Hillary To Right on Immigration
by Jeff Crouere

As President Bush embarks on his second term, he will face a variety of challenges to enact his domestic agenda. Of course, Democrats will be obstacles as he pursues Social Security reform. However, he may face more Republican opposition on the contentious issue of immigration.

There are a large number of conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives that want to secure our border and seriously deal with the troubling issue of illegal immigration. However, the Bush White House has been an obstacle. In the waning days of 2004, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner’s measure to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining driver’s licenses was stripped from the intelligence reform bill. The Bush White House was opposed to Sensenbrenner’s bill, which created a federal standard for the 11 states that allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and then use those licenses for federal identification. Sensenbrenner is addressing a serious problem highlighted by the fact that among the nineteen 9/11 terrorists there were a total of 63 supposedly valid driver’s licenses. Sensenbrenner promises to push the legislation in the early part of this new congressional session. What will the Bush White House do?

President Bush has been touting immigration and border control reform legislation. Some Republicans see his measure as little more than amnesty for illegal aliens, who, according to some estimates, total approximately 12 million in this country, with the number growing every day. The President wants to change our immigration laws and give illegal aliens the opportunity to gain legal work status. Bush favors establishing a temporary worker program that would allow illegal aliens to stay in the United States for up to six years. However, in an excellent analysis in the November/December 2001 edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine, written by Professor Philip L. Martin of UC-Davis and Michael L. Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the authors uncover the flaw in Bush’s plan, “In many countries, under many types of government, and across many time periods, experiences with guest worker programs have led to an overwhelming and simple consensus among those who have studied the issue: there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers.”

The Bush proposal will continue the flow of cheap labor for businesses in Border States. Yet, despite the economic benefits, the policy is misguided for a variety of reasons. For one, it rewards lawbreakers and encourages more. With the U.S. offering temporary worker status, we should expect even more illegal aliens to be lured to our country. Aren’t 12 million illegal aliens enough for this country to accommodate?

More importantly, what about our security? We are a country at war, but how can we claim to be battling terrorism if we don’t even secure our own borders? In the current fiscal year, the Department of Homeland Security will have $40.7 billion to spend, yet only $74 million was allocated for additional border patrol technology. Unless we control our borders, our country will not be able to track terrorists that may try to enter the country in the midst of millions of illegal aliens.

Despite the national security concerns of many, the White House is pursuing a relaxed immigration policy for not only the economic benefits of cheap labor, but also the political benefits of wooing the Hispanic vote, the largest minority bloc in the United States. Two of the factors driving the controversial Bush policy are relations with Mexico and Hispanic voters. Karl Rove, the President’s chief political strategist, favors liberalized immigration policies because he believes they help improve the President’s popularity with Hispanic voters. It worked in the 2004 presidential election, as President Bush garnered over 40% of the Hispanic vote, a new record for a Republican candidate.

Although the President was re-elected, there are millions of Americans, including Hispanics, who are concerned about our lax border policy. A sensible immigration reform legislative package would include Sensenbrenner’s bill to reform driver’s licenses, a serious upgrade to our border patrol budget, a major emphasis on work-site enforcement of immigration laws with strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and the construction of a fence along the Mexican border, especially in certain areas of California. Such a package is opposed by the Bush White House, but approved by the American public. In a January 2005 Gallup poll, only 4% of Americans wanted more liberal immigration policies, while 45%, or ten times that number, wanted less immigration and stricter border enforcement. Such results show a huge disparity in the public and strongly indicate American dissatisfaction with the current policy.

If the President is not careful, the Democrats will run to the right of the GOP on this issue and co-opt millions of disgusted conservative voters. For example, the leading Democratic presidential hopeful for 2008, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is now sounding positively conservative on this issue. Here are some of Clinton’s statements in a recent interview, “(I do) not think that we have protected our borders or our ports…I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants…People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.”

This could be Hillary’s latest step toward the political center in anticipation of a 2008 race. Yet, the Bush White House is practically inviting Democrats to make this move. On this important issue, Clinton is more accurately reflecting American sentiment than President Bush. This dynamic sets up an interesting political year for President Bush. Major parts of his 2005 agenda will be opposed by both sides of the political spectrum and the political skirmishes could play a large role in determining the line-up of candidates for the 2008 presidential election.

Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and his Louisiana based program, Ringside Politics, airs at 8:30 p.m. Friday and 10:30 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV, Channel 32. Visit his website at www.ringsidepolitics.com.

Email the Editor