Oct. 23, 2007

GOP Seeks To Rally On Immigration Issue

Washington Post: Special Election In Massachusetts Could Be Indicative Of Democratic Weak Spot

  • Photo

    Though Democrat Niki Tsongas, left, defeated Republican Jim Ogonowski in a special House election in Massachusetts last week, the tightness of the race (in a district where John F. Kerry took 57 percent of the vote) has rekindled Democratic concerns about the illegal immigration issue.  (AP)

  • Interactive Immigration And Naturalization

    Who's coming to America? Find out what's being done to screen for terrorists and take a citizenship quiz.

  • Interactive 110th Congress

    The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.

From Our Partner:
(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Jonathan Weisman.


When Republican Jim Ogonowski launched his long-shot bid for Congress, he prepared for an upbeat campaign in his Democratic, working-class district of Massachusetts, based on a winning resume: affable hay farmer, former Air Force lieutenant colonel, and brother of an American Airlines pilot whose hijacked plane slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

But by last month, although opinion polling showed that he was well liked, he was still running 10 points behind Democrat Niki Tsongas with just weeks to go before a special election. The campaign needed a way to go beyond biography, to persuade Northern Massachusetts to vote Republican. They found it in illegal immigration.

On Tuesday, Ogonowski still fell short, but Tsongas's 51 to 45 percent victory was a shocker in a district where both John F. Kerry and Al Gore took 57 percent of the vote, and where liberal Democratic Rep. Martin T. Meehan served comfortably for eight terms. The underwhelming victory of the wife of deceased former senator Paul Tsongas has rekindled Democratic concerns about an immigration issue they had hoped had been put to rest.

"This issue has real implications for the country. It captures all the American people's anger and frustration not only with immigration, but with the economy," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an architect of the Democratic congressional victories of 2006. "It's self-evident. This is a big problem."

Republicans, sensing a major vulnerability, have been hammering Democrats, forcing Congress to face the question of illegal immigration on every bill they can find, from agriculture spending and housing assistance to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

House Democrats are so concerned that they have resumed talks on a new legislative push, even though the collapse of an immigration deal in the Senate this spring has left virtually no chance that a final bill can be passed in this Congress.

But even in the early stages of this renewed effort, negotiations have only underscored the party's problems. Some Democratic leaders want what they call a "mini bill," emphasizing border control, penalties on firms that employ illegal immigrants and stronger efforts to deny illegal immigrants government benefits. But Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the point man on the bill, said he will never accept a measure that does not include a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers in the country.

"I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, and if they continue down this path, they are going to lose a lot of seats," said Matt Wylie, a strategist for the Ogonowski campaign.

The issue has shifted since concerns about illegal immigrants triggered angry calls for border fences and deportation two years ago. Now, voter anger appears to revolve around the belief that illegal immigrants are unfairly consuming government benefits, a fear that stems more from economic ncertainty than culture clashes, Democratic and Republican pollsters say.

Those concerns are not everywhere. But they are glaring in some of the white, working-class districts in Kansas, Indiana, North Carolina and New Hampshire that gave the Democrats control of the House last year. And they were on clear display in Lowell, Mass.

"Immigration played into the economic issue," said Francis Talty, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell who followed the Tsongas-Ogonowski contest. "Do you want illegal immigrants to get in-state [university] tuition? Do you want them to get driver's licenses? Do you want their children to get benefits under SCHIP? It was the benefit side that has real resonance, not the deportation thing."

Quote

I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, and if they continue down this path, they are going to lose a lot of seats.

Matt Wylie, a strategist for the Ogonowski campaign
A new national poll for National Public Radio, conducted by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, found that voters are more likely to side with Democrats than Republicans on war, taxes and spending, the economy, health care and health insurance for children, often by wide margins. On immigration, the Republicans hold a 49 to 44 percent lead.

But even that might be deceptively tight, said Glen Bolger, a partner with Public Opinion Strategies. In the poll, the GOP position was framed as getting control of the border, requiring illegal immigrants to reenter the country legally, stopping illegal immigrants from getting government benefits and sending illegal immigrants who are criminals packing. The Democratic position was, "It is impractical to expel 12 million people, but we need tougher controls at the borders, tougher penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants and we should bar illegal immigrants from getting most government benefits, while allowing the law-abiding immigrants to get on a long path to citizenship."

That Democratic message is much tougher than the one most voters are hearing, Bolger argued. "They're actually in worse shape than they think they are," he said.

Dustin Olson, Ogonowski's campaign manager, said the candidate did not intend to make government benefits for illegal immigrants a centerpiece of the campaign, but it came up unbidden, again and again.

Internal polling found that Ogonowski's tough stance was winning 60 percent to 30 percent over the positions articulated by Tsongas, said Rob Autry, another Public Opinion Strategies partner who served as Ogonowski's pollster. Ogonowski's position on taxes had a narrower, 13 percentage point lead. Every other issue "was dicey," he said.

Then, just two days before Tuesday's balloting, Tsongas said illegal immigrants should each be allowed to get a driver's license. The final radio ad of the Ogonowski insurgency intoned, "And now for something truly incredible. You already know Niki Tsongas supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, but today we learned Niki Tsongas would go even further. Tsongas told the Boston Herald she wants to give driver's licenes to illegal immigrants."

John Walsh, chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said the final vote proved the limits of the immigration message. The district may be less Democratic than the presidential numbers make it appear, he cautioned. Republican gubernatorial candidates have carried it handily since 1990, until Deval L. Patrick, the current Democratic governor, won it with 51 percent of the vote, the same percentage Tsongas took.

If Ogonowski's internal polling showed him trailing by 10 points in September, his immigration blitz made up only five points, he said.

But in districts where Democrats do not have five points to give, those numbers loom large. "For the American people, and therefore all of us, it's emerged as the third rail of American politics," Emanuel said. "And anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."


© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Add a Comment See all 74 Comments
by liberalme October 23, 2007 11:24 AM PDT
The Democrats ARE on the wrong side of this issue--Ted Kennedy, Pelosi all of them voted for the amnesty of illegals.

If they listened to any of the voters in their states, they would have gotten the hint that we are not happy with the current illegal immigration situation as it is.
The Dems have been dead from the neck up because their heads have been buried in the sand--they don;t want to know or do anything.
The Dems are behaving as if they have to walk on eggshells, when all this time they could have made great strides in the important aspects-such as, getting the wackos our of the white house!

I''m disgusted with the lot of them, and those that don''t get re-elected in 08 deserve what they get!

At this point in time, we shouldn''t be in the same situation we were in last year at this time.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 12:05 PM PDT
Harry is trying to ram though the Dream Act. You should all call your Senators and tell them to vote NO on S2205. Otherwise, we can just sit back and give illegals a free education too.
Reply to this comment
by slim1h2o October 23, 2007 12:34 PM PDT
We''re already giving them a free education, mudrose. At least in my state.
Reply to this comment
by likeitis5050 October 23, 2007 12:40 PM PDT
I''''m disgusted with the lot of them, and those that don''''t get re-elected in 08 deserve what they get!

At this point in time, we shouldn''''t be in the same situation we were in last year at this time.


Posted by liberalme

I totally feel your pain, but the problem begins and ends with one name...Pelosi. Too many lack the backbone or are allowing her to take all the heat for her obstructionist/polarization style of politics, but she has become nothing but a stone around the necks of the party. Nothing constructive can be done under her direction. Either they like the idea of committing political suicide by sticking with her, or they really are in the same arena with her thinking and need to go. Either way, they are not winning points.
Reply to this comment
by antoniof123 October 23, 2007 12:44 PM PDT
Looks like they found another wedge issue to divide America.
Reply to this comment
by anntink October 23, 2007 1:20 PM PDT
King George apparently thought his merger with Mexico was complete, but he got ahead of himself a bit. Our country has managed to maintain some semblance of sovereignty, at least for a few more months. The facts are: People rob banks because they''re poor, but they still go to jail - its a criminal act. Illegally entering a country is also a criminal act. Period.
Reply to this comment
by antoniof123 October 23, 2007 1:39 PM PDT
I bet the Republicans would screw their mothers to get a vote.
Reply to this comment
by terrorislam2 October 23, 2007 1:47 PM PDT
obama disrespects usa flag

Obama: No Hand on Heart for National Anthem
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/20/obama-no-hand-heart-pledge-either-will-msm-notice
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 1:50 PM PDT
I bet the Republicans would screw their mothers to get a vote.
Posted by antoniof123

You''d have to ask the Clintoons, they seem to know mmore about *** their mothers.
Reply to this comment
by sgtrds October 23, 2007 1:52 PM PDT
The republican party reaches out to Hispanic voters....then grabs and deports them. Is it any wonder the bulk of Hispanics support the Democratic party? They''ve discovered, just as African-Americans have before, that the GOP pays lip service only to their issues and then stabs them in the back. In 50 years the majority of Americans will be those of Hispanic descent. That is going to happen no matter how much some republicans want to stop it and if they don''t change their views toward Hispanic Americans then in 50 years the republican party will be just a very bad memory.

Amnesty now. Full and complete.
Reply to this comment
by sparks224 October 23, 2007 2:00 PM PDT
This is funny.
They%u2019re getting the racists all fired up about the invasion of brown people while giving a free pass to their rich friends who hire them.
(Because their rich friends donate to their campaign)
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 2:01 PM PDT
The republican party reaches out to Hispanic voters....then grabs and deports them. Is it any wonder the bulk of Hispanics support the Democratic party? They''''ve discovered, just as African-Americans have before, that the GOP pays lip service only to their issues and then stabs them in the back. In 50 years the majority of Americans will be those of Hispanic descent. That is going to happen no matter how much some republicans want to stop it and if they don''''t change their views toward Hispanic Americans then in 50 years the republican party will be just a very bad memory.

Amnesty now. Full and complete.
Posted by SgtRDS

Tie a noose around their necks and hang em.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 2:08 PM PDT
This is funny.
They%u2019re getting the racists all fired up about the invasion of brown people while giving a free pass to their rich friends who hire them.
(Because their rich friends donate to their campaign)
Posted by sparks224

By "they" I presume you mean President Harry who intends to ram the Dream Act down everyone''s throat. We aren''t afraid of brown people. The browner the better. Who cares. Don''t come through the back door. And wait you turn to come in through the front.
Reply to this comment
by terrorislam2 October 23, 2007 2:12 PM PDT
DEMONIC-RATS NEVER LEARN AS THEY REWARD THE GRASSHOPPER AND TAX THE ANT

The Ant and the Grasshopper

In a field one summer''s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart''s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:

It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Aesop/Aesops_Fables/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper_p1.html
Reply to this comment
by gretagreen October 23, 2007 2:13 PM PDT
Bush offered a perfectly good bill that would solve a lot of immigration issues but the Democrats and the Republicans got so much hate mail, they were afraid to support it.
I''m disgusted with the fearmongering of people like Lou Dobbs, etc. Illegal immigrants have been coming in here for years. Now, all of a sudden, everyone''s all freaked out about it and saying terrible things about the immigrants.
Instead of making this a political issue, why not we pass a reasonable piece of legislation and work on securing the border to prevent this problem from continuing to grow. (Building a fence is, of course, ridiculous. We need guards and we need them on the Canadian border as much as the Mexican border, and we need REAL security for our ports.)
Reply to this comment
by geezer62 October 23, 2007 2:15 PM PDT
There is a 81 year old man who lives down the street. He lives alone and has no family. His health is good for a man his age, (thanks to Medicare) and he gets a small Social Security check. Some of us in the neighborhood take turns driving him to the doctor or the bank or the grocery store and we look in on him everyday to make sure he is OK. It''s called compassion since you seem to be unfamilar with that term. You want to do away with entitlement programs but what would you suggest we do with this old guy? I will admit that there are abuses in the system but you can''t just throw the baby out with the bathwater. You righties claim to be Christians but I don''t think you understand that concept either. Maybe you should ask yourself, WWJD.
Reply to this comment
by gretagreen October 23, 2007 2:17 PM PDT
People say this a lot. "Illegally entering a country is also a criminal act. Period." I''d like to know if this is true. Is it really a crime? What does the law say?

Also, "Period" is so very very wrong. This I do know. We (Congress) can change the law. Just like we changed the law to give women the vote and prohibit slavery. We need some changes in the law regarding immigration. We clearly have an unworkable system.
Reply to this comment
by gretagreen October 23, 2007 2:18 PM PDT
Geezer: What a great post!
Reply to this comment
by sparks224 October 23, 2007 2:34 PM PDT
Wouldn%u2019t it make more sense to simply enforce the laws against hiring illegals?

There are 2 problems with that approach:
1. You would hurt you campaign contributors.
2. You wouldn%u2019t have the boogie man to get people all riled up about.

It%u2019s amazing that Republican voters still fall for this ***.
Reply to this comment
by sgtrds October 23, 2007 2:40 PM PDT
It%u2019s amazing that Republican voters still fall for this ***.

Posted by sparks224 at 02:34 PM : Oct 23, 2007

Well no one has ever accused the republican base of having any intelligence.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 2:41 PM PDT
People say this a lot. "Illegally entering a country is also a criminal act. Period." I''''d like to know if this is true. Is it really a crime? What does the law say?


Posted by gretagreen

What do you think the law says. Let me put it to you this way. If someone pried open your door and moved in and decided that they had the right to live in your house without your consent, would you think they had squatters rights?
Reply to this comment
by finewoven October 23, 2007 2:42 PM PDT
Maybe you should ask yourself, WWJD.
Posted by geezer62 at 02:15 PM : Oct 23, 2007

I think that is already on the record. Of the ten lepers healed, one came back to offer thanks--he was a foreigner. Of the woman at the well when asked to provide water, she said why would you talk or ask anything of me, she was a foreigner. Of the woman who asked for healing for her child, and was given the response if it was right to give food from the table reserved for others, her faith suggested that even the dogs eat scraps from the table--she was a foreigner, and her child was healed.

More and more evalgelicals of the GOP ilk--are not Christians.
Reply to this comment
by terrorislam2 October 23, 2007 2:47 PM PDT
Posted by gretagreen at 02:17 PM : Oct 23, 2007

it is a misdemeanor the first time and a felony everytime after that,,,

Reporting Illegal Aliens: A Citizen Takes Up Arms For His Country
http://www.vdare.com/king/citizen_takes_up_arms.htm
Reply to this comment
by terrorislam2 October 23, 2007 2:50 PM PDT
Teddy had it so right! Not Kennedy, but Roosevelt!

Theodore Roosevelt''s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person''s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something
else also, isn''t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 2:52 PM PDT
Posted by terrorislam2

Righteous!
Reply to this comment
by sgtrds October 23, 2007 2:52 PM PDT
People say this a lot. "Illegally entering a country is also a criminal act. Period." I''''d like to know if this is true. Is it really a crime? What does the law say?

Posted by gretagreen at 02:17 PM : Oct 23, 2007

A minor misdemeanor. Even the chimp Bush has likened it to a minor traffic offense.
Reply to this comment
by terrorislam2 October 23, 2007 2:58 PM PDT
A minor misdemeanor. Even the chimp Bush has likened it to a minor traffic offense.
Posted by SgtRDS at 02:52 PM : Oct 23, 2007

only the first time,,, repeat offending is a felony,,,

Reporting Illegal Aliens: A Citizen Takes Up Arms For His Country
http://www.vdare.com/king/citizen_takes_up_arms.htm

Mexico''s Immigration Law: Let''s Try It Here at Home
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country%u2019s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
Reply to this comment
by lorinkundert October 23, 2007 3:15 PM PDT
Reid is at it again trying to sneak the Amnesty act through the back door, I know I won''t pay for some illegal alien to attend a university when it''s hard enough to put my children through.
Reply to this comment
by terrorislam2 October 23, 2007 3:21 PM PDT
WHAT COUNTRY DOES BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PLEDGE TO?

obama disrespects usa flag
Obama: No Hand on Heart for National Anthem
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/20/obama-no-hand-heart-pledge-either-will-msm-notice
Reply to this comment
by condumism October 23, 2007 3:28 PM PDT
Actually, the immigration issue will be the jinGOPigs downfall. It wasnt Iraq that got the jinGOPigs knocked out of control of Congress, it was their hatred for all minorities in the USA. And it is the minoritries that will be voting en-masse next year to be sure these jinGOPigs stay on the sidelines through eternity. BahBye, jinGOPigs!
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 October 23, 2007 4:13 PM PDT
Actually, the immigration issue will be the jinGOPigs downfall. It wasnt Iraq that got the jinGOPigs knocked out of control of Congress, it was their hatred for all minorities in the USA. And it is the minoritries that will be voting en-masse next year to be sure these jinGOPigs stay on the sidelines through eternity. BahBye, jinGOPigs!


Posted by ConDumism

You are a sick little *********. You just about hate everyone. Really, you make a good posterchild for your party. The Dimnowits, Hypocrites to their very core.
Reply to this comment
by stopthewarrr October 23, 2007 5:02 PM PDT
***** Stop The War & Corporate Corruption *****

Why Don''t You Know Ron Paul??????

The corporate media will not give Ron Paul any Exposure. Because, NBC is owned by GE. GE is one of the world''s largest war-makers. They make things that go boom. They make $Billions on war. A Ron Paul administration would be bad for business. CNN is owned by AOL. Majority share holder is Saudi Royal Talal who is also partners with GHWBush in The Carlyle Group. Another major warmaker. And on and on. You get the picture. This is why they are doing a Media Blackout on him. Because they don''''t WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH!

Who is Ron Paul?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about

Ron Paul WON The GOP Debate On Sunday!
Again No EXPOSURE!

***************************
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY POLITICAN REPUBLICAN OR
DEMOCRAT THAT WILL STOP THE WAR! NO ONE ELSE
WILL, PERIOD! WAKE UP AMERICA! VOTE RON PAUL 2008
TAKE CARE OF AMERICA AND OUR PEOPLE FIRST, INSTEAD
OF HAVING OUR CHILDREN DIE IN A B.S. WAR!
***************************
Reply to this comment
by likeitis5050 October 23, 2007 7:02 PM PDT
Posted by ConDumism

You are a sick little *********. You just about hate everyone. Really, you make a good posterchild for your party. The Dimnowits, Hypocrites to their very core.


Posted by mudrose

Mud...don''t stoop to Dums level. Dums doesn''t even process anymore...just whips out the global hatred of anything not a perfect reflection of what looks back from the mirror...and I''m guessing it ain''t pretty.
Reply to this comment
by sgtrds October 23, 2007 7:40 PM PDT
When will you right wing nuts ever learn that America is a nation of immigrants and our greatness comes from our diversity!

Posted by ozilot at 04:39 PM : Oct 23, 2007

He can''t see the diversity. I''m guessing it might be because he has the eye holes in his white hood cut too small or that he damaged his retinas at the last cross burning........
Reply to this comment
by DrColes October 23, 2007 7:52 PM PDT
Illegal Aliens and Immigration is NOT the same thing. 80% of the American people want an end to anarchy!

Illegal (aliens) workers are criminals, those who hire them are criminals and those who aid-and-abet them are criminals.

Illegal aliens in America have NO rights. We are required by law to arrest and prosecute, deport them. (Title 8 U.S. Code)

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance.

See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.
Reply to this comment
by sendreidpelo October 23, 2007 9:07 PM PDT
For the Neo-Nazis of the Left who claimed the Republicans were out...This is the issue besides the betrayal of the troops that will do you maggots in.

Don''t forget to kiss Pelosi''s cheeks as she hires another undocumented worker. And do remember to cut her a check, Andy Stern, while undermining real American workers, you fascist pig.
Reply to this comment
by sendreidpelo October 23, 2007 9:10 PM PDT
Hey RandyBoBS, aka Bozo on champipple...

Since you love ILLEGALS so much do America a favor and move to your beloved Mexico. You can boast about your military record, or was it your circus record - makes no difference in YOUR case, to your boyfriend Vicente Fox.

And speaking of cross burnings, something you specialize in, Randy - how''s that other fossil KKK Byrd these days ? You ought to know as you constantly stick up for the Racist.
Reply to this comment
by hippychicky-2009 October 23, 2007 11:25 PM PDT
The Republicans have seized on an issue that just might save their hides. I am a liberal Democrat of Hispanic origin who now lives in Mexico. The way Americans are treated here is a disgrace. Other foreigners such as Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans are treated even worse by the Mexicans. They are immediately deported no questions asked. The only reason they stomach Americans is because they know we bring money.
Though a Hispanic American myself, and a liberal Democrat to boot, I am against any immigration reform in the US, unless and until Mexico begins to treat its immigrants with the samse respect it demand its citizens to be treated in the US!
Posted by hopetrumps


That is really an interesting perspective, and I had never thought about it that way.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:04 AM PDT
"I''ve got nothing to hide, so electronic surveillance doesn''t bother me. To the contrary, I''m delighted that the Bush Administration is monitoring calls and electronic traffic on a massive scale, because catching terrorists is far more important that worrying about the government''s listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails." So the argument goes. It is a powerful one that has seduced too many people.

Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:05 AM PDT
This contention is being bantered about once again, so there is no better time than the present to set thinking people straight. Bush and Cheney want to make permanent unchecked Executive powers to electronically eavesdrop on anyone whom any president feels to be of interest. In August, before the summer recess, Congress enacted the Protect America Act, which provided only temporary approval for the expanding Executive powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These temporary powers expire in February 2008, so Congress is once again addressing the subject.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:06 AM PDT
The FISA amendments: the administration is seeking immunity for miscreants

Because of the way electronic traffic is directed from foreign countries through the United States, the FISA Court had previously rejected requests to intercept certain foreign-person- to-foreign-person communications in the United States. It was a technical problem, arising from the fact that FISA was written before modern data routing had been designed, and FISA thus needed fixing. On this, everyone agreed.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:07 AM PDT
However, when the Bush Administration asked for the necessary fix to FISA, it also requested much more, including immunity under the existing laws for all the telecommunications companies that have been assisting the government in its illegal warrantless surveillance. Significantly, this practice -- justified by reference to the "war on terror" -- apparently started well before 9/11 under the Bush Administration.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:08 AM PDT
Ironically, in requesting this immunity, the Bush White House has refused to disclose exactly what type of activities Congress would be retroactively immunizing. Preliminary congressional inquiry has revealed that a massive amount of electronic surveillance of Americans has gone on under the Bush/Cheney Administration. For example, one of the telecom giants, Verizon, reported that between January 2005 and September 2007 they provided information on 94,000 occasions. These numbers suggest that Verizon was operating as merely another (and a secret) extension of the federal intelligence
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:09 AM PDT
Many of the companies appear to be violating a number of federal criminal statutes -- such as 18 U.S.C. 2511, which requires a warrant for such surveillance and 18 U.S.C. 2702, which prohibits any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from knowingly divulging "to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order.

Currently, the telecoms are not likely to be particularly worried about being prosecuted by the very same government that instructed them to violate the law, and is leading the way in doing so itself.

But what about under the next Administration? The five-year statute of limitations will make them potentially criminally liable after Bush is gone -- at least, unless the Bush Administration gains for them retroactive and future immunity. In a new Administration, the telecoms may be viewed not as cooperative patriots, but rather as criminal co-conspirators.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
Civil liability appears to be driving the immunity request

Meanwhile, civil liability for these companies is also a realistic prospect. For example, in a San Francisco federal court, AT&T customers are seeking to protect their privacy with actions under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides a civil remedy and hefty damages -- ranging up to $10,000 per day per violation. Since it is possible that, over five-plus years, there have been tens upon tens of thousands of such violations, the, if liable telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:11 AM PDT
he Bush Administration clearly wants to help its partners in crime; it also wants to avoid accountability for what it has done and is still doing. If the civil litigation proceeds -- and one judge already ruled that the "state secrets" privilege does not prevent the plaintiffs from going forward -- the Bush Administration faces the risk of a federal court''s forcing it to disclose its unsavory surveillance activities.

Privacy advocates are horrified at the prospect of Congress''s potentially protecting this activity through immunity legislation. Yet, in sharp contrast, most people could care less. Indeed few people seem to care about their loss of privacy, notwithstanding the fact that, like an invisible pollutant to our air or water, it is increasingly eroding our freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that the invasion of our privacy, like the destruction of our atmosphere, may be tolerated until it is too late to fix it.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:12 AM PDT
One of the leading causes of both problems is ignorance. Privacy is a highly complex issue, so people easily accept the claims of those who assert that, if you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to be concerned about government surveillance, and if you are, you have no right to privacy to break the law.

Understanding the misunderstanding about privacy

For several years I have been reading the work of George Washington University Law School Professor Daniel J. Solove, who writes extensively about privacy in the context of contemporary digital technology. The current apathy about government surveillance brought to mind his essay "''I''ve Got Nothing To Hide'' And Other Misunderstandings of Privacy."
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:13 AM PDT
Professor Solove''s deconstruction of the "I''ve got nothing to hide" position, and related justifications for government surveillance, is the best brief analysis of this issue I have found. These arguments are not easy to zap because, once they are on the table, they can set the terms of the argument. As Solove explains, "the problem with the nothing to hide argument is with its underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things." He warns, "Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide." Solove''s bottom line is that this argument "myopically views privacy as a form of concealment or secrecy."
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:14 AM PDT
In his work, Solove addresses the reality that privacy problems differ: Not all are equal; some are more harmful than others. Most importantly, he writes, "to understand privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically." Through several years of work, Solove has developed a more nuanced concept of privacy that rebuts the idea that there is a "one-size-fits-all conception of privacy."
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 October 24, 2007 9:15 AM PDT
The concept of "privacy" encompasses many ideas relating to the proper and improper use and abuse of information about people within society. Privacy protects information not only because it would cause others to think less of the person at issue, but also simply to give us all breathing room: "Society involves a great deal of friction," Solove writes, "and we are constantly clashing with each other. Part of what makes a society a good place in which to live is the extent to which it allows people freedom from the intrusiveness of others. A society without privacy protection would be suffocation, and it might not be a place in which most would want to live."
Reply to this comment
See all 74 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs