George Voinovich, Still Crying

From today's Political Diary, published by The Wall Street Journal:

The fate of the Senate immigration bill may be decided today if supporters can't muster 60 votes to shut off debate and proceed. Although 64 senators on Tuesday supported going forward with the bill, more than a dozen did so only to allow debate on 27 amendments.

If the bill does go to a full debate, many C-SPAN watchers are hoping Ohio GOP Senator George Voinovich will play a prominent role if for no other reason than his entertainment value. You'll recall Mr. Voinovich broke into tears on the Senate floor in 2005 in opposing the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, an opposition he later recanted. This week he echoed Sen. Richard Lugar's comments that the Iraqi troop surge had failed, but without any of his colleague's eloquence or depth.

Mr. Voinovich made the mistake of appearing on Sean Hannity's national radio show yesterday to speak on the immigration bill. The interview did not go well. Mr. Hannity's first question concerned the Fairness Doctrine, which liberal Democrats are seeking to revive as a means of imposing equal-time provisions on talk radio. Mr. Voinovich got off on the wrong foot by saying: "I'm all for the Fairness Doctrine, whatever that is."

When the discussion moved to immigration, Mr. Hannity proved to be more knowledgeable about what had happened on the Senate floor yesterday morning than the senator. When informed that an amendment by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison had failed, Mr. Voinovich responded, "I thought it passed because, frankly, I voted for it."

Mr. Voinovich certainly had a point about the ill-mannered and often ill-informed commentary on the immigration issue on talk radio. But he did nothing to improve the situation by putting on his best imitation of an arrogant solon who resented hearing from constituents: "I want everyone else to know: You do not intimidate George Voinovich. This is my 40th year in this business.... I've gotten calls from people that, basically, are intimidating me. They're saying, 'If you do this [vote for the bill], I'll do that [vote against you].'"

When Mr. Hannity pressed him on specifics of the legislation, Mr. Voinovich ducked by saying he had read "most" of the summaries of the bill. And he then launched into a tirade before hanging up on the ABC Radio/Fox News host. "I really don't think it's worthy to talk to you right now because you've got your mind [made] up, you're not really interested in hearing the other side of the coin. All you just want to hear is somebody agree with you. And I'm disappointed in you, because I had more respect for you. I wouldn't even have gone on this radio program with you if I hadn't thought that you'd give me an opportunity.... You haven't even given me a chance."

"You're running away because you can't answer a simple question," replied Mr. Hannity. With that, Senator Voinovich replied: "I hope next time around we have another subject that we can be more rational about." He then hung up. If Mr. Voinovich votes to kill the immigration bill today, it may be for no other reason than a desire to save himself from more embarrassment every time he talks about the subject.

For the record, Voinovich did indeed vote to kill the bill.

What's So Bad About Amnesty?

Tamar Jacobs says that if this bill represents amnesty, most Americans favor amnesty.

Don't Look! Hide Your Children!! It's Amnesty!!!

Reading some of the reactions to the immigration bill that passed the House yesterday, one might think the word "amnesty" is the dirtiest in the English language.

Above a picture of senators laughing, Katheryn Lopez writes, "Let's pretend it's not amnesty."

Charles Krauthammer: "Look, this is clearly amnesty."

John Hinderaker at Powerline: "I'm afraid that no matter what the 'compromise' ostensibly consists of, the feature that will actually be implemented is amnesty for the 12 million existing illegals."

John Mirengoff at Powerline: "The only part of the program a conservative rationally can expect to work is amnesty."

And Michelle Malkin, of course, hasn't stopped muttering the "a" word since the House vote.

And so on and so on and so on ...

So, why, exactly, is amnesty such a dirty word? According to one politician, because it means people broke "our nation's laws" to get into the country. Congressional authors hoping to avoid charges of amnesty created a series of penalties that, once paid, allow illegal immigrants to enter a path toward citizenship. The punitive process involves paying a $5,000 fine, returning to your native country, applying for citizenship (at which point you're allowed back), and then waiting anywhere from eight to 13 years.

Is this not harsh enough? To many on the right, it's tantamount to a get-out-of-jail free card. Which makes me wonder: Just what do they want? Nothing short of deportation? (For Mark Krikorian, that's a rhetorical question.) Seriously, though, can anyone actually imagine attempting a mass round-up and send-off of 12 million people? It would be a ghastly affair, with mothers being torn from the arms of their American-citizen children.

So if it's not mass deportations, as Krikorian favors, what policy suffices? The dearth of ideas on this front isn't dissimilar from anti-war types who proclaim their hatred of violence yet are conspicuously unimaginative about how to confront violence in its most aggressive forms.

Personally, illegally entering this country doesn't exactly strike me as the crime of the century. It's like leaving the gates to your swimming pool open and then scolding the children next door for using it -- even when you could see perfectly well the weekly pool parties they've been throwing for the last ten years from the comforts of your second-floor balcony. The only difference is that those who illegally enter America -- and I'm talking, for the most part, about Mexicans and South/Central Americans -- risk life and limb to do so. Not because they have some sort of vendetta against U.S. immigration formalities, but because their present circumstances are so unmitigatedly horrible that they've considered the options and deemed the potentially fatal risk worth taking. It may be illegal, but it's the sort of crime I could see myself committing were I in similar circumstances. (And I'm a pretty good guy.)

If politicians want to get serious about immigration, you can't continue leaving the gate open and then feigning outrage whenever people take advantage.

My solution? Build the fence. Then man it with immigration agents who can immediately process the new arrivals. America needs more people who aspire to be American. If overpopulation is a concern -- and I don't think it is -- some intrepid politician ought to think of a way to ease the ability to remove those who outwardly hate this country. Make space for those who love it, I say.

E Pluribus Unum

In "The United Nations of New York" the Daily News delivers an awesome feature, talking to "people from 100 countries, revealing why they moved to New York and what they love about the city they now call home." With an immigrant arriving in America every 27 seconds and one million having settled in Gotham since 2000, clearly the melting pot endures.

I humbly suggest reading it all -- though the online version isn't quite as good, as not everyone is featured in a photo -- but here are some samples:

Ecuador

Fabian Lliguin, 43, Manhattan, Hair styliSt

Came here in 1989, "out of curiosity."

Why I love New York: "Its multicultural tapestry, the best food in the world and the best-looking people representing every race on the planet."

Guinea

Marie-Helene Sanoussi, 26, Manhattan, executive assistant

Came here in 1990 when her father was appointed Guinea's UN ambassador.

Why I love New York: "For the endless opportunities it offers to anyone who comes in search of a better life. I love the energy New Yorkers possess and how bluntly honest they can be.

Afghanistan

Hamid-Abdul Nazary, 65, Queens
Elevator operator/ maintenance

Came here in 1981 to have a better life for himself and his family.

Why I love New York: "People are so good in this country. I work in the Port Authority building [on 42nd St.] 23 years now. Many people here have helped me get this good job."

Slovenia

Emil Gaspari, 54, Westchester, Salesman

First came here 45 years ago; became a citizen in 1977.

Why I love New York: "This is the most dynamic place in the world to trade. As long as you put forth the right amount of effort, you can accomplish whatever you want."

Ethiopia

Mehret Mandefro, 30, Harlem, physician at Montefiore

Came here in 1977 after fleeing a Communist takeover.

Why I love New York: "Being able to find a place to dance any night of the week."

Natives can be thankful, too. Immigrants remind us all how lucky we are to live in a free country (notwithstanding the best intentions of Nannies Bloomberg and Friedman).