Why “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” Won`t Go Forward: Obama`s Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

In January, I wrote two columns (here
and
here
) predicting that I don`t see “comprehensive
immigration reform”
on the horizon any time soon.

But since political sands always shift and because I sense that
among my

patriotic immigration reform colleagues
a

foreboding
once again overwhelms them, I`ll return to
why I feel amnesty remains unlikely even in light of the recent
unpleasant events.

Understandably, we`re nervous.

After all, we lost—albeit narrowly, 50-47—the motion to table
Alabama Senator
Jeff
Session`s amendment
to extend
E-Verify
for five years.

And on top of that disappointing setback, we`ve been subjected
to non-stop stories and

editorials
about

U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez`s
nationwide
crying
towel
tour to

shine the spotlight
on illegal aliens` imagined plights,
demands that

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio
get the boot for enforcing
federal immigration law and the
Hispanic
Caucus`
meeting with
President
Barack Obama
which it deceptively described as hugely
successful.

I fully agree that all the ink the other side gets is
troublesome. But this pro-alien publicity is business as usual
as far as we`re concerned. It doesn`t for a second change the
underlying facts: the Treason Lobby does not
have the
Senate votes
to pass
comprehensive
immigration reform
.

If the Senate is so engulfed in turbidity that it decides to
introduce legislation that promotes amnesty in any way, shape or
form, it will fail–and it also may have the wonderful side
effect of bringing down in 2010
some of the
worst
Congressional advocates for amnesty.

Here, as of today, is how things shape up.

From reading and analyzing various immigration law websites,
I`ve assembled a composite picture of how our opponents evaluate
their position in the wake of what it perceives as its
E-Verify
victory
.

What follows here is a cobbled together version of their
opinion, not mine
.


  • When

    Sessions`
    amendment was brought to the floor,

    Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy
    , Chairman of the

    Judiciary Committee
    (which will mark up CIR and other
    immigration bills) made a motion to table the amendment (in
    other words, to kill it without a direct vote on the amendment).
    This motion was agreed to by

    a vote of 50 yeas to 47 nays
    .
    Put another way, the anti-alien lobby was defeated by 2 votes.


  • When the time
    comes for the crucial cloture vote on CIR,
    Senate
    Majority Leader Harry Reid
    has the support of his caucus,
    even if it disagrees on the underlying bill.


  • Usually,
    majority leaders possess that support. In recent weeks, Reid has
    “valiantly stood up” to the anti-immigration lobby.
    Furthermore, many of the usual champions of immigration in the
    Republican Party will vote for cloture for CIR, lessening
    Reid`s
    reliance on the few Democrats who might defect.


  • Since E-Verify
    is crucial to the anti-immigration lobby, it is necessary for
    the proponents of immigration to hold it over as a bargaining
    chip when the time for CIR arrives, perhaps in late summer.


  • The Democratic
    leadership`s plan to now move on to
    health care reform
    (with a possible detour into yet
    another stimulus bill to come), and after that to take up
    immigration reform.


  • The Senate
    appears ready although House leadership is lukewarm. But the
    House is unlikely to drop the ball if the Senate drops it into
    its lap. While many believe that concerns about the economy may
    hold up
    immigration reform
    , Congress has now postponed action on
    immigration for so long despite the immigration
     lawyers` opinion,
    expressed on ILW.com, that

    “no further deferral is politically possible or wise.”

But obviously, the immigration lawyers underestimate the
“anti-immigration lobby,”
and completely misinterpret the
two swing votes.

(Remember as you read on that a “no” vote represents a
“yes”
for E-Verify.)

When you

analyze the vote closely
, seven Democrats joined Republicans
in their “No” vote.

On a straight vote, we probably would have won. None of the 47
who supported our side would have defected. And at least a small
handful would have found it too politically embarrassing to vote
directly against E-Verify—thereby insulting American workers
both employed and unemployed.

What killed Session` motion was backroom political maneuvering
that led
Reid
and Leahy to table it.

Reid`s agenda is to shove through huge Democratic
spending
bills
during Obama`s
honeymoon
period
. In other words, get the billions while the getting
is at its best.

Sessions` amendment provided a distraction that
Reid
wouldn`t tolerate.

Too many Obama Democrats—even though they support E-Verify—saw
Sessions` amendment as a Republican effort to slow down Reid`s
spending bill.


Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter
may have cast one of the
most telling “no” votes on the E-Verify amendment.
Specter never votes with us. But this time he did.

Specter`s change of heart is easily understood. He knows—as do
all the other 99 Senators—that Americans support E-Verify and
the protection for American workers that it insures.

In 2010, Specter (along with

36 other Senate seats
) is
up
for re-election
. He`ll face a tough primary challenge that,
if he survives it, will take him into an even tougher general
election.

The last thing that Specter wants is to appear weak to
Pennsylvania voters on American jobs.

To sum up, I`ll return to the immigration lawyers to count all
the other places where they`re wrong.



  • E-Verify is too important to Americans to be used as a “bargaining
    chip
    “—and the Senate knows it.




  • Comprehensive immigration reform doesn`t have to be debated in “late
    summer”
    or at any other pre-determined time despite the
    claim that postponing further would be “unwise”. In fact,
    the appetite for a long, heated Senate fight over immigration
    would be least likely if it were proposed immediately following
    health care—certain to be divisive and futile given that the
    government is broke.





  • Why is

    the House
    “unlikely to drop the ball“—meaning it
    would not pass a Senate amnesty sent to it for approval? Where`s
    the supporting evidence for that claim?






  • One more thing—to pass amnesty, the Senate needs 60 votes. If it
    had a deep commitment to immigration reform, more than 50 would
    have voted “yes” on Sessions` tabling motion.

Finally, I must comment on the supremely annoying Hispanic
Caucus. (Watch the Coalition for the Future American Worker
video here
that targets

Gutierrez`s anti-American agenda
.)

Maybe you can get some much-needed good laughs out of this.

The Main Stream Media reported that during Obama`s meeting with
the Caucus, he renewed his “campaign
promise to tackle the immigration system.”



Gutierrez
came away saying: "The president said more than
any of us expected him to say. He was clear, eloquent and
determined in letting us know that we`re all together on the
route to comprehensive immigration
reform."
[President
Barack Obama Promises to Tackle Immigration System
,
by
Laura Isensee, Dallas Morning News, March 18, 2009]

But here`s a more telling account from

CongressDaily
.


Its March 19 story titled “I
mmigration:

Hispanic Caucus Says Obama Will Back Its Push for Overhaul
Measure This Year
,”

by Chris Strohm and George E. Condon Jr.,
included these paragraphs (emphasis added): 



  • “A congressional aide said Obama committed to work with the
    Hispanic Caucus and `start the process` of holding
    meetings
    and forums on immigration reform
    within the next few months
    .”

     


  • “A White House aide said Obama will make a public statement
    on immigration reform `at some point.` But
    discussions at Wednesday`s meeting did not go into detail
    on the format for immigration forums, the aide added.”

And



  • “It was not clear, however, if the White House would
    push congressional leaders to actually take up
    immigration reform legislation
    this year.”

This is where comprehensive immigration reform really is:
eventually a “process” will begin to hold “meetings
and forums.”
And “at some point,” Obama will make a
“public statement” even though today there are “no
details.”


Sounds to me like the old

check-is-in-the-mail
double speak. No one on the other side
should be holding his breath.

But should you have any remaining doubts about what Obama thinks
about the Caucus, take a close look at his body language shown
in

this photo
taken during the meeting.


Body language experts
interpret that a hand placed over the
mouth, as Obama is pictured doing, indicates negative impulses
and disapproval. (Even more damning, it appears that other
Hispanic participants are sleeping soundly.)


According to the experts, Obama looks like
“Comprehensive
Immigration Reform”
is the last thing on his mind.

Joe Guzzardi
[email
him]
is a California native
who recently fled the state because of over-immigration,
over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He
has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the
growth rate stable.
A
long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School,
Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It
currently appears in the


Lodi News-Sentinel.