The NYT reports: (Via Drudge)
President Bush had made comprehensive changes in immigration laws a priority, even making the issue the subject of a prime-time address, but House Republicans have been determined not to move ahead with any legislation that could be construed as amnesty for anyone who entered the country illegally. They held hearings around the country in recent weeks to contrast their enforcement-only bill with a Senate measure that could lead to citizenship for some.
“I don’t see how you bridge that divide between us and the Senate,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “I don’t see it happening. I really don’t.”
Democrats say they are not surprised by the immigration impasse and believe some Republicans would prefer to keep the issue alive to stir conservative voters rather than reach a legislative solution.
Both the House and the Senate immigration bills are bad, for different reasons. The logical thing would be for the two chambers to meet and hammer out a compromise. But unfortunately, I don’t think the House Republicans really want a solution. It would deprive them of a passionate issue.
Until recently, Tom Tancredo was just an unknown congressman who happened to had been a harsh opponent of immigration (both legal and illegal) for several years. When the issue exploded, Tancredo found his name in every newspaper in the country, and being invited on every cable news show out there. Suddenly, the little known representative is being mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. But immigration is his only issue. If the illegal immigration issue is solved, Tancredo most likely will fade back into obscurity. Therefore, it isn’t hard to see where Tancredo’s interests lie on this topic.
Yet what is so hard to understand is how the House Republicans are basically running on a platform of non-action on the immigration issue. The big bad Senate bill is amnesty, and we’re opposed to it. Fair enough. We don’t want amnesty. Again, fair enough. But ultimately, inaction on immigration will amount to de facto amnesty for the overwhelming majority of the illegal immigrants already here.
The Senate seems willing to back away somewhat from their bill, which is too generous. The House seems completely unwilling to compromise their bill, which is too draconian. But let’s assume the House bill is wonderful, and the Senate bill terrible. If you compromise the two, you can still produce a decent, maybe even a good bill. It would seem to me that such a bill would be unquestionably better than no bill, and thus a continuation of the current, broken system which everyone agrees needs reform.
The bottom line is this: Most indicators do not predict a good election cycle for Republicans. The GOP may hold both the House and the Senate (and I hope they will), but they will almost certainly lose a few seats. Barring some unforeseen event, it does not seem likely that Republicans will pick up seats in either house. A narrower GOP majority, or a Democratic majority will probably produce an immigration bill much more akin to the Senate version than the House version. If Republicans want to get any of their provisions into an immigration bill, they better do it now. Otherwise, there’s a good chance the Senate bill will become the law of the land.