Harry Reid's Dream scenario

Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada has a major bill to pay. In the November midterms, he nearly lost his re-election bid to Sharron Angle, an erratic Tea Party candidate with bizarre views on everything from UFOs to fluoride in the water. But a last-minute surge by Latino voters angered by Angle's racial insensitivity, both on the stump and in her closing campaign ads, put the beleaguered Reid over the top. And now, in return, Reid says he'll push for a vote on the controversial Dream Act legalisation bill, during the upcoming "lame-duck" session of Congress.

Lame-duck sessions are, by their nature, exceedingly controversial. A party that loses an election – and, in this case, even its House majority – convenes the outgoing Congress to vote on bills that the incoming Congress would almost surely reject. Is that democracy?

Not really, but both parties have used lame-ducks sessions for years. Ostensibly, they're meant to address what's known, rather euphemistically, as "unfinished business". That should mean legislation that the outgoing Congress simply ran out of time to address, but on which it's already established a significant degree of consensus.

So, the thinking goes, why start the legislative debate over from scratch, with incoming members of Congress, unless they're likely to adopt a completely different view of the matter? And in many cases, there's also money on the line, and an annual budget that needs to be balanced. That adds pressure to get the measure passed, even if it means, in effect, extending the legislative calendar.

But Reid's manoeuvre on Dream does not fit this amiable rationale – not by a long shot. That's why bringing it up for a vote – win or lose – is bound to anger Republicans, who just swept to power in the House and significantly narrowed the Democrats' majority in the Senate.

The incoming chairmen of the key House committees dealing with immigration are GOP hardliners like Texan Congressman Lamar Smith, who is preparing to push highly inflammatory legislation to repeal "birthright" citizenship for children of illegal aliens who were born on US soil. He for one, then, is not about to cut some legislative slack to the children of "illegal aliens" who were not, in fact, born here.

Five years ago, there was a small but solid corps of veteran moderate Republicans who might have been counted on to support the Dream Act, which was first introduced in 2001. The measure is intended to provide a path to legalisation for alien minors who migrated illegally with their parents through no fault of their own.

And the economic arguments in favour of Dream are certainly compelling. After all, the nation is already invested heavily in the education of these young people with public tax money, and they're already largely assimilated, so why not let them stay and become productive members of society?

And Dream isn't just a free pass. Beneficiaries must attend college or join the US military, have a clean criminal record and pay their outstanding taxes. Naturally, the Pentagon, which is increasingly anxious about declining recruitment due to the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, loves the idea. It's even incorporated the number of expected Dream beneficiaries – about 2.1 million – into its current force structure planning estimates. But support for Dream, even from past GOP moderates like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, who are otherwise staunch defence advocates, is virtually nil.

To get the bill passed, Harry Reid would have to deliver a combination of some or all of the 59 Democrats who were in office prior to November, plus one or more Republicans, who would agree, in effect, to "defect" from their party, and join Democrats in what is likely to be pilloried as an undemocratic "end run" around Congress.

It's not clear who Reid expects to vote for the measure. Before the midterms, he tried to attach the Dream Act as an amendment to the Defence Authorisation bill, but a threatened GOP filibuster killed that effort. Possible GOP defectors could include Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, who were critical in helping the Democrats pass healthcare reform.

But the real problem is likely to come from Reid's fellow Democrats, 23 of whom must defend their seats in 2012. A few senators in states with large Latino electorates might benefit from a high-level push Dream. But for many others, it could alienate mainstream voters, weakening their re-election chances.

In fact, some observers suspect that Reid's not that intent on winning. Other Democrats like Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey have prepared a revised "comprehensive reform" bill to match a similar bill that Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois introduced in the House nearly a year ago. Neither of those two bills has any realistic chance of being passed by the incoming Congress. Apparently, though, Democrats hope that forcing Republicans to vote against a sweeping solution to one of the nation's thorniest problems – without the GOP offering an alternative of its own – will rebound to their political advantage in 2012. Republicans, they hope, will continue, to appear as the "party of no", and voters will blame them, more than the Democrats, for gridlock.

Despite the high-risk strategy, much the same logic – plus Reid's personal debt to Latino voters – appears to be fuelling this renewed push on Dream. But will it work?

Probably not. According to recent polls, a third of Latinos now blame both parties for failing to solve the immigration crisis. And the blowback from trying to push Dream before the new Congress is even seated could become a gale force wind of conservative protest if the Tea Party gets involved.

Ironically, Reid and the Democrats might have passed an immigration reform bill in the last Congress. Top Republicans, including Orrin Hatch of Utah, have admitted as much, and so has Reid. But Obama's reticence, combined with the debilitating healthcare reform battle, sapped the administration of its political will and capital. And suing Arizona over its draconian SB 1070 law, most observers agree, was designed as an election-year stopgap, partly to placate Latinos who were disappointed with the administration's lack of progress on immigration reform.

By promising to push the Dream Act, Reid's clearly raising the stakes – both with Latino voters, who may not be so forgiving if the measure fails to pass, and with conservatives, who are certain to launch a major legislative counter-offensive on immigration if it does. Yet, Reid, anxious to save face, appears intent on pushing ahead, and Dream supporters, including hundreds of students who have marched and conducted civil disobedience actions in recent months, are demanding immediate action, regardless of the potential fallout.

That's why for Democrats, losing the lame-duck vote – but walking away with a symbolic victory for trying – could turn out to be preferable to winning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...tino-dream-act

Something's rotten in Washington.