Democrats to ‘revisit’ law creating border fence (Shaun Waterman, November 11, 2006, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL)

Democrats will look again at the legislation mandating 698 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and might seek to scrap the plan altogether when they take control of Congress next year.

Democratic victory may pave the way for Bush’s immigration plan (Dave Montgomery, 11/10/06, McClatchy Newspapers)

“I can’t think of another issue that could bring together the Democratic Congress and the president like immigration,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports the president’s initiatives. “This election has really changed the immigration debate forever.”

Pro-immigration groups such as Sharry’s predict that the next session of Congress will be far more receptive to the most volatile elements of Bush’s immigration plan: a temporary guest-worker program and conditional legalization for millions of undocumented immigrants now in the country.

Since Bush first unveiled his intentions in 2004, those proposals consistently have collided with resistance in the GOP-led House of Representatives, which refused to consider a Senate-passed bill that largely embraced Bush’s initiatives.

Now Democrats will take over the House and Senate in early January under leaders who’ve expressed support for a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

Presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has called for legislation offering illegal immigrants a “pathway to earned legalization and citizenship” if they fulfill “tough requirements,” such as paying fines and back taxes, staying employed and learning English.

In a post-election press conference on Wednesday, Bush again listed immigration as a top priority, describing it as “an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”

“I do think we have a good chance,” Bush said.

And to think, we owe it all to the Tom Tancredos, Pat Buchanans and John Derbyshires of the world.



  1. AWW says:

    They won’t see the irony. As noted previously NRO and others are arguing the election shows the
    GOP should have been more anti-immigration and therefore should move even farther away from the

  2. erp says:

    Just because they’re clueless doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous.

  3. Sandy P says:

    Blue Dog dems can’t vote for it when they ran to the right of the pubbies in the south to win.

  4. Lou Gots says:

    As far as I could see from the political ads in Pennsylvania, neither side wanted to appear soft of illegal immigration; they both beat each other up for being weak of keeping out wetbacks.

    Just remember, if immigration reform does not include identity technology and heavy penalties for those importing illegal aliens–that is, jail time plus forfieture of property–it’s a sham, just like that phoney ‘wall.”.

  5. Orrin says:

    People only want the sham.

  6. Orrin says:

    No one voted Democrat to limit immigration.

%d bloggers like this: