There's a big difference between the arguments, and a lot of it has to do with a point that McCain has repeated on a number of occasions: the fact that McCain, in pursuing bipartisan legislation (not to mention his crusade against earmarks), has sometimes been attacked by members of his own party and the media conservatives, led by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and others, whom openly opposed McCain. I wrote a post a while back where I noted whereas Obama had pointed out that when Bush takes a position on legislation, McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. (Obama does 40% of the time.) But the more critical test is the times one votes with the majority of one's party; on that score, McCain votes about 80% of the time and Obama about 96% of the time. By that measure, Obama is far more partisan than McCain is. Does O'Reilly remember Obama's pretentious claims of a post-partisan atmosphere in Washington? Does O'Reilly remember Obama's claims of being a political reformer but then reneging on a joint promise with McCain on public financing of the campaign, because he discovered he could outraise and hence outspend McCain? Does O'Reilly remember that McCain has, from the get-go, offered more debates and a number of townhalls, and Obama rejected them all?
The Backdrop for 2007 Immigration Reform
The seeds of the current controversy deals with the differing aims of the parties on immigration. Many businesses operate with shortages of available qualified American workers to staff positions in operations or for projected growth. The pro-business Republicans have focused on merit-based immigration, an above-board, low-skilled open guest worker program, and against family-oriented chain immigration. In terms of merit-based immigration, we are looking for highly-educated/skilled professionals whom fill vacancies (e.g., in high tech and nursing) which organizations can't staff with available credentialed Americans. Similarly there are low-skilled, low-paying positions which most Americans don't want (e.g., migrant farm work, hotel and restaurant services, etc.)
There is another group of Republicans whom view undocumented workers as working outside the existing guest worker and immigration system, with Presidential administrations since the last 1986 agreement basically paying lip service to controlling the Southern border. They view it as primarily a law-and-order issue with undocumented workers getting rewarded with possible citizenship for working outside the system and being net beneficiaries of state and local services.
On the Democratic side, Hispanics and other ethnic minorities are considered natural constituencies and regard anti-immigrant attitudes as racially-motivated. Undocumented workers, in fear of being exposed, are often seen as being exploited by employers. Amnesty is seen as a matter of fairness and compassion, with many families having children whom were born in the US, i.e., citizens by birth.
There is another group of (pro-union) Democrats whom regard undocumented workers as a permanent underclass, basically driving down wages for low-skilled occupations. By reducing the number of undocumented workers, they figure that business owners will have no choice but to bid up wages to staff their businesses.
The 2007 Immigration Bill
There were the following major elements:
- Z Visa (Republican concession): Each undocumented worker at the beginning of the year 2007 would be eligible for a Z Visa to work in the country indefinitely (amnesty). After 8 years, the worker could apply for a green card after paying a fine, some back taxes and returning to their home country (Democratic concession). The green card would allow the worker to apply for citizenship after another 5 years.
- Y Visa (Democratic concession): 400,000 low-skilled guest workers, up to 2 years before returning home for minimum 1-year wait
- Merit-based immigration (Democratic concession). End unrestricted chain immigration except for the nuclear family. Do away with current work sponsorship program; replace with a formula for employment, education, English, civics, and extended family connections.
In addition, there was an agreement to increase the number of Border Patrol agents and construct a fence along the open US-Mexico border.
Obama on an intermittent basis was involved in the immigration bill bipartisan effort. There is a filter during the Z Visa process whereby those undocumented workers found to have criminal records are to be deported; I believe Obama won a concession, opposed by Republicans, for the worker to be allowed to stay in the country during the appeal process.
The Senate then moved on to consider a number of amendments, most notable of which are regarded "poison pill" amendments to the legislation. In the drafting of bipartisan legislation, a sponsor/participant is expected to protect the compromises his or her side has made. For example, McCain was expected to support the Republican concessions, i.e., support for the Z Visa "amnesty", even though those votes would be denounced by partisan purists. Similarly, Kennedy, as lead negotiator/sponsor for the Democrats, would be expected to support the compromises he made, which would be opposed by unions and many immigrants unhappy with the end to chain immigration.
McCain has summarized a number of the poison-pill amendments Barack Obama voted for, including Obama's own:
- SA 1169 /Bingaman: halve the number of Y Visa workers PASSED
- SA 1181/Dorgan: kill Y Visa program in 5 years REJECTED
- SA 1202/Obama: kill merit-based preference in 5 years REJECTED
- SA 1267/Bingaman: eliminate Y Visa return home REJECTED
- SA 1316/Dorgan: kill Y Visa program in 5 years PASSED
Notably, Kennedy voted against all 5 Democratic poison pill amendments. The Dorgan amendment was essentially drafted by unions opposed to temporary guest workers. There is a notorious Youtube clip where McCain ally Graham blasted Obama over SA 1202, noting that McCain, he and other Republicans were taking heat from their base; Obama dismissed Graham's rant with a condescending "spare-me-the-histrionics" response.
The final poison pill finally killed the compromise. Technically the bill never got a vote; attempts to bring cloture failed (June 7), and Reid withdrew the bill.
On June 13, there was an agreement to revive the bill with each side allowed to present 11 amendments. On June 18, substitute bill (S. 1639) was introduced and passed cloture 64-35 on June 26 (certain senators agreed to cloture in response to their amendments being presented). Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled a rare Senate procedure, often used by the minority party as a stalling tactic and/or when the number of amendments has been restricted, known as a "clay pigeon" ; this basically is a super-amendment with component divisions (amendments), each of which must be voted upon, with debate limited on any one division. Cloture was used to bar any non-approved amendment.
CQ Today identified two principal poison pills: (1) Republicans Hutchison and Graham wanted a "touchback" provision which required all or head of households of Z Visas to return to their home country, not just those whom wanted green cards (Democrats thought this put an undue burden on undocumented workers; the Republicans wanted this to strengthen the enforcement part of the bill); (2) Democrats Baucus and Obama and Republican Grassley wanted to weaken employer verification requirements for Z Visas.
The following amendments were voted on June 27:
- DIV I/Hutchison: toughened touchback for Z Visas TABLED
- DIV II/Webb: limited eligibility for Z Visa TABLED
- DIV III/Bond: stripped green card eligibility for Z Visas TABLED
- DIV IV/Dodd: loosened family restrictions on green cards TABLED
- DIV VI/Menendez: additional extended family points TABLED
- DIV VII/Baucus: delete REAL ID in employment verification NOT TABLED
(DIV V was a side-by-side with the Dodd amendment and did not receive a separate vote.) The Baucus amendment basically scotched Reid's strategy by returning control to the Senate floor for debate. The anti-immigration Republicans were furious with Reid's tactics to restrict debate, which they considered to be unprecedented and a majoritarian abuse of power, and at least three of them (DeMint, Shelby, and Vitter) voted not to table the Baucus amendment. These senators, of course, given their law-and-order perspective on undocumented workers, clearly would have opposed the Baucus amendment on its merits; their votes were intended to frustrate Reid's maneuvers.
In the meanwhile, late June 26, the House Republicans passed a caucus resolution against the proposed Senate bill 114-23. Speaker Pelosi had indicated that she needed at least 70 Republican votes to pass an immigration bill in the House. House Minority Leader Boehner mentioned after the vote, "House Republicans have been very clear about our priorities. First things first: we must secure our border and enforce our laws."
On June 28, Reid proceeded to a final vote on closure, which lost 46-53 (60 needed), losing almost all Republicans not involved as a bill sponsor.
The Battle of the Ads
By any objective analysis, O'Reilly is wrong in his shallow analysis of the immigration debate. It is true that Obama voted for cloture on the bills, which, if successful, would have kept the bill alive. But he actively worked against each and every Democratic concession to Republicans, including Y Visas (opposed by unions), law enforcement aspects (employer verification, touchback, etc.), and pro-growth merit/skill-based immigration (in favor of continued chain immigration).
For the Republicans, this was a non-starter. If what you have is a perpetuation of low-skilled immigration (where, according to one figure, the average immigrant pays in $1 and gets $3 in benefits), and say, you don't have an improved border protection system and employment verification system, and you don't have an orderly process of non-immigrant low-skilled labor to accommodate business needed, you are perpetuating the same old same old. We'll be revisiting the same issue in 20 years with yet another 12 million or more undocumented workers, another amnesty, etc.
So John McCain essentially had to read the writing on the wall: we can't perpetuate this problem. In essence, he got the message: "borders first and law enforcement". That's basically what he needs to get a critical mass of Republicans to agree with immigration reform.
McCain's ad against Obama on immigration is faithful to the reality of what happened last year: in particular, the Dorgan amendment killed the bill. It would have maintained a de facto black market in unskilled foreign labor.
Obama really doesn't want reform--for all practical purposes, he wants amnesty for undocumented workers plus basically more of the same: chain immigration, no orderly flow of unskilled non-immigrant workers, the burden of proof staying with the government, not the undocumented worker or the employer.
Now as to Obama's demagoguery about McCain backing off on immigration reform and kowtowing to the anti-immigrant media conservatives: You'll find the same basic framework for 2007 Immigration Reform under "border security [and immigration]", but McCain makes it very clear that people whom have worked through the system get priority for the path of citizenship and we can't maintain an indefinite status quo of unprotected borders and a black market of unskilled foreign workers.
