Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

In May of this year Congressman Jim McDermott made a speech in the House of Representatives. It was entitled "The Terrorist We Caught But Won’t Prosecute". In it he demanded that the Bush Administration hand over a terrorist caught on immigration charges to face his conviction in Cuba and Venezuela. He said:

Mr. Speaker, next week Luis Carriles is scheduled to stand trial for allegedly lying to immigration authorities when he entered the United States 2 years ago.

Most Americans have probably never heard of Carriles, but everyone should know the real case against him because it shows the double standard of the Bush administration and its so-called commitment to fight terrorism.

Carriles is being prosecuted for an immigration violation in America, but he has been convicted in other nations for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a commercial Cuban airliner over 30 years ago that killed 33 innocent people. He is a wanted international fugitive. The Bush administration knows this, but instead of turning Carriles over to the sovereign Governments of Cuba or Venezuela, as they have asked, we are going to get him on an immigration violation. [Emphasis added by me.]

You will note that this is the same Congressman who, again in May of this year, introduced a private bill in Congress, HR 2181, to give a green card to Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed, an international fugitive who has been convicted of murder in Bangladesh, with overwhelming evidence, and who has lost all his appeals in front of US courts and has been found to be involved in terrorist activity by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Department of Homeland Security was all set to deport, or as the congressman puts it - was about to turn over Mohiuddin to the sovereign government of Bangladesh - until McDermott introduced his private bill in Congress.

In the case of Mohiuddin, the Congressman was ready to substitute his judgment over the judgment of multiple US courts, the US State Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bangladesh justice system, and the historical documentation. Congressman McDermott succeeded in postponing Mohiuddin’s deportation by one week. However, this week a District Judge once again ruled against Mohiuddin in his bid to try to use the private bill to stay the deportation. Once again Mohiuddin’s deportation appears imminent.

It is ironic that Jim McDermott should be talking about double standards.

Last week I wrote a brief post about Congressman Jim McDermott’s introduction of a private bill, H.R. 2181, that aims to give a green card to convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed. Today the leading Bangladeshi English language newspaper, The Daily Star, published an op-ed written by me about Congressman McDermott’s private bill.

The op-ed is reprinted below:

—–

Congressman McDermott’s support for Mohiuddin
Mashuqur Rahman

On May 31, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the mandate that ended convicted killer AKM Mohiuddin Ahmed’s asylum appeals and made him deportable from the United States. However, the long saga has moved from the courts to the political arena after a congressman introduced a private bill to issue Mohiuddin a green card.

The rationale presented in the bill needs discussion both in the United States and Bangladesh; and it is time to explore whether the United States government should be actively sheltering a convicted murderer.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was set to deport Mohiuddin to Bangladesh on or around June 2. However, Mohiuddin’s lawyers managed to get a temporary stay of deportation from a lower court judge until Tuesday, June 5. A US District Court judge has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday June 5 to consider a stay of deportation.

The hearing will not reconsider the asylum case since the lower court does not have jurisdiction and cannot overrule the Court of Appeals decision. Mohiuddin’s lawyers have, instead, asked the District Court to consider whether Mohiuddin could be deported while there was a private bill on his behalf pending in the US Congress.

On May 3, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was still considering Mohiuddin’s last petition, a Democratic congressman from Washington State, Jim McDermott, introduced a private bill in the US House Judiciary Committee on his behalf. A private bill is a rare legislative procedure in the United States used to pass a law that benefits only one person rather than a class of individuals.

Private bills are sometimes used in immigration cases by members of Congress to grant relief to individuals who, because of an unusual set of circumstances, may be facing deportation from the country. For example, they are sometimes used to give relief to family members who would otherwise be separated if one member were to be deported, causing severe hardship to the rest.

Private bills rarely become laws. To become a law, the bill must first be passed by the US House Judiciary Committee, then by the US House of Representatives, then by the US Senate, and finally must be signed into law by the president of the United States.

The private bill introduced by congressman McDermott, known as H.R. 2181, aims to help Mohiuddin in a number of ways. First, it aims to stay the deportation order against him indefinitely. Second, it aims to release him from custody and bars the DHS from deporting him to Bangladesh, or to any country that has an extradition treaty with Bangladesh.

Third, it aims to grant a green card to Mohiuddin, which would allow him to get preferential treatment before all other green card applicants from Bangladesh. It also aims to grant him the card by reducing the number of green cards available to other Bangladeshis by one. Finally, it states that Mohiuddin will be allowed to seek asylum in any foreign country of his choosing.

Congressman McDermott’s bill also makes some extraordinary "findings." The bill claims that Mohiuddin is an "innocent Bangladeshi citizen." It also claims that the Bangladesh court "erroneously convicted Mr. Ahmed of murder and sentenced him to death." It further claims that the trial and conviction are "sufficiently suspect as to warrant the immediate intervention" by the US government to prevent his deportation.

However, the claims in the bill directly contradict the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision denying Mohiuddin’s petition the court wrote: "Ahmed failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his in absentia murder trial and conviction in Bangladesh was fundamentally unfair and, thus, deprived him of due process of law. Therefore, the IJ properly relied on the conviction." Mohiuddin failed to convince the US court that his trial was unfair.

The court did not find that Mohiuddin was "erroneously convicted," or that the trial was "sufficiently suspect." It felt that it was proper to rely on the conviction in the Bangladeshi court.

Therefore, the congressman’s claim that Mohiuddin is an "innocent Bangladeshi citizen" is not supported by the facts, and is also not something that Mohiuddin was able to convince any court of.

Furthermore, the US State Department has stated that Mohiuddin"s trial — a high profile trial observed by the world community and human rights organizations — followed due process.

The bill also claims that Mohiuddin was merely manning a roadblock on August 15, 1975, and that he "had no knowledge of, nor did he support, the violent coup that erupted that night."

Again, this claim in the bill directly contradicts the 9th Circuit’s ruling. In the ruling the court wrote: "Ahmed is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal for two reasons:

• Because he engaged in terrorist activity,
• Because he assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of others on account of their political opinion. Even his own account of his actions established that he assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of persons on account of their political opinion."
  Perhaps the most inexplicable part of the bill is its reference to the Indemnity Act. The bill states "…when Sheikh Hasina Wajed, daughter of the assassinated prime minister, came to power, and then broke her promise to respect the Bangladeshi constitutional amendment which provided immunity to officers involved in the 1975 coup. Rather, Sheikh Hasina Wajed orchestrated the repeal of the constitutional amendment."

The congressman, in the bill, seems to be advocating immunity for the murderers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family. It is difficult to understand why a US congressman would suggest that repealing of a grant of immunity to murderers of children and pregnant women should be called into question.

Congressman McDermott’s bill is based on false or misleading information. It claims as facts the many arguments Mohiuddin and his supporters have been publicly making, but failed to prove them in US courts of law where facts and evidence count.

By introducing the private bill, congressman McDermott has staked his reputation on the word of a convicted murderer who has been found to engage in terrorist activity by US courts of law.

At a time when the United States is engaged in a global war on terror, a Congressional intervention on behalf of an individual deemed to have engaged in terrorist activity is an extraordinary step.

Given the political sensitivity of the bill, and its awkward position within the war on terror, it is highly unlikely that the bill will ever become law. However, for Mohiuddin to get a stay of deportation the bill does not have to become law.

If the House Immigration Subcommittee takes up the bill and requests a report from the US immigration authorities, it would result in a stay of deportation. All indications are that the Subcommittee has not taken up Mohiuddin’s private bill — if it had, a stay of deportation would have already occurred.

Without such action it will be an uphill battle for Mohiuddin’s lawyers to convince the judge at Tuesday’s hearing to order a stay of deportation. It is almost a certainty that the subcommittee chairwoman will be lobbied hard on behalf of Mohiuddin in the coming days.

Having lost his asylum bid in the US courts, Mohiuddin is now appealing to American politicians to continue to evade justice. American politicians, such as congressman Jim McDermott, are now confronted with a choice between the rule of law and the word of a convicted killer.

By introducing the private bill on behalf of Mohiuddin congressman McDermott may have bought Mohiuddin a few more days of evading justice. But at what cost?

Mashuqur Rahman is a Virginia-based blogger and a member of the Drishtipat Writers’ Collective.

—–

President Bush looked at the polls that he doesn’t read and thought he found the escape hatch. The idea was simple enough: Find an issue, any issue, that will distract the American public from the carnage in Iraq, the scandals in Washington and the erosion of civil liberties all over the American landscape. After the cavalcade of bad news last week and over the weekend, the Administration needed a good prime time Oval Office speech to take control of the news cycle. To that end, Mr. Bush delivered a moribund speech on immigration and border security.

Mr. Bush read off the teleprompter the issue that was billed as the highlight of the speech. He will put 6000 National Guard troops on the border. But then he threw us a curveball by telling us that they won’t actually be doing the guarding. The Guard will support the Border Patrol instead in administrative functions. Apparently, someone must have explained to the President that M-16 slugs embedded in the body of a mother and child crossing the border would make for really bad press.

The other highlight of the speech was Mr. Bush’s call for a tamper proof national ID card for illegal aliens to cut down on the use of forged documents. I am not clear as to what prevents the illegal aliens from now forging driver’s licenses and social security cards and claiming that they are citizens. I suppose in their haste to change the subject the big thinkers in the White House didn’t have time to think this one through.

Mr. Bush is caught between the two wings of his own party. He tried to thread the needle tonight but the only people pleased with his speech are likely to be Democrats on the Hill. Mr. Bush, as he famously stated once, does not do nuance well. There was too much nuance in this speech for his hard-core base of 29%. He had something for everyone. He wanted a comprehensive solution to immigration reform - he offered guns (not quite) and butter. He was not being the decider that the 29% wanted and expected him to be. So, I think the likely outcome of this speech will be that some of the remaining 29% will leave him now.

The early indications from the rabid and the xenophobic appear to suggest that Mr. Bush would have been better served spending the 8 o’ clock hour baking cookies or blowing something up. Michelle Malkin’s post on the speech is entitled "Same old, Same old" and she complains:

The only good thing about watching the speech was getting to watch it in the Fox News green room with Colorado GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, a stalwart immigration enforcement advocate. It was nice to have someone to shake heads along with as empty platitude and platitude was laid on thick.

The ever-charming Debbie Schlussel has not blogged since the speech as she is tied up with Joe Scarborough at the moment. But she did have a preview blog entitled "Immigration BS Eve: A Few Questions for the Prez" where she did not sound all too pleased with this evening’s festivities:

On Immigration Pretense Eve (that means the calm before the giant Presidential immigration BS), we have a few questions for President Bush–in light of his decision to use the National Guard on the border–that we doubt he’ll answer tonight:

[I’ll skip the questions; you can read them on her blog. They are really not all that important.]

…

The best thing that could happen: Bush does not get the amnesty a/k/a guest worker program that he wants and the bill does not pass. If he thinks getting "tough" (for now) on the border will make those of us in his conservative base ease up on our opposition to more amnesty, he’s delusional.

And maybe he is.

Mr. President, I think that your base is leaving you. It is time to turn your weary eyes toward Iran.

I think there is some sort of Illegal Alien Apocalypse happening today. At least that’s what I gather reading the right-winger blogs. I turned on the news and what I saw mostly was parents and children, immigrants and Americans, marching, protesting and being human beings. But of course everyone knows that the main stream media is famously biased toward all things Anti-American. So I turned to the right-wing blogs to tell it like it is.

After reading the blogs of my friends from the right, I have barricaded my front door and installed search lights on top of my roof. The Illegals, Mexicans and Jihadis are expected to invade my neighborhood at any moment. I have stocked up on canned foods, water and duct tape. I am awaiting instructions from Debbie Schlussel as to what I should do next.

Now let me tell you why I am so panicked and what I read. Debbie Schlussel informs me that the Michigan Government has been taken over by Jihadis. In fact, the official Michigan web site apparently not only has documents in Spanish but also in Arabic. As Debbie tells it:

Our home state, Michigan, posts its webpage not just in en Espagnol, but in Arabic, too! All the better to welcome Jihadi illegal aliens to our country with open arms.

Our favorite items in Arabic:

* "Should I Be Suspicous?"

* "Description of DHS Administered Programs"

* Lots of Instructions on Getting IDs and SS#s, as well as Mucho Benefits (Maybe, it should be called "Fraud How-To Page in Arabic" )

Clearly this is a sign of Jihadi infiltration of our Government. Who knows what coded messages might be hidden in that Arabic text. And to think that the State is actually telling people how to apply for licenses and social security numbers - I am beside myself with this waste of tax payer funds. This is clearly a sign of the Apocalypse.

Debbie isn’t finished frightening me yet though. She also has a scoop about the nexus between Illegals and Jihadis in Detroit. After being informed by one of her readers that today was indeed May Day, Debbie also discerned a Communist plot. In true McCarthyite fashion she has also connected the dots between Illegals and Jihadis:

As we’ve lamented, in Michigan, illegal aliens are comprised by a significant number of Muslims, especially from the Middle East, many with Jihadi sympathies.

The only thing I am thankful for is that I live on the East Coast and this Jihadi horde seems to be concentrated in Detroit. But, I am keeping my eye out for any Arab I see. That Shakira and George Mitchell character have always raised my suspicions.

Back at the locust farm, Michelle Malkin is busy chronicling the events of the day. She’s got lots of links you’ll love if you love to hate. One of her links, however,  stands out head and shoulders above the rest.  Congressman Tom Tancredo imagines over at the National Review Online the many benefits of a day without illegal immigrants. He notes the many plusses in his wonderfully xenophobic world:

• Less people in hospital emergency rooms.
• Less people without health insurance.
• Fewer "anchor" babies born in American hospitals.
• Fewer gang members.
• Fewer child molesters.
• Fewer car thieves.
• Fewer methamphetamine addicts.
• Fewer murderers.
• Fewer murderers with suspended licenses.
• Less work for Border Patrol officers.
• States like Colorado would be much richer.
• Less overcrowded classrooms.
• Fewer high school drop-outs.
• Less overcrowded prisons.
• Fewer DUI arrests.
• Fewer SUV rollovers.
• More Americans working in construction.

Wow! Congressman Tancredo really hates undocumented aliens. I’m thinking of a world full of people just like Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel and Tom Tancredo with Lou Dobbs to rule them all. What a wonderful world it would be. Then again, maybe not.

My favorite right-winger is on a mission. Since I find myself at times strangely attracted to her, I thought I would take the opportunity to spread the word on her behalf. Debbie Schlussel is upset that immigrants are planning a work boycott tomorrow. Her little brain has sprung into action to combat this insult to the American way of life. She has found a way to take America back.

Debbie Schlussel wants you to stop eating meat on Monday. That’s right, you heard me - STOP EATING MEAT. My randomly capitalizing friend from the right has a slogan to go along with her campaign: "On Monday, Just Say ‘No’ to Official Meat of Illegals." She wants to hit the illegal immigrants hard by going after America’s meat packers and purveyors of all things meat. Who am I to question the angry one’s logic. She says I obey. She’s mad as hell and she’s not going to take it anymore:

Let’s show them what a day without the customer base of law abiding U.S. citizens would be like. DON’T BUY OR EAT MEAT ON MONDAY!

So all you liberal carnivores  do something for America for a change. Say no to meat, for Debbie’s sake. Let’s take America back one chicken leg at a time!

Now the "Star Spangled Banner" has been translated into Spanish. The producer of the translation, Adam Kidron, argues that now the anthem appeals to a larger immigrant audience:

“The intention of recording ’Nuestro Himno’ (’Our Anthem’ ) has never been to discourage immigrants from learning English and embracing American culture,” Kidron said. “We instead view ’Nuestro Himno’ as a song that affords those immigrants that have not yet learned the English language, the opportunity to fully understand the character of ’The Star Spangled Banner,’ the American flag and the ideals of freedom that they represent.”

I say it’s great that he wants everyone to learn about the ideals of America. However, there are plenty of other ways of achieving that goal. Creating an alternative national anthem seems misguided at best and subversive at worst. I do not see how this misguided translation advances the cause of immigrants or serves their interests. Instead it creates further division in our society.

Of course all this is a prelude to Monday’s looming work boycott by some immigration groups. There are many ironies and absurdities surrounding this event, not the least of which is that these immigrants are fighting for their right to work in this country by boycotting work. Of course the anti-immigration forces are up in arms that these undocumented aliens (who according to them should not be allowed to work and be sent back home) are daring to stop work. Even President Bush got in on the act this morning:

He called on immigrants and activist groups to rethink plans to walk out of work on Monday in protest of congressional efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. "You know, I think it’s very important for people, when they do express themselves, they continue to do so in a peaceful way, in a respectful way — respectful of . . . how highly charged this debate can become," he said, in a Rose Garden news conference he called to tout new figures showing robust economic growth in the first quarter of this year.

God forbid the slave laborers walk out of their work and cause hardship for the slave driving businesses.

All of these goings on makes me wonder if it is time to ratchet down the rhetoric and the divisive behavior. The immigrant groups need to take a deep breath and realize that they are advocating that undocumented aliens who are in this country illegally be given legal status. That status is a privilege that this or any other country grants foreigners within its borders. As such, I would suggest that perhaps confrontation is not the best way to gain that privelege.

The anti-immigration forces on the right also need to step back from their saber rattling and wall building. It is probably time to realize that there is a neighbor called Mexico to the south that the United States must live with. Short of going to war with Mexico (dare I even mention it), a comprehensive solution needs to be found that can address this unchecked flow of immigrants. The solution to the immigration problem does not lie in building a wall but in removing the economic incentive that underlies this migration. That means investment in Latin American economies that make it a reasonable choice for the poor in those countries to stay in those countries.

Of course I suspect, as Polimom suspects, the situation may already be completely out of control. In that case, the only thing left to do is to let the lunatics run the asylum.

On looking back I have written a fair share of posts on Charles Krauthammer from immigration to Iraq. For those, who like me, can’t get enough of Mr. Krauthammer, I offer a veritable feast of Krauthammer:

• Charles Krauthammer Builds A Wall
• Charles Krauthammer’s Neo-Conservative Moment - Or Francis Fukuyama As The Oracle
• Charles Krauthammer Chokes On A Chicken Hawk
• More On The Charles Krauthammer Column
• Charles Krauthammer Lunches With The Ladies Of Bull Run

Ok, maybe the attention I pay Mr. Krauthammer is a sign of hidden affection for this Oracle of the right. I confess to being an avid reader of his columns. So in return here is a big wet kiss.

In 1987 I visited the divided city of Berlin. I like countless other tourists took the opportunity of a day visa to visit communist East Berlin. I traveled through Checkpoint Charlie and across the border into bleak East Berlin. I realized to my surprise that the Berlin Wall was not one wall rather it was two walls with guard towers and assorted tools of oppression filling the space between the two.

One image from my day in East Berlin stays with me to this day. As my companions and I traveled through East Berlin on foot, we came upon some surface rail tracks on a dilapidated side street. Those tracks were interrupted by a wall, the Berlin Wall, that cut through the middle of that street. The next day, back in West Berlin I decided to try and locate the other end of those tracks. Sure enough, on a quiet West Berlin street, the remains of old rail tracks emerged from the west side of the Berlin Wall. So, I did, what every idealistic college student in my position would have done, I proceeded to relieve myself on the Wall.

Fast forward nineteen years and we find that the architectural wonder that was the Berlin Wall still inspires armchair wall builders amongst us. Charles Krauthammer again uses the pages of the Washington Post to exercise his ample but confused mind. Krauthammer believes that a wall on the Mexican border is just what we need to keep those pesky Mexicans out and law-abiding citizens in:

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won’t do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can’t be done? Israel’s border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.

The first thing that came to my mind was that Krauthammer must really have done some study of the Berlin Wall and must have learned those lessons well. But then he warned us with incredible mind reading capability not to make that very obvious comparison:

And don’t tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that’s an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.

I’m sorry Charles but I guess I don’t see this as very neighborly. The two examples you cite, of Israel and North Korea, refer to states or entities in a state of war with their neighbors. Last time I checked, we were not at war with Mexico. Perhaps you believe we should be at war, but that really is another topic of discussion.

Mr. Krauthammer then generously offers to grant amnesty to the undocumented aliens already here. But not just yet. He wants to build the wall first, see how things go for say about two years, and then grant these unfortunate souls amnesty. Gee thanks Charles:

To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.

His proposal, though he may think it clever, is moronic at so many levels that my mind may explode to try to write down all of them. To save myself an aneurysm, I will only mention the most obvious one.

I wonder if Krauthammer realizes that the Berlin Wall attempted to divide a city, not to build a wall between two countries with a vast shared land border. Perhaps math is not his forte, but I should point out that he should get his calculator out, hire some land surveyors, and a good therapist, and figure out the logistics involved and the costs involved in building his wall. While he is at it, he might want to consider how to guard against invasion by sea from poor Mexicans. Perhaps a giant wall in the sea? I wonder if he remembers the Mariel Boat Lift from 1980 when Cubans came by sea by the thousands.

I suggest to Mr. Krauthammer and anyone else interested in genuine border control that perhaps they should ask two very simple questions.

• Why are people from Mexico coming to the United States?
• Will undocumented immigrants from Mexico wait in line to be guest workers instead of coming across the border illegally?

I think the answers are simple. People come across the border because there is work here that pays significantly better than the Third World wages they get in Mexico. There is also no reason to suspect that an expanded legal immigration path will stem the flow of undocumented immigrants coming from Mexico. I can’t see any reason when someone in Mexico is desperate for work, they would not do everything possible to make it to the United States regardless of whether it was legal or not.

Anyone serious about border control, and not just looking for cheap labor, clearly has to address the economic conditions in Mexico. As long as there is such a great disparity in economic conditions between these two neighbors, you can reasonably expect that Mexicans looking for work will find a way to get here to earn a living they otherwise cannot do in Mexico.

So, Mr. Krauthammer and the rest of you, put down your brick and trowel and use your ample but misguided minds to come up with an economic development plan for Mexico that will in the end benefit the United States greatly.

Once you have done that, you can then start thinking about smart border control using advanced technology and the considerable human intelligence skills of our Border Control personnel. You can also then with confidence legalize the millions of undocumented immigrants already here.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- The New Collosus by Emma Lazarus

  

---

 The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved bipartisan legislation that would create a guest worker program and allow the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States to legalize their status and ultimately apply for naturalization. At its core, this legislation recognizes the obvious - that undocumented immigrants, primarily from Latin America, have become a part of the social and economic fabric of this country. The bill also includes provisions for strengthening Border Patrol and increasing the number of green cards available for skilled workers.

The bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is vastly different from the draconian bill passed by the House in December. Most notably, the House bill does not contain a guest worker program and is wholly focused on tougher enforcement. The House bill proposes to make undocumented aliens felons and to make aiding an undocumented alien a felony.  Sec. 274(a)(1) of the bill criminalizes actions of those who:

(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the United States, where the transportation or movement will aid or further in any manner the person’s illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States;

The two bills reveal the split within the Republican Party between the pro-business wing and the anti-immigration wing. What initially looked like a political winner for the Republicans in the 2006 elections now appears to be far murkier. The Sensenbrenner/Frist wing had hoped to appeal to the baser instincts of the voters by connecting the dots (not too subtly) from undocumented immigrants, to criminals, to terrorists. Although it plays well on right wing radio it is not clear whether the public’s fear of another terrorist attack can be manipulated into an anti-immigration platform and finally into votes in November. The Republican hope is that this will be the same kind of wedge issue in 2006 that gay marriage was for the Republicans in 2004.

I think it is highly unlikely that the House version of the bill would ever pass both chambers (and vice versa). The pro-business Republicans in the Senate would not allow it. However, the controversy generated by this issue and the stark choices will make for good election year politicking. Expect to see Republicans beat the drum pretty hard on this issue if they start getting traction with the voters, but also expect to see no legislative action. Either the bill stalls in the Senate or the two bills become comatose in conference. When you cannot run on your record and have to run away from the President, appealing to the baser instincts of the electorate always seems like a good idea.

So, where does that leave the very real issue of immigration reform? Nowhere, I’m afraid. The urgent need to balance the right of a nation to secure its borders and the great tradition of this country to welcome people seeking a better life will not be addressed this election year. The 11 million undocumented immigrants and the American public will spend another year out in the cold.