It’s never a good day for the White House when, at the start of his evening radio show,
Mark Levin is provoked by a presidential press conference — one lauding a supposed legislative achievement — to complain on behalf of conservatives: “How about not treating us with animosity?”
That conservatives would be upset with the immigration deal was predictable. But the degree of the indignation has been remarkable. Even before there was any deal announced,
Slate’s Mickey Kaus was calling the immigration debacle “Bush’s domestic version of Iraq.” Kaus is no conservative-movement guy, of course, just a smart, clear thinker. Mark Levin, on the other hand, will defend you to the death if you’re good news for conservatism. Yet he sees this deal not only as an egregious betrayal of conservatism, but also as gross incompetence on a political level. (“Is this any way to run a country?” he asked Wednesday night.)
Michelle Malkin frames the pending deal as dangerous. And she was only one among many conservatives doing so.
Rush Limbaugh had Tony Snow on his show Tuesday, but even the best face of the administration couldn’t do it for Rush on immigration. Convinced that it’s not only dangerous, but bad politics for the GOP, he cautioned: “The Democrats obviously want these people to become voters. They’re looking at this in a political sense.”
Wednesday on his show, while watching John McCain stand with Ted Kennedy as a deal was announced, Rush predicted this would prove to be a real “problem” for McCain with conservative primary voters. But the problem’s not just McCain’s; Rush predicted possible 2008
doom for the GOP if this deal is as bad as it sounds.
It is a common view among conservatives.
Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff drew a line in the sand: “Any Republican candidate who is on board with the projected deal should receive no consideration from conservatives as a presidential nominee.” Hugh Hewitt
blogged: “John McCain's antics throughout 2005-2006 cost the GOP the majority in the Senate. Now he’s going to do for Smith, Sununu, Coleman and others what he did for DeWine, Talent and Santorum.” Ouch.
Mark Levin, on Wednesday night, implored: “Do these Republicans ever learn? . . . Do they understand that a majority of the American people, whether they’re Democrats, Republicans, or nothing, have had it up to here with illegal immigration and they don’t want to subsidize it?”
It would seem not. And so I’ll make mention of my e-mailers flirting with consideration of the i-word (yes, as in “impeachment”).
The base, of course, will eventually calm down — a bit. The question is, how much? Was this the last straw? If conservative media is any indication, recovery will be slow.
Laura Ingraham began her show Friday announcing
“I'm trying not to be demoralized.” But after playing tape of Ted Kennedy “waxing triumphant” Thursday, the mood was reminiscent of the morning after Election Day 2005 all over again. And now you can kiss the Senate goodbye, too, if this bill goes through, she said.
It's going to be a long, hot summer on the Right thanks to la Casa Blanca.
A QUICK GUIDE TO EARLY Conservative COVERAGE of the immigration deal
Michelle Malkin is not too happy:
I'm shocked, shocked....via WashTimes...
With friends like the Senate Republicans, who needs enemies?
At least she can say she was right all along:
See, I told you so.
She also gives some numbers:
I repeat:
There have been seven illegal alien amnesties passed into law since 1986:
The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens
1994: The "Section 245(i)" temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty
1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America
1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act
2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]
Guess what? None — not one — of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.
And as I've noted before, there is no such thing as a "temporary" amnesty.
Hugh Hewitt blames McCain and rallies opposition:
John McCain's gift that keeps on giving — the McCain-Kennedy coalition of those blind to border security — is getting close to its unveiling. Calling Rudy, Mitt and especially Fred Thompson: Help stop this bill.
Hewitt’s diagnosis?
Now the greatly reduced Senate GOP caucus is running for cover not realizing that the only cover they have is to stand and fight for enforcement first in the form a fully funded 700 miles of fence, the completion of which —the completion of which— would trigger regularization of illegal aliens in an era of new stiff employer sanctions and counterfeit-proof identification card. The key here is specificity on the triggers, and the vague assurances offered in the talking points are just so many red flags because they are not specific in any way.
John Hinderaker at Powerline is somewhat less pessimistic:
Hugh thinks the projected deal is a disaster, and he may be right. But on paper, at least, I don't think it's so clear. To me, the key is workplace enforcement…. Many people who have studied the illegal immigration problem more than I have believe that this is the key: as long as illegals can make far more money here than in their own countries, no fence will keep them out, whereas if the lure of a good job is gone, so is their reason for coming here. So I put a premium on workplace enforcement.
But not by much:
I'm afraid that no matter what the "compromise" ostensibly consists of, the feature that will actually be implemented is amnesty for the 12 million existing illegals, and everything else will fail when it comes time for implementation. I'm not holding my breath, for example, waiting for the already-mandated fence to be built.
I'd love to be proved wrong, and if enough people get active on the issue, maybe I will be. But if the past is any guide, the fatal flaw in any "comprehensive" solution to the illegal immigration problem is that some of its features will come into being, and others won't.
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline adds:
John's last paragraph captures the problem. The only part of the program a conservative rationally can expect to work is amnesty (or path to citizenship, if you prefer) because it involves bestowing a benefit, one of the few things the government is good at. The enforcement components all require a level of competence that no conservative should expect the government to deliver.
And then he offers this blunt assessment:
Any Republican candidate who is on board with the projected deal should receive no consideration from conservatives as a presidential nominee.
Mickey Kaus isn’t buying the Republican tough-talk:
Many of the alleged concessions—like ending "chain migration" of family members—seem unenforceable in the long run. Are we really going to give citizenship to illegals but prevent them from reuniting with their families? I don't think so.
And how’s this for negativity?
This is looking more and more like the Bush administration's domestic version of Iraq: a big risky gamble, based on wishful thinking and nonexistent administrative competence, that will end in disaster.
And he also rallies opposition:
Here's a form that lets you contact Sen. Kyl's office to tell him whatever you think. In my experience, Congresspersons and Senators are extremely—make that absurdly, almost irrationally—sensitive to calls, emails and letters.
Here’s Rush grilling Tony Snow:
I can hear Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy the next day saying, "How can we be so unkind to charge these people who are working for two bucks an hour, $5,000 they don't have? That is cruel," and try to blame this on the Republicans politically, going into the election, because if fits the mold of mean-spirited, cold-hearted and cruel. The Democrats obviously want these people to become voters. They're looking at this in a political sense.
And afterwards Rush complained:
We're not forcing them to come here! We are not burdening them at all, and yet we respond to their illegal entry by acting like we've done something wrong to them and we need to do something to make it right for them, and it's what's always bugged me. Instead of doing what we can to "make it right" for American citizens and protect the jobs and the work, we seem to be going out of our way. Both parties seem to be bending over backwards and forwards.
Over at Redstate:
The word on Capitol Hill today is that the Senate expects to give members the text of the immigration bill late Friday, with a cloture vote slated for Monday. The bill is expected to run 1,000 pages or more. How fast does the average senator read, much less deliberate?
Remember, nearly three weeks ago, 15 Republican senators asked for at least a week to review the bill. They wanted the bill to be made publicly available online.
More from Redstate:
Senate Democrats and Republicans are working feverishly with the White House to put the finishing touches on an immigration proposal that could be announced later today or tomorrow. The deal would give illegal aliens living in the United States amnesty, according to confidential sources. It would also allow illegal aliens to bring their parents, spouses and children into the United States.
