House vs. Senate: battle royal: the Bush-Kennedy guest-worker/amnesty locomotive is headed for a "brick wall"; liberal immigration advocates wilt as public outrage grows.

The battle for immigration reform and border security has now shifted from the congressional cloak rooms to the congressional districts, and from Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., to Main Street, U.S.A.

The Senate's passage, on May 25, of S. 2611--a "comprehensive" bill that included amnesty and guest-worker provisions--broke a congressional deadlock that had been hanging fire since last December. The Senate bill will now have to be reconciled with the House-passed bill, H.R. 4437. The House bill provides much-needed border security and stricter enforcement measures against illegal immigration, but does not include the dangerous amnesty, guest-worker, and immigration quota increases that are central to S. 2611. If and when the Senate and House conferees reconcile S. 2611 and H.R. 4437 into a new version, known as a conference report, then both houses must vote on this version before it would become law.

At this point, key House and Senate leaders on this issue publicly appear to be at an impasse, unwilling to yield on their major differences. This process could stretch out until a "lame-duck" session after the elections in November. However, it could also change very quickly, especially since President Bush has already put the White House's considerable resources behind the Senate version and is now personally campaigning for it.

The Battle Lines 

Naturally, the major liberal media organs have lined up behind the Senate version. The New York Times editorially praised the Senate vote on S. 2611 as "an immigration victory" and said, "Americans should be proud of what the United States Senate did this week." The Times extolled the Senate bill as "thoughtful," "humane," and "realistic." The Senate vote, the Times noted, "has given the cause of immigration reform a lot of momentum, which it will need since it is now heading for a brick wall: the House of Representatives."

Opinion polls, as well as reports from congressmen fresh from town hall meetings with constituents, indicate that voters overwhelmingly favor the House's approach and are outraged with the Senate's proposals to vastly increase legal immigration levels while also rewarding those who have flouted our laws. With November elections fast approaching, even some of the most liberal immigration advocates are jumping onboard the "brick wall" bandwagon. As the Washington Times reported on May 25, "Liberal House Republicans are taking an increasingly tough stance on immigration reform and are more determined than ever to delete the portions of the Senate bill that grant citizenship rights to more than 10 million illegal aliens."

The Washington Times went on to report on the rude awakening of Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, who was correctly identified as "one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress." The Times story noted that Shays made an abrupt about-face on the issue after repeatedly running into a buzz saw at meetings in his district. "There is not much tolerance for allowing people to become citizens who came here illegally," Shays reportedly said.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, the former chairman of the House Republican Campaign Committee, experienced similar public venting on immigration in his northern Virginia district. "It is the hottest issue out there," he said, referring to public reaction nationwide. "Everywhere I go, even the ethnic groups, everybody is talking about this." Polling, he said, shows "better than 2-to-1" support for the House bill over the Senate bill.

At a breakfast with reporters on May 24 sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Mr. Davis indicated that it is a common misperception in Washington--especially among the press--that only right-wingers are up in arms over our out-of-control immigration process. "This is not just hard-right conservatives," he said. "These are seniors, these are liberals. Everybody thinks the border ought to be enforced, the rule of law should be preserved."

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, is optimistic that the rising public concern over our immigration crisis will force Congress to block the Senate version. "When we fought this same battle 20 years ago, there was public concern, but not the sense of dire urgency that is so evident and widespread today," he told THE NEW AMERICAN. "The politicians promised back then that in exchange for amnesty they would finally secure our borders. They got their amnesty, but utterly betrayed us on enforcement--and have continued to do so ever since. People are not willing to trust the politicians' promises again on this issue."

Congressional Quarterly (CQ) noted in a May 25 article that Senate passage of S. 2611 was only made possible after President Bush stepped in to help the liberal Democrat side headed by Sen. Ted Kennedy. "The prospects for a bill nearly crashed in April ... [and] were revived only after Bush brought a bipartisan group to the White House for a pep talk," CQ reported. CQ quoted Senator Kennedy, who called the group who had gone to the White House "a band of brothers, Republican and Democratic alike, who saw the importance of passage of this legislation, saw that America needed to relight the golden lamp, and that is what the United States Senate has done today."

Pro-amnesty Legislation

Here, in brief, is what the Kennedy-Bush "band of brothers" has produced in S. 2611:

* Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in a complicated formula based on how many years they have been in the United States. With manpower and budget restraints and the proliferation of document forgery, these distinctions will be impossible to investigate, administer, and enforce. The result will be--as was the case with the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty--wholesale approval of millions of amnesty applicants.

* Special Agricultural Workers amnesty for an estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens. Again, the 1986 IRCA amnesty also included a special SAW amnesty for agricultural workers, which was rife with fraud and ended up granting amnesty to many who did not even meet the already overly-liberal conditions of the bill.

* Guest-worker provisions that will flood the United States with millions of "temporary" low-skill and high-skill workers (with no provisions to assure their departure at the end of their terms of employment). They will be able to bring in family members as well as be eligible to apply for permanent status and citizenship.

In return for these devastating provisions, S. 2611 proposes to increase Border Patrol and Customs personnel. However, the proposed increases are not nearly sufficient and would be phased in over many years, when they are desperately needed now. And, based on past decades of repeated broken promises, it is foolish to believe that even these inadequate increases would ever materialize. S. 2611 also would authorize building of 370 miles of border fence.

If voters continue to turn up the heat on Congress, more House and Senate members will, like Rep. Shays, see the light and vote to finally begin securing our borders and restore some semblance of sanity to our immigration policies.