Could McCain's nomination mean an immigration deal this year?

Greg Siskind has come up with a scenario that argues Democrats should be tempted, now that John McCain is the likely Republican nominee, is to rush an immigration bill through this year.

"Do you think the GOP is going to allow their rank-and-file members to attack their nominee day in day out over the immigration issue? If they do, the results could be disastrous as McCain will be going around the country trying to unite a very fractured party that is already pretty suspicious of his conservative bona fides. Can you imagine one Republican after another having to come to the microphone to denounce the McCain-Kennedy bill (and that's what Reid and Pelosi need to call it every chance they get)? And then McCain being dogged by reporters asking about it multiple times each day?"

In his scenario, immigration could also be the tail that wags the dog — a way for Democrats to distract from their own intraparty presidential battle, particularly if the Clinton-Obama race goes all the way to a convention.

"[T]hrowing the immigration 'grenade' and stirring up the immigration storm in the GOP may make the Democrats bickering look pretty tame," he writes, adding that that would put pressure on Republican leaders to cut a deal on Democrats' terms to keep their own fight under wraps. Siskind says bringing back the bill this year "would have virtually no drawbacks" for Democrats.

It's an intriguing scenario, though it doesn't strike me as working out as easily as he puts it. In the first place, McCain has had to shift somewhat, embracing both an enforcement-first position that his own campaign manager says is now the consensus of the party. It would be impossible for McCain to back away from that now.

Second, it wasn't just Republicans that killed the bill. More than a dozen Democratic senators were happy to have a chance to vote against it, and on the House side, plenty of conservative-leaning Democrats will be begging their leaders not to go Siskind's recommended route.

Still, given that McCain has said he still supports the bill he wrote with Sen. Ted Kennedy — yet also says that bill is dead — Democrats must be at least a little tempted to prove him wrong and bring it back, just to see what he does.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Audio: Listen to the interview

Is immigration a dead issue now in politics? After Sen. John McCain acknowledged his stance on the issue nearly killed his campaign last summer, his campaign manager now says they've reached "convergence," where the Republican Party shares the same view. That, said Rick Davis, the campaign manager, has helped immigration "mature" into a non-issue:

"I do believe that the convergence of our party on sort of a single approach to immigration is part of what has done that. In other words, today, there's a different debate going on than there was a year ago. And I think that part of that is because Senator McCain went out and exercised a position on this issue, vigorously, that didn't work. And he was not able to pass a piece of legislation that addressed the issue in away that he thought would benefit the country the most. Part of the message he got was how little confidence the American people have in the institution of Congress and the administration to implement that law. I don't think there's much other reason — you can debate the merits of it from a public policy point of view, but clearly the American public opposed it because I don't think they thought anything was going to get done. Now the issue is, we need to exert every resource we can as a government, whether Congress or the administration, to get control of our border before we can effectuate a real change in our immigration plans."

"It doesn't even come up in conversations. You hear a lot of things, immigration's not one of the hot topics anymore. So wihtin our own party I think that issue has matured into something that's less divisive."

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona features beautiful views, open spaces, well-maintained roadways, sprawling oak trees, a pleasant climate, lots of wildlife, and drug and alien smugglers. In fact, visitors to the tax-supported national forest are greeted with an entrance sign that says, "Travel Caution: Smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area."

And the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 12,000 of the agency's non-supervisory agents, is not happy about it.

"There's tons of trash, shootings, stolen cars, shooting and a pit in your stomach if you dare take your family there for a 'relaxing' day, weekend, or vacation," the council's Local 2544 in Tucson posted on its Web page. "Needless to say, it's almost always bereft of the good, solid, taxpaying American citizens who should be enjoying it."

If Sen. John McCain, the Republican whose home state is Arizona, should become president, Local 2544 believes there will be another huge amnesty program and "the rest of America can start looking forward to these types of 'recreational' areas as well." Local 2544, which has bitterly opposed the McCain candidacy, also noted that "a Border Patrol agent and a fine family man" was killed in broad daylight by a drug smuggler in another recreation area last month, the Imperial Sand Dunes about eight miles west of the Arizona-California border.

"Thanks for your support Sen. McCain. Please keep selling us out so we can look forward to more deaths, more rockings, more shootings, more assaults and more mayhem. If McCain can contribute to this much mayhem in his 'home' state by encouraging millions more illegal aliens to come here with incessant pandering and promises of future massive amnesty programs, just think of the damage he can do as your president," the local said.

— Jerry Seper, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Get ready for another immigration fight: Greg Siskind, one of the top immigration lawyers in the county, reports in his immigration bulletin that the government is getting ready to propose a new rule for Social Security "no-match" letters — the notices to companies that employees who are working for them have Social Security numbers that don't check out right with Social Security records.

The Department of Homeland Security hopes to use letters to weed out illegal aliens who are using bogus Social Security numbers. After his immigration bill failed for a second time, President Bush vowed to do what he could under existing law to crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens, and the letters are a key tool.

But DHS's first attempt last summer was challenged by unions, rights groups and businesses, and a court called for a full trial to determine if the rule was too burdensome. Rather than fight, DHS withdrew the proposal and promised to come back with another one. That day apparently is at hand.

Last time, businesses complained they didn't want to have to fire employees who hadn't resolved their problems within 90 days. The key question will be what sort of accommodations DHS makes to businesses in the new rule. Whatever DHS does, expect this new rule to end up right back in the courts.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a top proponent of the U.S.-Mexico border fence, today introduced a bill that would return the fence to a two-tiered structure running along 700 miles of the border, as it was originally envisioned in the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

Last year Congress included in its massive year-end spending bill language that cut back on the fence, including dropping the requirement that it have two tiers and deleting the specific locations Congress called for the fence to be built.

President Bush signed the bill into law.

Mr. Hunter's bill would undo those changes.

"The omnibus spending bill dismantles the only legislative advancement made in recent years towards securing our border with Mexico, and represents a prescription for failure that directly threatens the safety, security and prosperity of the American people," said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.

The Department of Homeland Security consistently has balked at the broad sweep of the mandate, arguing that only 370 miles of fencing is needed and that DHS knows the best locations, though they are still studying what those locations are. (We won't ask how DHS is convinced 370 miles is the right number if they don't even know the proper locations yet.)

Mr. Hunter said DHS has built only 75 miles of fencing and only five miles meets the two-tier standard from the 2006 law. DHS says it has built far more and is on track to complete 370 miles and another 200 miles of vehicle barriers by the time Mr. Bush leaves office a year from now.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

A new Web ad argues that an anti-illegal immigration ordinance in Riverside, N.J., worked so well it chased out businesses along with illegal aliens.

It's another take on the argument that U.S. businesses rely on illegal aliens — but in this instance, it's as consumers, not just as employees. The New York Times also chronicled the drop in business with two articles, one in July and one in September when the town ended its rule.

It's an intriguing line of argument, and one that's been kicked around before. What effect would a full-scale attrition-based immigration policy have on the hair salons and restaurants in immigrant-dominated communities across the nation? The ad appears to be targeted at Virginia, where localities and state lawmakers are considering the next step in trying to crack down on illegal immigration.

Still, the ad is misleading in one area: Riverside rescinded its ordinance because it didn't want to fight a lawsuit and only after a judge ruled against a similar ordinance enacted in a Pennsylvania town.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The National Council of La Raza got the resignation it wanted, and Kansas City still didn't end up with NCLR's annual conference in 2009.

Two months ago NCLR's board voted to deny Kansas City the 2009 conference in retaliation for Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser allowing Frances Semler to be a member of the city's parks board. Semler is a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which NCLR has deemed an extremist, vigilante organization.

In resigning, Semler said she felt "betrayed" by the lack of support from the mayor, and said the controversy just overwhelmed her, according to Associated Press. She said the city asked her to renounce her membership in the Minuteman group. She refused.

But NCLR said the resignation came too late to win back the conference.

“Unfortunately because of the mayor's lack of leadership and sensitivity to the Hispanic community, it is now too late," said NCLR's president, Janet Murguia.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC says the top Republican candidates are so bad on the issue of immigration they are trying to draft CNN anchor Lou Dobbs into the race for president in case a "pro-amnesty" candidate emerges from the Republican contest.

"Ninety percent of our supporters are behind either Romney, Thompson, Paul, or Hunter for President because they appear truly opposed to Amnesty for illegal aliens," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "Eighty four percent of our supporters say they would support Lou Dobbs for President, if the GOP primary fails to yield a candidate opposed to Amnesty."

He has registered the site www.LouDobbsforPresident.org as a placeholder and says all information gathered about potential supporters will be passed on to Mr. Dobbs if he does join the presidential race.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

An Ohio sheriff who has been an outspoken critic of what he describes as the federal government's failure to secure national borders is looking to put a little bite into his bark.

Butler County Sheriff Richard K. Jones has sent eight of his deputies to Hall County, Ga., for federal 287(g) immigration enforcement training under the direction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

After completing the training, which is scheduled to end Feb. 1, the deputies will be able to enforce federal immigration laws.

Sheriff Butler said his office is believed to be the first law enforcement agency in Ohio to operate under the federal program.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 added section 287(g) — performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees — to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The section authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration enforcement functions.

"I am pleased we have finally reached this point and look forward to working with ICE as we transition to these new powers," said Sheriff Jones, who has championed the cause for local immigration enforcement powers over the past several years.

"Being part of the 287(g) program will not only assist us with local issues and the deportation of illegal aliens process, but can lead to a closer working relationship with ICE and hopefully the housing of more of their prisoners.

"We're finally on our way to making a difference with illegal immigration in Butler County," he said.

Sheriff Jones has criticized the federal government's failure to secure its borders and has sent bills to federal officials asking for reimbursement for the county for the cost of jailing criminal aliens whom he said should have been stopped at the border.

The sheriff, who also asked the Mexican government to reimburse him in his fight against Mexican-based drug rings in his county, says the Senate's failure to pass an immigration reform bill is reason enough for states to target illegal aliens themselves.

He has called on state officials to enact legislation to deal with what he calls a "continuing illegal-immigration crisis."

"Just in this county alone, the cost to the taxpayers for illegal immigration is $1 million," he said. "Add to that the cost to the citizens throughout the United States and that taxpayer burden is in the hundreds of millions of dollars."

— Jerry Seper, national reporter, The Washington Times

We've gotten more than 100 e-mails and a few phone calls today from Ron Paul supporters critical of our story on Mike Huckabee and his supposed support for rewriting the Civil War-era 14th Amendment:

In the story, Minuteman Project founder James Gilchrist tells The Washington Times that Huckabee "looked me right in the eye" and expressed support for legislation to exclude the children of illegals from the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to any child born in the United States.

Mr. Paul's supporters say their candidate clearly staked out that territory earlier and more forcefully (see the campaign Web site's position paper here), and they're citing the story as another news organization ignoring or downplaying their candidate.

Stephen Dinan, the reporter who wrote the story, says there was no slight intended, he was just focusing on the major candidates -- something he makes clear in the first sentence:

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate -- a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Deciding whether a contender should be considered a "major" candidate or not is subjective, of course, but Mr. Paul finished fifth in Iowa, behind Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain.

That status quo could change tonight, or down the road. But until he wins, or places, or shows, in a primary, it's difficult to make the case that Mr. Paul can be called a "major" candidate.

Stephen also notes that The Washington Times is one of the few news organizations to report on Mr. Paul's position on the 14th Amendment, as he did here (read all the way to the end), in an Aug. 9 blog post.

-- David Eldridge, managing editor, WashingtonTimes.com

UPDATE: Today, Mike Huckabee issued a statement on his Web site denying that he supports rewriting the 14th:

I do not support an amendment to the constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.

-- DE