Sessions Cites ILIR on Bill

SENATOR Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, recently used the argument made by the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) to explain why he believes that the current immigration bills in the Senate and House do not add up.

Sessions wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Times which clearly stated his opposition to current attempts to fix the immigration system. He pointed out that the Irish were among the most disadvantaged when it came to receiving green cards of any country.

Sessions noted that ILIR’s testimony before the Senate had revealed that less than two-tenths of one percent of green cards had gone to Irish people, and that the country which had given the U.S. men such as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan was being utterly overlooked in the Senate and House debates.

Sessions’ statement that he believed that the situation that countries like Ireland face should be looked at was a very interesting twist. It was clear on the day of the Senate hearings that Sessions was very attentive to the ILIR testimony and that he was quite taken aback when he realized just how poorly the Irish fare under current immigration law.

The support of someone like Sessions, a reliable hardliner on immigration issues, certainly makes for an interesting development. Many immigration advocates in the Irish community have pointed out that there is more sympathy among hardline Republican figures for the Irish situation than might have been expected.

Certainly, the ILIR volunteers who have been packing the meetings held all over the country by the House Repub-licans on the immigration issue have received a warmer reception even from immigration opponents than they might have expected.

It will be interesting to see how that figures in future debates on this issue when Congress resumes in September. Sessions might be an interesting bellwether on that.

Reform Not Dead For ‘06?

IT appears there is much backroom dealing going on with regards to immigration over the summer according to a report in the National Journal this week.

The Journal reported that a recent private poll showed that voters would blame Republicans if nothing was done on immigration reform, which may have led to a reassessment by leading GOP figures on the issue.

“The failure to act could hurt Republicans in the election,” Congressman Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona and an outspoken advocate of a comprehensive approach, told the Journal. “We have whipped everyone into a frenzy. Now the public is asking, ‘What are we going to do?’”

He added that the “faux hearings ... try to excite our base,” but the problem with that approach is, “if you rile up your base, they will want action.”

What kind of action of course, is critical. Better no bill than a bad bill is the mantra of the pro-immigration reform forces across the political spectrum. But would something coming out of Congress at this late stage definitely be negative?

House Republicans, however, appear increasingly afraid that after whipping up sentiment on the issue they deliver nothing. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, told the Journal that the field hearings “have not worked as (House Republican leaders) had hoped” to stir up public opposition to a wide-ranging overhaul. Hoyer stated that some Republicans are getting very nervous and are talking up the possibility of a bill on the president’s desk before Election Day.

The Journal reported that a senior GOP pollster, Whit Ayres, is definite that Republicans will suffer badly if they fail to reach a deal before November. He stated that a late June poll by his company showed that independents or “swing” voters said by almost 3-to-1 that they would be less likely to vote for Republican candidates if Congress failed to pass immigration legislation.

“People are upset about illegal immigration and it has been building a long time, and they want something done about it,” Ayres said. “If the party in power doesn’t do something about it, it’s a formula for frustration.”

The magazine reported that in what could be a major development, Senators John McCain and Arlen Specter and other GOP senators, along with Flake and his group, met with House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner on July 27 for what everyone said was a positive discussion.

McCain especially has warned of the consequences of a do nothing Congress on the issue.

“The guys who make a living by gauging these things say it’s not good for Republicans to go into the election without having acted on it, because people expect you to govern — that makes sense to me,” McCain told the publication.

To that end, he noted, “a number of us have been trying to reach out to the House guys. Everything is on the table, as long as you can accept that we have got to do other things (beyond border security). It’s just not healthy for us to be at this kind of loggerheads. It’s not good for us, for the party, for the country.”

Flynn Proved Right

NICE moment recently at the luncheon hosted by the National Committee on American Foreign Policy for Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary of state.

Addressing Bill Flynn, chairman of the National Committee and a major light in the American role in the peace process, Hain stated that Flynn was right to push for a visa for Gerry Adams to come to America back in 1994 to address the committee.

Amazing, given the huge brouhaha at the time that Flynn and others did that, and the outpouring of hate form the British media at the time at the very notion that America should become involved in the Irish peace process.

So it was great to see an acknowledgement from the very top of the British state that Flynn, in effect, was right to do what he did. Of course, history has borne that out, but nonetheless, the British are not usually adept at owning up to their mistakes.

Mitchell as Lebanon Envoy?

INTERESTING suggestion recently by Ben Zogby, son of John Zogby, head of the renowned polling firm, and nephew of James Zogby, the head of the major Arab American lobby group.

Ben Zogby, who was living in Lebanon when the war broke out, penned an opinion piece which opened like this:

“Since the Bush Administration and the Congress have divested all responsibility in solving the currently devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah on Lebanese soil, the world eagerly awaits the announcement of British PM Tony Blair’s plan to end the hostilities. But Blair need not look so far and long, for he can find a ceasefire plan that has historical precedent in the resolution of the conflict between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, some eight years ago.

“Though there are expansive differences in the ideology and objectives of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and Hezbollah, the two armed-militant organizations share a common history by way of tactics: both groups launched mortar and rocket attacks, engaged in kidnappings of soldiers and operated over the years within the bounds of a country not directly linked to the campaigns of aggression. Lebanon has been Hezbollah’s nest and for the IRA, the Republic of Ireland was the same.

“To eliminate this phenomenon in Lebanon Blair should move to establish an independent commission much along the same lines as that of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), which had as its task overseeing the relinquishment of weapons and arms by the PIRA.”

Interesting thought that. Zogby went further and pointed out that George Mitchell himself is of Lebanese descent and would be the perfect person to send to the region now that the Bush administration desperately needs to intervene.