Will There Be a November Surprise?

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Immigration was a red-hot issue in Congress last month, and it's a red-hot issue in the upcoming elections in November. What does all this mean for those fighting and hoping for reforms that respect immigrants, reward work, restore rights and reunite families?

First, let's look at what Congress did and didn't do.

In September, the House Republican leadership aggressively moved to enact sweeping anti-immigrant measures cherry-picked from the Sensenbrenner bill (HR4437). It had them approved by the House and then tried to attach them to must-pass appropriations measures. Fortunately, this enforcement-only push was thwarted on a bipartisan basis by Senate supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.

Even though "Sensenbrenner-lite" was thwarted, both chambers did approve another immigration measure. We like to call it the Fence to Nowhere bill. The official name is the Secure Fence Act. But since it's now clear that the full 700 miles of fencing the bill calls for is unlikely to ever be built, we've given it a more accurate name.

Here's why the full 700 miles of fence is unlikely to be built:

NOT ENOUGH MONEY: In Washington parlance, the Secure Fence Act was an "authorization" bill, not an "appropriations" bill. As Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) candidly admitted, "It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it." At most, the current budget allows for some 90 miles of additional fencing.

IT WON'T WORK: Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol, Customs and state and local officials along the border all recognize that 700 miles of fence might sound good in Washington, D.C., and on talk radio in the heartland, but not on the border. Most will oppose a 700-mile fence either quietly or openly. To the extent resources are made available, look for more agents and technology, not double fencing.

IT'S THE POLITICS, STUPID: The so-called Secure Fence Act was enacted not for policy reasons but for political reasons. The vote wasn't about border protection, but about incumbent protection. Some members of Congress voted for it to fool voters into believing they "are doing something" about border security. Others voted for it so they wouldn't have to face 30-second campaign ads saying they voted against border security. But trust me on this: Very few of those who voted for the bill actually believe the fence will be built or that it will work.

More
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7a77cb38696f50e72f92efbb9c356ffa