And stepping on the American flag, and speaking in Spanish and talking about, "We are here and we're going to stay." So now imagine, someone coming to your house and he has no place because his house burned down next door. Now, he comes to your house because of the misery he went through, or she went through, comes to your house now and you say, "Come on in here for a week or two weeks until you get going." And that person comes out and says, "I'm not going to move anymore. You know, something, Gary? I'm here to f****** stay."

Again, I urge you to read the whole transcript, not just the parts that are generating the most heat in the press. Arnold remains very pro-immigration but, like most everyone else, is grappling with the complexities of solving this very contentious issue.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:01 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In America Alone, Mark Steyn writes, "demography doesn't explain everything, but it accounts for a good 90 percent." Those who share Steyn's keen interest in demographics will appreciate this story about Steve Murdock, the Texas state demographer. Here is how Murdock sees demography changing the future of the Lone Star state:

Texas is changing. It is growing older and browner, with the elderly and Hispanic populations growing at an unprecedented rate. And as the populations increase, so will the challenges.

If current trends continue, Texas' work force will be less educated and less skilled. State services, already burdened, may be strained to a point never experienced before. The numbers provided by Murdock support the dire warnings:

Hispanics may represent 53 percent of the population by 2030, compared to 30.3 percent for Anglos and 9.2 percent for blacks.

More than half of Hispanics 25 and older had failed to finish high school in 2000; fewer than 20 percent had completed some college, and only about 10 percent had a college degree.

Hispanics could occupy 38 percent to 52 percent of the Texas work force by 2030.

By 2030, 16 percent to 20 percent of the population will be 65 or older, an increase of about 10 percent over 2000. Most will be Anglos. Of Texans older than 65 in 2000, 72.6 percent were Anglo, 16.7 percent Hispanic.

The aging population -- coupled with a segment that is less educated and, thus, earning less money -- will strain social services, including those for the elderly.

"An educated work force raises income levels, which generates businesses activity and increases the market for goods and services," Murdock said. "It also increases investments for new businesses, which in turn increases tax revenues. Higher education equals higher incomes."

Sen. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said education is perhaps the most important issue facing the state.

"This is really a wake-up call," he said. "The conclusion is that by the year 2025, if we keep doing what we're doing now, Texas will have the economy of a Third Word country. I have a son who will be 21 in 2025, and that's just not the kind of Texas I want to turn over to him."

If these demographic trends pose challenges, however, they also present opportunities.

"Growth is a double-edged sword," Murdock said. "With challenges come opportunities. The key is to have the opportunities be greater than the challenges."

Governor Rick Perry has taken some serious heat for defending a law giving tuition breaks to the children of undocumented immigrants attending state universities. But you can understand the difficult spot he's in as chief executive of the state: Unless you're going to round up all the illegal immigrants and deport them - which is not only impractical but would devastate the state's economy - you'd better try and find ways of educating them, or face the undesirable consequences of an aging, undereducated population.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:35 AM | Email Author | Permalink

This one is in Texas:

Gov. Rick Perry said Monday he will send a dozen armed security platoons from the Texas Army National Guard to help law enforcement officers secure the border.

The 604 newly activated troops are to be part of Operation Wrangler -- an interagency law enforcement effort aimed at reducing crime and increasing security across the state.

The troops will stay active for an undisclosed period of time in areas across Texas. A spokeswoman for the governor said she could not elaborate "on the timing or places, but the surge operation will be on a statewide level."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:12 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Billy House of the Arizona Republic says the push for comprehensive immigration reform will be a "main theme" in President Bush's SOTU on Tuesday, but passing a bill is still far from a slam dunk:

"Everybody, no matter who they are, is sick of the illegality and porous borders," said Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, who has written extensively as an advocate for immigration reform. [snip]

"Latinos want to see their friends and family able to work with dignity. And soccer moms and dads want to see Congress solve something," Jacoby said.

But both she and others, including Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., said that just because Congress is now controlled by Democrats, there are no assurances that immigration reform will be easy

"This is still going to have to be a bipartisan, practical, centrist, up-the-middle, in fact, tough immigration bill," Jacoby said.

"We're still going to need 20 Republicans in the Senate and probably 40 Republicans in the House."

Shadegg said that predictions that Democrats will help to see such a plan move through smoothly may underestimate the pressure they will receive from their organized labor constituencies who may oppose such things as a guest-worker plan.

"It's not a lay-down that Bush can get what he wants just because Democrats are now in charge," Shadegg said of immigration reform.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:27 AM | Email Author | Permalink

David Yepsen writes in yesterday's Des Moines Register that a White House run by Rep. Tom Tancredo could pull the GOP field to the right in Iowa:

Tancredo also said he has signed up conservative Iowa GOP activist Bill Salier to chair his campaign in Iowa.

Salier energized Iowa Republican conservatives in his unsuccessful 2002 primary bid for the U.S. Senate against Greg Ganske. Salier got an impressive 41 percent of the vote.

While Tancredo has to be ranked as the longest of presidential long shots, he has the potential to pull the Republican field of candidates to the right, particularly on his signature issue of curbing illegal immigration.

He had said earlier he wouldn't run for president if the other leading GOP contenders took a hard-line stance against illegal immigration.

They aren't, so he's in. "Unfortunately, no one in the top tier conveys a concern about this issue," he said. He was especially critical of U.S. Sen. John McCain for co-sponsoring guest-worker legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy. "It's the McKennedy bill," Tancredo said.

Again, McCain gets singled out for his position, but Giuliani is every bit as pro-immigration. Mitt Romney has his own particular problems with the issue. Even second-tier candidates like Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback favor comprehensive reform.

The only other declared candidate is Duncan Hunter who shares many similarities with Tancredo: he's a hardliner on illegal immigration, he's from the House of Representatives, and he has no chance of winning. But together Tancredo and Hunter will hold the other candidates' feet to the fire on the issue of immigration as Yepsen suggests.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:12 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake says he was booted from his seat on the House Judiciary committee because of his stand on comprehensive immigration reform:

"The Judiciary Committee hasn't exactly been the friendliest place for those who favor comprehensive reform. And leadership was not happy that I was not happy with their strategy -- which was to do nothing," Flake told the San Antonio Express-News.

Flake also said Minority Leader Boehner told him that "the party did not want to reward bad behavior - and 'bad behavior' is having a different opinion on immigration, for one." Flake told the Arizona Republic: "They know a comprehensive immigration package is coming with my name on it."

Flake has been reassigned to seats on the Foreign Affairs and Resources committees.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:11 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Mayors from eleven Texas border towns to give Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff an earful on the fence in a meeting scheduled for next week.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:16 PM | Email Author | Permalink

This is something. The Mexican government is studying the feasability of manufacturing and handing out free GPS tracking devices to citizens wanting to sneak into the United States illegally. The idea is that the illegal immigrants could activate the devices if they get in trouble crossing the desert, and their locations could be forwarded to U.S. Border Patrol agents who could then easily track down and rescue them. A spokesman for the Mexican government denied that such a program would encourage illegal immigration.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:46 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Nancy Pelosi's spokesperson told the San Antonio Express-News that immigration is "absolutely a top priority" for the new Speaker of the House - even though it's not on her list of things to do when Democrats take control next month.

The conundrum for Pelosi, of course, is that while immigration reform legislation is an opportunity to divide Republicans, it also presents a risk to some members of the new majority. More from the article:

Though rarely ever nodding in unison, immigrant advocates and restrictionists concurred that the election proved Democrats had to move to the right in order to win.

But advocates remain optimistic that last year's gridlock won't be repeated and chances have improved for reform.

"Most disagreements are on the edges now, such as on working out acceptable numbers of visas and guest workers allowed," said Michelle Waslin, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza.

Opponents of illegal immigration lamented losing some big-name supporters of their cause in the election but remained hopeful that newly elected Democrats will keep their campaign promises to focus first or solely on enforcement.

A bit further down there's this:

Rep. Charlie González, D-San Antonio, said the incoming group of tough-sounding first-termers soon will learn the art of having to break campaign promises to keep their political careers alive.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:28 AM | Email Author | Permalink

As I've argued in these pages, it is a disaster for the United States that we have so few H-1B visas available for high-skill foreign workers who want to become part of the American economy. We spend years educating foreigners, especially in technical fields, and then refuse their requests to work here. Instead we say "No, go back to Bangalore or Taipei and compete against us with what you've learned here."

It is truly insane from an economic point of view. America was made great by immigrants. The current nativist trends within both political parties, but especially the GOP, represents the worst of American narrow-mindedness and a complete lack of an understanding of history.

Most Americans understand the benefits of immigration as common sense and part of the American dream. Still, it is good to see some actual data on the economic benefit to our country of immigrants, in particular immigrant entrepreneurs.

In Sunday's Denver Post, there is a must-read article by Al Lewis called "Capitalism thrives with Immigration".

Lewis refers to a November (2006) study by the National Venture Capital Association called "Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs". Click for the FULL STUDY or the PRESS RELEASE.

Here is the first paragraph of the press release...it is worth reading more than once:

Immigrant entrepreneurs have had a profound impact on company creation, innovation and market value in the United States, according to a first-of-its-kind study, "American Made: The Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S. Competitiveness." The study found that over the past 15 years, immigrants have started 1 in 4 (25 percent) U.S. public companies that were venture-backed, representing a market capitalization of more than $500 billion. Moreover, a survey of today's private, venture-backed start-up companies in the U.S. estimated that 47 percent have immigrant founders. However, the study also found that two-thirds of the immigrant founders surveyed believe that current U.S. immigration policy hinders the ability of future foreign-born entrepreneurs to start American companies today.

The press release also has some pointed commentary about the visa issue that I've discussed:

Two-thirds of the private companies surveyed who use H-1B visas (temporary visa to hire skilled foreign nationals) say that current immigration laws harm U.S. competitiveness. Forty percent stated that current immigration policies have negatively impacted their companies when competing against other firms globally. One-third of the private companies said that the lack of visas had influenced their company's decision to place more personnel in facilities abroad. "The current quota on H-1B visas of 65,000 has not been sufficient to meet the demand for highly skilled professionals," said Chad Waite, general partner at OVP Venture Partners in Seattle and NVCA Board member. "In nine of the past 11 years, employers have exhausted the entire quota of H-1B's prior to the end of the fiscal year. In the past three years, the quota was used up prior to the start of the fiscal year.

Perhaps equally troubling, the wait in skilled green card (permanent residence) categories is five years or more, sending a signal to current and future outstanding professionals and researchers that America may not be the place to make a career and raise your family."

Though I'm no fan of President Bush in the area of immigration I believe he has been closer to the right answer than any other politician whose position I have heard. Yes, we need to enforce our borders and clamp down on illegal immigration, but it must be simultaneous with massively increasing the quantity of work visas available (at all skill levels) as well as reducing the time it takes to get these visas...especially for high-skill workers whom we would rather see working for the benefit of our nation than competing against us.

These immigrants love the United States. In the full study, the NVCA notes that "Immigrant-founded venture-backed public companies today employ an estimated 220,000 people in the United States" and that "Nearly all the immigrant founders in private companies (95 percent) would still start their companies in the United States if given the choice today."

Only the most isolationist, nativist, know-nothings would want to change these immigrant sentiments and risk the great benefit they provide to our country. Luckily, as demonstrated in the last election, many of the "just close the borders" politicians (including notably the long-time incumbent J.D. Hayworth of Arizona) were defeated at the polls. Americans dislike crime and free-rider costs imposed by certain groups of illegal immigrants. But we are smart enough to distinguish between those issues and the overall benefits of immigration which have been proven repeatedly for over 200 years despite there always being some politicians afraid of the newest group of immigration. It is good to see some of what we all know in our guts to be quantified in such dramatic terms by the NVCA study.

Posted by Ross Kaminsky at 02:00 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Still on fence patrol, Mickey Kaus asks: is George Bush ashamed to sign this bill?

Posted by Tom Bevan at 03:08 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Now it's here, now it isn't. Mickey wonders whether President Bush is subtly trying to make the fence disappear with a pocket veto. It seems to me he's gathered enough evidence to justify his paranoia. Duncan Hunter certainly shares the concern, given how hopping mad he was during a Friday press conference.

Sure to add to the debate is this piece from Sunday edition of the San Antonio Express-News calling the construction of a fence along the border "far from a sure thing."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:36 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Is the fence headed for a big showdown in the Senate, or merely a quiet death? Mickey watched Senator Frist on Stephanolpolous yesterday and has suspicions it's the latter.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:24 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Very interesting stuff. After everyone - including the media and, apparently, pro-immigration groups - ingested the conventional wisdom that immigration was dead until at least after the November election, pro-comprehensive reform forces are suddenly being routed on the Hill by the security-firsters.

The House started the ball rolling last week with the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Yesterday, the Senate voted 94-0 to take the measure up and President Bush said on national television he'd sign it. House Republicans then followed up the fence bill by passing a voter ID requirement yesterday along near party lines. Today, they're putting the pedal even further to the metal with seven more immigration related votes scheduled, including the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, the Community Protection Act of 2006, and the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.

Obviously, Republicans have come to the conclusion that security-first immigration measures are critical to their reelection prospects this year. But this piece by John Kamman analyzing the impact of immigration on races in Arizona this year quotes Tamar Jacoby, the notoriously pro-immigration Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, saying that while Republicans think they've struck an electoral gold mine by getting tough on illegal immigration, it's really just fool's gold:

If immigration does give a victory to the GOP hard-liners, it would be the first time a get-tough approach has been such a powerful force in a federal election, a Washington, D.C.-based policy analyst says.

"In the past 10 years, a lot of politicians have looked at polling and said, 'Here's this big pocket of voters who don't like immigration,' " said Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute.

"It has turned out in every instance to be fool's gold (as a campaign issue)," she said.

Kamman goes on to write the following:

Statewide, public opinion so far indicates only modest support for the super-enforcement policy advocated by Hayworth in the district stretching north from Ahwatukee through Scottsdale and by GOP nominee Randy Graf in the district running from Tucson to the Mexican border.

I find that a bit strange, given that just a couple clicks away on the AZ Republic web site you can find this story by Dan Nowicki reporting how Jon Kyl is currently pulverizing Jim Pederson over a remark he made on a local radio show caling the Simpson-Mazzoli bill (a.k.a. amnesty) "the last effective (immigration) measure that passed Congress." Senate races are statewide contests, aren't they?

The fact is, amnesty is a dirty word, and House Republicans have done a good job of framing "comprehensive reform" as amnesty, and also of linking illegal immigration to concerns about national security. My feeling is that this makes the House-led approach more like a gold mine - at least in the short term and the coming election. The fear of some, however, is that tough measures by the GOP now will turn out to be fool's gold in the end, if they alienate a big chunk of the fast-growing bloc of Hispanic voters in the future.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:10 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Majority Leader Bill Frist just announced he's going to bring the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which passed the House late last week, to the floor of the Senate this week for a vote. Frist writes on his blog:

Americans deserve secure borders ... and Americans deserve to know where their Senators stand on border security. This week, when the Senate votes on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Americans will know which of their representatives are committed to real action on border security and which aren't.

The swift moves on enforcement-only legislation in the House and the Senate come as a bit of a surprise, given that the MSM churned out a round of stories not too long ago reporting that Republicans were going to put immigration legislation on the shelf until after the election.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:31 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In stories today covering the trial of cop killer Raul Gomez-Garcia, neither the Denver Post nor the Rocky Mountain News point out that Gomez-Garcia was living in the United States illegally at the time of the killings.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:35 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Either Pat Buchanan has an unbelievable PR operation or these stories are just a really fortuitous coincidence for the launch of his new book on immigration.

By the way, if you're looking for a thoughtful, less apocalyptic take on the subject, I recommend Michael Barone's recently re-released book "The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again."

UPDATE: Speaking of coincidences, you can catch Barone discussing immigration, his new book, Pat Buchanan, and more on Pundit Review Radio.

UPDATE II: Britain faces some uncomfortable immigration realities as well.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:39 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Yesterday Governor Bill Owens signed a package of new immigration laws which he called the toughest in America. Among the new set of laws is one unbelievably draconian measure that "requires applicants for public benefits such as welfare to provide proof that they are legally in the United States."

UPDATE: Judge in Chicago grants one year stay of deporatation for 11 illegal immigrants arrested in a sweep last month. Here's the kicker:

The delay gives the immigrants a chance to stay in the country if Congress approves a bill granting legal status to many of the nation's 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants. That measure has stalled, for now, but many analysts think the prospects will improve after the November elections.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:39 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Yesterday I posted Part I of John McCain's remarks at the press conference with David McSweeney on Saturday. Here's the rest of what McCain had to say:

On what Republicans can do to improve their prospects for November: "I think this is going to be a very tough election, and what I think we Republicans need to do, maybe, is have the President veto a couple of these pork-barrel appropriations bills. I think we Republicans need to sit down together and resolve the immigration issue. We control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress we ought to be able to work out a reasonable program to enforce our borders, and to fix our broken immigration system. I think that progress in the war on Iraq is vital. We all know that the number one issue in every poll is the war in Iraq. By the way, I think the leadership the President will be showing in this present crisis [in the Middle East] will help him.

And I think we just need to overall show our base, our Republican base, that are very concerned about fiscal discipline, that we can get spending under control. I'm not worried about our base, which is concerned about fiscal discipline, to vote Democrat. But I am concerned that they might stay home because they're unhappy with our dramatically increased spending practices over the last six years."

On energy policy: "What I think we obviously need to do is expedite as much as possible progress on ethanol. I just came from Iowa, there are seven new ethanol refineries being built - they're already at 24 and they're building 7 more. Ethanol, when oil is $10 dollars a barrel, isn't that exciting. When oil is $70 or $80 a barrel it's very, very vital, and we're seeing a dramatic expansion of that.

I also believe that nuclear power is clean, is available, the technology is there, and we need to increase dramatically our nuclear power plants. I know that's controversial in some places. I would remind you that 80% of the electricity generated by the French is from nuclear power. The Japanese - everyone in the world is using nuclear power heavily, except for the United States of America.

We did close a bit of a loophole on CAFÉ standards - we may have to look at that some more. But I really believe that the two existing technologies right now are ethanol and nuclear power. Hydrogen is great. Many of these other new technologies are great, but when I get into the details of them they say, 'well, that's two, five, ten years away.'"

On whether Congress will pass an immigration bill before November: I really hope that we do. One major reason is, why shouldn't we be able to sit down together and work this out? We all are in agreement the system is broken. It's the product of 40 or 50 years of failed government policy - nobody understands that better than people from Arizona where we have terrible devastation associated with that issue.

But we should be able to sit down and discuss this. We've had several discussions with some of the House members. Congressman Pence from Indiana has had an idea that we've been discussing, Congressman LaHood has been in the meetings I have...

The President believes we need a comprehensive approach. I totally agree with the President. But once you accept that premise, it seems to me that everything is on the table as to how we could best enforce our borders, establish a temporary worker program of some sort, and dispense somehow with the problem of 11 million people who have been living in our country illegally. Some came yesterday; some have been here 60 or 70 years. So, if we can just have a dialog amongst us, it seems to me that we should be able to come to an agreement. I'm hopeful that we will.

From a pure political standpoint, shouldn't we be able to govern? Shouldn't we be able to sit down and address a major issue that is of major concern to the American people? I think the American people expect us to.

And again, I want to emphasize, we who support a comprehensive solution, as the President does, we're willing to discuss and compromise on almost every aspect of it. We're not locked in concrete on any specific aspect of it. So I hope we can, and I believe we can, and I'm guardedly optimistic."

On an immigration compromise that starts with a year of border enforcement before triggering other provisions of a comprehensive plan: "If tomorrow we said we're going to seal the border, and we're going to do whatever is necessary - and we are spending billions more now, we're hiring thousands and thousands of new border patrol, we've got the National Guard on the border, we're doing lots and lots of things - even if tomorrow we said we're going to set up a guest worker program...it would still take a couple of years. So you could be sealing the border and at the same time moving forward with all of the apparatus and bureaucracy associated with a program like that.

On the other hand, if you say you have to seal the borders, my friend, the Israelis just found out you can't "seal" a border. The only thing that's going to keep the Israelis safe from having people cross their border is to stop the threat. The only thing that going to keep people from coming across our border is to dry up the magnet, which is what attracts people, which is jobs.

And that's why if the only way you could work in America would be with be with a temporary worker visa - a tamper-proof visa - those people who are south of the border wouldn't want to come across illegally because there would be no job for them while they're here, because any employer who employed them without that document would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

On campaign finance reform: "We think that the McCain-Feingold bill has been largely successful. What hasn't been closed is the loophole concerning the 527's, which are a violation of the 1974 law. I don't mean to get too technical here, but right now we have the ability, because of this loophole the Federal Elections Commission will not close and should - and we're in court trying to get them to close it - people like George Soros, and wealthy billionaires are able to pour literally tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns. It's wrong. It needs to be fixed. The Federal Election Commission has to act.

The other provisions of the law have worked pretty well. But we really have a bad Federal Elections Commission. They are the ones who created the loopholes to start with, for soft money and others, and it's very regrettable."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:05 AM | Email Author | Permalink

A reader emails to point out a contradiction in Carville & Greenberg's immigration talking points:

In your blog piece The Dem Playbook For 2006: No Amnesty you quote Greenberg and Carville, including this sentence:

We are for expelling the criminals and allowing a path to citizenship for the law abiding immigrants who pay taxes.

I'm married to an expensively-documented immigrant, and I know full well that there already is a path to citizenship for law abiding immigrants who pay taxes, so there is no need to allow a path for them. If they are talking about a citizenship path for illegal immigrants, well, by definition they are not law abiding, so they are talking nonsense.

It looks to me like they are trying to put all immigrants together, both legal and illegal, which I find offensive. I am for legal immigration, but totally against illegal immigration. And I think most legal immigrants, and spouses of legal immigrants, feel the same way.

Of course, the contradiction applies to some Republicans as well. Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship would argue that their plan contains an admission of guilt on the part of illegal immigrants which carries a penalty: removal from the United States if you've been here less than two years or a fine and the payment of (at least some) back taxes for those who've been here longer than two years.

I can see how this compromise grates on most people's inherent desire for fairness - and is downright offensive to those who stood in the long lines and paid the high fees required to immigrate legally to the United States - but unfortunately fairness isn't a practical standard to apply when we already have 12 million people here illegally. If it were, the logical answer would be to round up every illegal immigrant in America and send them home to wait their turn in line.

Incidentally, this is where I have a beef with some House-led restrictionists who want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they call the Senate compromise amnesty. But on the other they also say they're not in favor of mass deportation. When asked what they'd do to address the roughly five percent of the American population currently living in the country illegally, they fall back and cite the thoroughly unconvincing argument that "attrition" will naturally take care of the problem. As if the millions of illegal immigrants who've made lives here in the United States over the last two decades, complete with homes and families, are going to just give it all up to move back to Mexico.

I think that's why we've seen the public coalescing around the one part of the plan that most everyone seems to agree upon, which is to focus on getting control of our borders. I also think that once that task has been accomplished to a substantial degree and the government has proven itself serious about addressing the issue of halting illegal immigration, you'd find much broader and deeper support for allowing those here illegally to access some sort of pathway to citizenship.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:54 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The Wall Street Journal has a humdinger of an editorial up making the conservative case for liberal immigration policies.

This is, of course, a contentious issue on the Right -- one guaranteed to generate angry mail no matter which side one is on. But for a clear, coherent statement of the Bush-McCain-Reagan approach to immigration reform, it doesn't get much better than this.

Here's a bit:

Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right. Far from selling their labor "cheap," they are traveling to the U.S. to sell it more dearly and improve their lives. Like millions of Americans before them, they and certainly their children climb the economic ladder as their skills and education increase.

We realize that critics are not inventing the manifold problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert, and a sense that the government has lost control of the border. But all of these result, ultimately, from too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas.

Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally. Give them more legal ways to enter the country, and we are likely to reduce illegal immigration far more effectively than any physical barrier along the Rio Grande ever could. This is not about rewarding bad behavior. It's about bringing immigration policy in line with economic and human reality. And the reality is that the U.S. has a growing demand for workers, while Mexico has both a large supply of such workers and too few jobs at home.

Some conservatives concede this point in theory but then insist that liberal immigration is no longer possible in a modern welfare state, which breeds dependency in a way that the America of a century ago did not. But the immigrants who arrive here come to work, not sit on the dole. And thanks to welfare reform, the welfare rolls have declined despite a surge in illegal immigration in the past decade.

The editorial also addresses the "cultural" issue. Then there's this: "Contrary to what you hear on talk radio and cable news, polls continue to show that the conservative silent majority is pro-immigration, and that it supports a guest-worker program as the only practical and humane way to moderate the foreign labor flow."

But really, as they say, read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 10:38 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Stan Greenberg and James Carville are out with a new strategy memo for Democrats which is very interesting reading, as always. First, they outline the GOP playbook:

The Republicans have a strategy, which is familiar to us from 2002 and 2004, but in a very new context. Rove is working methodically, issue after issue, to energize Republican loyalists and above all, to consolidate the Bush 2004 voters - one-in-five of whom are now voting Democratic for Congress. Half of the undecided voters backed Bush in 2004. So, the Republicans will work "no amnesty," "cut and run," "gay marriage," and "tax and spend" because they have no choice. But it is important to understand how far they have to go. First, just 50 percent of Republicans "strongly approve" of Bush, down from 76 percent at the beginning of 2005 and 61 percent at the beginning of 2006. Recent efforts have left the number unmoved. Second, the number of voters identifying themselves as Republican has dropped from 37 percent to 34 percent since the last election (comparing the last five Democracy Corps polls), which may make the Republicans even more desperate. Expect that Rove and the Republicans will only become even more intense in the use of these issues.

Next Greenberg and Carville describe how to neutralize and/or undermine the GOP's most potent issues. The section on immigration was especially interesting:

No Amnesty; Enforce the Laws. The San Diego experience teaches us that Republicans can turn nuance into "amnesty". Indeed, in this survey, one of the Republicans' strongest definitions for the election centers on immigration and enforcing laws. However, the Democratic message (tested in earlier surveys), done right, can contest this effectively. It emphasizes no amnesty and a respect for the law, even as we allow a path to citizenship for the law-abiding. Democrats should attack Bush and the Republicans for losing control of the borders and no longer penalizing employers for employing illegal immigrants. We are for expelling the criminals and allowing a path to citizenship for the law abiding immigrants who pay taxes. Our approach is no amnesty and respect for the laws. [emphasis added]

Isn't the italicized phrase another indication of support for an "enforcement first" immigration policy? Remember, it was the Democracy Corps' own poll from last month that showed 48% of respondents "strongly supporting" Bush's decision to put National Guard troops on the border to "increase border security and limit illegal immigration into the country." Another 17% "somewhat" supported the policy, bringing overall support to 65% with only 31% opposed (11% somewhat against and 20% strongly against).

Posted by Tom Bevan at 03:07 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Don't blame me. Rep. Chris Cannon apparently said it quite a bit during his hotly contested primary against Buchananite and Tancredoite John Jacob.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Cannon won that primary by a commanding 12 points, 56-44.

What does this mean for the anti-immigration folks? Well, over at The Corner, immigration liberal John Podhoretz notes that some of his more restrictionist colleagues are sounding like Daily Kossacks.

A loss is a loss is a loss. It turns out that anti-immigration sentiment is weaker in the GOP than some thought -- especially in the West.

And some of us think that's a very good thing.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 10:46 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Utah's 3rd congressional district today is home to a Republican primary that will be watched by both sides of the immigration debate.

Rep. Chris Cannon, who supports the president's plan, faces possible defeat by John Jacob, a restrictionist supported by Rep. Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC.

Polls open at 9 a.m. Eastern, close at 10 p.m. Eastern. Results will be posted online here.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 11:23 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The House GOP has actually managed to do the right thing on immigration this year: nothing. That's because it is, and always has been, an utter non-problem.

With unemployment below 5 percent, it can't credibly be claimed that immigrants "took 'er jibs." And if too many Mexicans are undocumented in America and living off the grid, it's because we haven't provided them with a reasonable, legal way to be in our country.

There are definitely reforms that are needed to our immigration system, but they're along the lines of President Bush's guest-worker program, not building a wall. There's never been a crisis, save the political crisis created by Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs.

And as the Wall Street Journal editorial page writes this morning, the only people who are likely to get bitten by this "crisis" are the House Republicans who ginned it up and then decided