Picking your spots

The Obama administration, in choosing to file against Arizona’s new
immigration
law, has kicked up the immigration debate just in time for November’s
congressional elections. The law, which will make it a crime in Arizona
to
be an illegal immigrant, is scheduled to take effect on July 29, unless
the administration succeeds and an injunction stops it. In poll after
poll, a
majority of Americans supports the law and numerous other states are
working
toward similar legislation.

Over the weekend Democratic governors expressed “deep anxiety” over
the suit, according to The New York Times,
calling it a “toxic subject” and lamenting the political costs the
issue could exact on Democrats in tough races, particularly in the West.
Several made the case that the administration could have brought a suit
months from now, after the elections. In addition, they expressed
disappointment with the administration’s message on immigration. One Democratic
governor not running this year said the White House has failed to convince
the public that it is actually working to mitigate illegal immigration.
“They described for me a list of things that they are doing to try
and help on that border,” Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington said.
“And I said, Tthe public doesn’t know that.’ “

That is true. Take, for example, an interesting story that appeared in the Times last week about the administration auditing business to prevent the
hiring of illegals. The report described
how “silent raids” have led to the firing but not the deportation of
thousands of illegals at nearly 2,900 companies in the past year, resulting in
a record $3 million in civil fines. The story points out that the audits have
reached more businesses than the raids that took place during the Bush
administration and prove a more effective means of preventing businesses from
further hiring additional illegal immigrants. “Instead of hundreds of
agents going after one company, now one agent can go after hundreds of
companies,” said Mark K. Reed, president of Border Management Strategies,
a consulting firm in Tucson that advises companies across the country on
immigration law. “And there is no drama, no trauma, no families being torn
apart, no handcuffs.”

Who knew that the administration was using its resources so effectively to get
tough on enforcement and scare businesses off of cheap illegal labor? Not many
people, since the Obama White House hasn’t exactly talked about it.

Not so, says Andrew Winningham, 24, of Newton, Iowa. According to a piece
in the New York Post, Winningham, who voted for Obama and was a young Iowan who helped launch his
unlikely presidential campaign, has soured on the president because of his
immigration policies, which he believes continue to drive down wages for
American workers. Winningham said he made friends with a Mexican-born worker
who was deported three times: “He got deported Friday and was back at
work by Monday.” Looks like the auditing team at Immigration and
Customs Enforcement has to get to Newton on the double.

The fact remains Obama knew that a lawsuit was likely more political harm than
good and he did it anyway. The administration knew the new law was popular, and
they knew they would take heat for filing suit. But in New York Magazine
John Heilemann makes
the case that Obama did so because he believes it was the right thing to do.
Heilemann even argues that Obama got the politics and policy right and that
this move could signal a return to his “best fighting form.” Why? He writes that immigration reform proponents, deeply disappointed by
Obama’s first 17 months in office, during which time their issue went nowhere, just may
mobilize in response to the president’s actions.

I have argued that immigration hurts Democrats this fall and helps them in
2012. Republicans have the energy and enthusiasm with them this year, and their voters
will turn out. Conversely, in a presidential cycle, the math is against any
Republican running for president who is seen as anti-immigrant and therefore
cannot win a healthy percentage of the Hispanic vote. Heilemann disagrees,
asserting that in the last several cycles, “Republicans can’t point
to a single race where immigration was the issue that allowed one of their
candidates to beat a Democrat. In fact, there is much more
evidence of moderate Democrats taking out anti-immigration Republicans
in swing districts than there is of the inverse.”

This may be true. Can’t wait for those exit polls this fall.

CAN THE ADMINISTRATION SHAKE LOOSE THE CORPORATE
CASH STOCKPILE AND JUMPSTART HIRING? Ask A.B. returns Thursday, July
22. Please join my weekly video Q&A by sending your questions and
comments to askab@thehill.com.
Thank you.