Irreconcilable differences

Immigration reform may have to wait until after election

Monday, June 11, 2007

Immigration reform is dead for now, and the "no amnesty" activists - who really mean "no path to citizenship ever for anyone who illegally crossed the border at any time" - are understandably gloating. As it happens, however, they didn't succeed alone.

They had plenty of help from those on the opposite side of the spectrum who were equally unwilling to compromise even when it was the only hope of reaching a deal.

Given the relative strengths of those opposing forces, immigration reform may have to wait until after next year's presidential election.

For us, a defining moment of the Senate debate occurred Wednesday when that chamber rejected an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to bar illegal immigrants who had been ordered deported for a variety of offenses from becoming citizens. The defeat of such an amendment is simply baffling. Yet it is typical of what became a pattern of resistance to efforts to improve the bill through common-sense adjustments.

Proponents of a comprehensive package made other major mistakes as well. To begin with, they seemed to go out of their way to raise suspicions and to offend those who disagreed with them.

First, they tried to rush this immensely complex piece of legislation through Congress as if it were no more controversial than a resolution praising fallen soldiers. Many Americans naturally suspected their motives and were insulted by the haste.

Then, when the going got tough, the bill's architects began to question the motives of opponents. In the case of President Bush, that meant insulting his own political base. His remark that critics "don't want to do what's right for America" electrified the opposition, making it more determined than ever. (Bush was undoubtedly tired of critics questioning his motives, but that's hardly sufficient excuse.)

Republican Sen. John McCain, a bill sponsor, was just as scathing. He characterized opponents as people who "would intentionally make our country's problems worse . . ."

We agree with opponents that enforcement got short shrift in the bill and that probationary visas would have been granted with indefensible haste. We also submit that there needs to be a time out, say, of a couple of years between a crackdown on the border and a move to regularize the status of illegal immigrants who are already here to make sure that enforcement won't be a 1986-type farce.

Such a deal would still rile die-hard Tancredo-ites, who refuse to acknowledge that many illegals have sunk deep roots and are assets to the economy. Most are not going home no matter how much anyone might wish. That's why we believe it is neither rational nor humane to keep them in a twilight zone forever by equating any path to citizenship with an amnesty for undeserving criminals.

The defeat of the immigration reform package no doubt represents a triumph of popular sentiment. But it is also safe to say that the public does not like the status quo. And yet it is hard to see how any meaningful immigration bill can pass Congress given the present balance of political power.