Judging from the latest polls, it might be a good time for John McCain
to reconnect with the Republican base. The Arizona senator is no
longer the media-anointed frontrunner by a long shot and could
benefit from a high-profile initiative to rally the GOP
faithful.
Instead McCain has decided it would be a better idea to
cosponsor legislation with Ted Kennedy. Within the next two weeks,
this dynamic duo plans to introduce the latest version of their
comprehensive immigration reform bill. The Washington
Times has
reported that McCain was virtually the only Republican that
Democrats involved in serious negotiations about how to move
forward on border security. The details are still murky, but the
resulting measure is sure to propose legalizing millions of current
illegal immigrants — something that divides Republicans and
conservatives like no other issue can.
The Boston Globe described it as “a bill that’s likely to restart
a tense debate in Congress.” The Straight Talk Express
notwithstanding, it is also likely to be a debate shrouded in
euphemism.
Begin with the problem this legislation is intended to address
comprehensively — illegal immigration. To ordinary voters, people
who cross the border illegally and remain in the United States are
illegal immigrants, perhaps illegal aliens. But in the debate on
Capitol Hill they will become “undocumented workers,” as if they
merely misplaced some paperwork. Sometimes they will just be called
“immigrants,” as if being a legal immigrant is a meaningless
distinction. Other politicians prefer the phrase “willing workers,”
which usually travels in pairs with “the jobs Americans won’t
do.”
There will also be a great deal of confusion about how to
describe what the McCain-Kennedy bill offers illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the legislation are sure to insist that it is an
“amnesty,” a word that will irritate supporters to no end. A
Republican National Committee member from Florida complained
recently that to “some people, the issue of amnesty is a litmus
test and anything short of a concentration camp is amnesty.”
Rather than calling it an amnesty, backers prefer to say it is
an opportunity for “temporary workers.” Eligible illegal immigrants
would be able to participate in a program for such workers and may
eventually end up on a “path to citizenship.” Of course, if most of
the temporary workers take a path to citizenship, then they are not
really temporary.
Advocates of a guest worker program along these lines have their
own problems with the definition of amnesty. They insist that such
proposals can’t be an amnesty if illegal immigrants must learn
English, pay fines, pass a background check, and make good on their
back taxes before they can qualify. Modifying slightly the
Clinton-era Democratic mantra about “people who work hard and play
by the rules,” Ted Kennedy told the Globe his bill was
designed to help people who work hard and “basically played by the
rules.”
Others point out that any comprehensive legislation would beef
up the border patrol, crack down on employers of illegal
immigrants, and perhaps even continue funding for the security
fence authorized last year. The last may be a McCain-engineered
compromise, since he generously allowed in an interview with
Vanity Fair that he’d “build the goddamn fence” if voters
want it.
IN 1986, CONGRESS PASSED and President Reagan signed a bill that
allowed illegal aliens to stay in the country in exchange for
learning English, paying fees and fines, and passing a background
check. The same legislation toughened border security and imposed
employer sanctions.
This bill was described, by supporters and opponents alike, as
an amnesty. (Though it is worth noting that the path to citizenship
created by the 1986 law was much shorter than anything likely to
pass Congress today.) Phrases like “earned legalization” and
“adjusted status” may be to amnesty what “revenue enhancement” is
to a tax increase.
All these word games are an attempt to elide a real immigration
debate. Are the country’s current immigration laws too strict or
too lenient? Is America suffering a labor shortage or are annual
entries too high? Will new guest workers relieve the pressure on
our borders or further inflame it? And most sensitive of all: How
can we curtail the illegal immigration the American people say they
oppose while preserving the goods and services illegal immigrants
offer, which many Americans rather like?
This is why the immigration action, as opposed to confusing
immigration talk, is so fraught with political peril — especially
for Republicans. Last year’s immigration legislation failed when
the White House tried unsuccessfully to persuade GOP legislators to
go along with a bill that most Democrats supported and a majority
of Republicans opposed.
Now that the Democrats control Congress, the chances of passage
are better but the political dynamics are pretty much the same. The
House Republican leadership once again has come out against the
McCain-Kennedy approach. The louder voices among the base are
likely to agree.
So what is McCain thinking? Perhaps he was emboldened by the
2006 election results in his state of Arizona, where immigration
hawk Congressman J.D. Hayworth went down to defeat while
Congressman Jeff Flake — a sponsor of McCain-Kennedy’s House
companion bill — was reelected and remains a conservative rising
star.
It’s possible. But let me make a prediction: If by 2008 McCain
is still seen as siding with Kennedy against most Republicans on
this divisive issue, he will be in deep trouble. And no euphemism
will be able to make it sound better.
