The immigration bill: America's priority?
Even before the Syrian situation got hot, those supposedly heated “town hall” sessions last month on the Senate's amnesty-driven immigration bill were met with the chill of public disengagement, according to various newspaper accounts.
Stalled immigration legislation drew yawns, not yells, at lawmakers' forums. Obviously among issues vying for the public's attention this fall —not the least of which is ObamaCare — the immigration bill is small potatoes.
And that stands to reason. If, as polls still show, Americans are more concerned about the slow economic recovery and stagnant jobs rate, why would they want to open the door to U.S. employment for millions of illegal aliens?
Even the most pro-immigration-bill proponents, President Obama's Organizing for Action, failed to deliver a single rabble-rouser at an August event organized by Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., whose district includes a significant Hispanic population.
Elsewhere, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., was repeatedly corrected by constituents at a forum for using the term “undocumented aliens.” People shouted back “illegal!”
And Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., called the legislation what it is: “a crappy bill.”
Evidently the tide has not turned for Democrats' so-called “pathway to citizenship,” which in coming weeks could get swept away in the undertow of far more significant and pressing national concerns.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- How to counter Putin in Syria
- The Kane case: Charges upon charges
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- Saturday essay: Perpetual peppers
- The Oregon shooting: Tragic & appalling
- Fire prevention: Service & honor
- Sunday pops
- ‘80 by 50’?: This extreme climate proposal is a big zero
- WQED’s shake-up: Not enough
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances