First, of all, let me say that, at first glance, I think I support this immigration bill. Once I really sit down and understand it, I will have something more detailed to say. But I was struck by Ed Morrissey’s argument about it, as it applies to Mitt Romney:

Will this mollify the hard-liners? It’s unlikely. Hugh Hewitt has called for a grassroots operation to stop the agreement, even though it pretty much matches what his preferred candidate outlined during the last debate: … Well, if this bill has the touchback provision, and it has the Z-visa and the formal guest-worker program, and really secures the border, then it meets his requirements … doesn’t it?

For Romney, this is really going to be an important test. Does he believe what he says? Or is it just political positioning? My money is on just political positioning. But I look forward to being surprised.

Ed continues with a longer critique of the "hard-line" position:

Here’s the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to "they’ll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions." Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration. It’s an argument that only supports no action whatsoever on illegal immigration, including border controls. In fact, it applies to everything Congress passes. If that’s our concern, it’s an argument for non-engagement in the legislative process — which necessarily works through making compromises that the majority in the end can support.

Ed nails it. To win back the majority, Republicans have to stand for something positive. Being the "caucus of no" doesn’t win elections. And it doesn’t demonstrate leadership.

I will write more on the immigration bill, both the policy and the politics later.



Rachel · May 17, 2007 at 8:05 PM

I was considering McCain if Thompson doesn’t jump in.

Now I will never vote for McCain. If he is the nominee, I stay home. I’m done with politics.

Screw em, this deal is worse than Hillary as president.

eye · May 17, 2007 at 8:53 PM

You didn’t know McCain was for this stuff before? I have trouble believing that…

ee2793 · May 17, 2007 at 9:32 PM

“Caucus of no”? When it comes to illegals swarming across the country killing US citizens, the answer is, “No!”

gmship · May 17, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Captain Ed is wrong about Romney’s position because the Z-Visa is not in what Romney support. Romney has responded to this proposed bill saying:

“I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new ‘Z-Visa’ does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.”

eye · May 17, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Amnesty is usually defined as not punishing. Taking $5k and sending someone home is punishment. Ergo it is not amnesty,

Rachel · May 18, 2007 at 10:54 AM

I knew he was for this but I thought that actually talking with voters in Iowa would force him to get a clue. Sam Brownback seems to have seen the light.
McCain is a stubborn fool who hasn’t a chance in hell of getting the nomination after this.

Rachel · May 18, 2007 at 10:55 AM

gmship, Romney is a total fraud on this issue too. Mega flipflops.

sassybax · November 27, 2009 at 1:08 AM

A bit off topic but the new immigration fees are just a daylight robbery. » Romney fails test: Still pandering political fraud · May 17, 2007 at 6:49 PM

[…] Watching the 2008 pre-election « Romney and the immigration bill […]

Comments are closed.