Blue Crab Boulevard

Another Leftourette Moment

My friend Jim Lynch calls it Leftourette Syndrome. That's the propensity of the Democrats to , for the children, shout out at odd moments, for the children, on whatever matter may be under discussion, for the children, the phrase "for the children'. So it was today when Harry Reid and his lead flak, Dick "Useless" Durbin tried to ram the DREAM Act through the Senate - for the children. Albeit for the children who should not have been here in the first place. The effort failed - and for good reason. Senate Democrats up for reelection helped vote it down, knowing it was pure poison back home. Tom Curry at MSNBC points out that there are lessons in the defeat. If the Republicans are smart enough to listen.

The vote was a significant leading indicator for 2008 of the potency of illegal immigration as an election issue.

Illegal immigration remains at a legislative impasse — and that may be a good thing for GOP chances since the party’s base in the South and West tends to be vehemently opposed to any accommodation with illegal immigrants.

In his post-vote assessment, the Dream Act’s chief sponsor, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it’s tough this year, it’s tougher next year.”

Some senators, he said, “are running scared” on the illegal immigrant issue.

“Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least,” Durbin told reporters.

Twelve Republicans joined most Democrats in voting to proceed.

Two of the Republican senators in competitive races next year, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine, voted to push ahead with the bill.

But two other GOP senators in tight races, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted against it.

Curry points to a real problem for politicians up for reelection in 2008. The voters are angry about illegal immigration. Very angry. Why? Because, quite simply, the Senate was trying to give people who came here illegally better benefits than people who were born here.

The bill would have allowed illegal immigrants, if they passed background checks and became permanent legal residents, to qualify for lower in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities, a point cited by Sen. Kent Conrad, D- N.D, who voted “no.”

Conrad explained that from his constituents in North Dakota, “I was hearing, ‘wait a minute, this is more generous than what we’re doing for people who were born in this country.’ And it’s certainly commendable to want to give this kind of educational assistance to people. But how can you justify that when we don’t do it for people who were raised in our country?”

I said last year that the first party to get control of illegal immigration would win. The Republicans did not do it in 2006 - if they get their act together, they can have a winner of an issue in 2008. If they are smart about it, they can present it as a high fence with a wide gate that helps protect legal immigrants from the undermining efforts of illegal immigrants.

There is no reason at all that we cannot have a secure border and a welcoming legal immigration system. All it takes is political will - and votes. The message from today's DREAM Act rejection is that the votes are there. For a party smart enough to collect them.

Immigration Reform | Gaius Wednesday, 24 October , 2007

By feeblemind, Wednesday, 24 October , 2007 @ 9:38 pm

I think this is an issue where the repubs could make significant headway. Problem is there is significant minority of repubs that believe in open borders. So what position will the party take next year?
By Mwalimu Daudi, Wednesday, 24 October , 2007 @ 10:00 pm

There is no reason at all that we cannot have a secure border and a welcoming legal immigration system.

Exactly!
By Sam L., Thursday, 25 October , 2007 @ 7:17 am

Leftourette–what a great construction!
By Gaius, Thursday, 25 October , 2007 @ 7:27 am

It’s for the children, after all……
By Bill A., Thursday, 25 October , 2007 @ 8:53 am

Why the hurry to fast-track illegals and their children? Why indeed provide them more benefits under our system than our own legal citizens enjoy? Have the sponsors of these bills essentially decided to “write-off” America’s “legal” poor? Why aren’t we focusing on measure to improve their collective chances of success? Wouldn’t that be in our best interest instead of creating yet another incentive for more illegal immigration? Oh wait - I can’t ask these questions - if I do I must be a racist…