May 3, 2006
Who Sabotaged the Immigration Bill? Posted by John Steele Gordon at 04:30 PM EST Joshua Zeitz wrote, “First, when I hoped that ‘in the coming weeks, a coalition of Democrats and principled conservative Republicans like John McCain and Sam Brownback can revive hopes for a sane immigration bill,’ I meant just what I wrote. Mr. Gordon is incorrect in his assertion that Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, both Democrats, scuttled the bipartisan immigration bill. It was a group of conservative Republicans who scuttled it, by insisting on last-minute amendments that would essentially destroy the compromise ironed out by leading members of both parties, most notably, John McCain and Edward Kennedy.” Mr. Zeitz’s assertion—which, in typical I’m-a-liberal-therefore-I’m-right fashion, he doesn’t bother to support with even a scintilla of evidence—is flat wrong. On April 8, the day after the compromise collapsed, The New York Times reported that “Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, an author of the bipartisan proposal, said the issue ‘will not go away.’ He said he held [Senate minority leader] Mr. Reid responsible for the legislative breakdown because of his refusal to allow conservative opponents of the legislation an opportunity to offer amendments. Mr. McCain and Mr. Kennedy said they had the votes to defeat those proposals and protect the underlying bill.” The next day, the Times editorialized that “the Democrats’ motives were undoubtedly less than pristine.” On April 10 the Times reported that “in a meeting Thursday evening in Mr. Reid’s office, Mr. Kennedy argued for moving ahead with the bill, confident that the votes were there to beat back objectionable changes and that the debate could build momentum for the measure. Mr. Reid and his leadership team countered that the amendments were meant to derail the bill. They feared that without some assurances by Mr. Frist on negotiations with the House, the bill could be hijacked by Republicans. Mr. Kennedy lost.” On April 8 the Wall Street Journal reported that “Mr. Reid’s downside can be his political cunning—and frequent disdain for Mr. Frist—that even admirers sometimes find cynical and unattractive. The Democrat spoke movingly Thursday of how immigrants in Las Vegas hotels needed the new immigration bill; hours later, he refused to help Mr. Frist solve some of his problems with Republicans to advance the compromise.” Later in the same article, the reporter David Rogers reported that, “Sen. Specter [chairman of the Judiciary Committee] made a similar argument, saying that Democrats want to undermine the Senate compromise so that the only Republican bill before the public is the narrower House measure, which is generally harsher on immigrants and the subject of Hispanic protests. ‘There is an advantage to Democrats to have only the House bill before the public,’ Mr. Specter said. ‘The view is—and I think it is an accurate view—that that is harmful to the Republican Party.’ . . . The Senate compromise is a ‘vast improvement’ he said. But ‘it has not gone forward because there is a political advantage to the Democrats to not have an immigration bill.’” On April 8, the Washington Post, not a right-wing rag or Republican cheerleader, editorialized that, “Democrats—whether their motive was partisan advantage or legitimate fear of a bad bill emerging from conference with the House—are the ones who refused, in the end, to proceed with debate on amendments, which is, after all, how legislation gets made. The unfortunate result is that momentum toward balanced reform may be lost. ‘The Democratic leadership played politics with the prospect of 10 million immigrants getting on a path to citizenship,’ said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration group. ‘It seems that Democratic leaders wanted an issue, not a bill.’” The Washington Post editorial continued, “The measure wasn’t perfect, and certainly there are risks in going to conference with the House and its enforcement-only approach. But Democrats putting political self-interest over solving a serious policy problem ought to worry that their actions will backfire with the very people whose interests they are purporting to protect.” So let’s see, Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, Frank Sharry, and the Washington Post all state or clearly imply that the compromise fell apart because of the Democrats and even The New York Times said that they had unclean hands. Mr. Zeitz has so far offered only an ex cathedra statement to the contrary. Not very impressive, but perhaps the best he can do under the circumstances. Further he writes, “The Senate Democrats are united in supporting conditional amnesty for most illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, along with stronger border-control measures. It’s the Republican party that’s deeply divided on this question. Half of the party supports conditional amnesty, on both pragmatic and deeply-felt religious grounds. The other half reflexively opposes immigration.” First, so what that the Democrats are mostly united and the Republicans are deeply divided on the question of immigration? That has no relevance to the discussion at hand, unless he means to imply that all the Democrats are virtuous and half the Republicans are Satan’s minions for holding an opinion on the subject that differs from his (and mine, by the way). The opposite was true in the 1940’s, ’50s, and ’60s on the question of civil rights. Second, accepting Mr. Zeitz’s nose count that all the Senate Democrats were in favor of the bill under consideration as were half the Republicans, then that means 45 Democrats plus 27 or 28 Republicans favored the compromise. That equals 72 or 73 votes in favor. So what did Senator Reid have to fear from the amendments that the other 27 or 28 Republicans wanted to propose? As Senator Kennedy (a liberal Democrat last time I checked) said, they had the votes to defeat them. Finally, he states, “Mr. Gordon and I have tangled before on political questions, but it would be a real stretch for him to spin this issue any other way. Democrats are in favor of liberal immigration policies; Republicans are divided on the question.” The use of the word “spin” in this context is not a word one historian should use regarding another historian’s presumptively honest opinion, unless he means it as a deliberate insult and has not the courage to do it directly. The word inescapably implies a lack of regard for the truth. If Mr. Zeitz wishes to accuse me of what would be professional malfeasance, he is free to do so in so many words. I hope he will provide at least a soupçon of evidence to back up his statement.
| 
