I'm beginning to understand why the MSM is disinclined to show things like Mexican flags on flagpoles or signs claiming that the Southwest belongs to Mexico.

In a previous post I questioned the advisability of creating millions of new felons. Earlier today I googled the phrase "12 million new felons," and found only one article using the term, in the Indiana Daily Student:

The United States could potentially have 12 million new felons or 12 million new citizens, depending on two sets of immigration reform legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Congress, the nation and the IU community are currently taking up the debate whether to follow Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee proposal, which would create a guest worker program and presents a path toward citizenship for many illegal immigrants already in the country. On the other hand is the option to go along with the more hard-line lead of a bill the House passed last December, which strengthens border security and would make illegal immigration a felony offense.

"Everyone can agree that our immigration policy is broken," said John Nieto-Phillips, associate professor of history and Latino studies. "There are more people who want to work than there are visas."

Before I get into the political considerations, let me elaborate on why I oppose the Sensenbrenner bill. I know it's tough to speculate about precisely how these things might play out, but what would be the consequences of having twelve million new felons (plus their non-alien supporters)? For starters, even though they're here and many of them have been here for years, they would never be allowed to vote, serve in the military, or immigrate to the United States. The felony classification would mean a readjustment of police priorities, because felonies are treated as high-priority matters. Suddenly, illegal alien status would become a more urgent matter than any misdemeanor.

The felon status might also change the nature of personal interactions between citizens and non-citizens. If the latter got into a car accident with the former, would the dynamics of accident reporting be changed? (Saying "Officer, that man is a felon!" carries more clout than saying that he ran the red light, as police officers are not allowed to ignore felonies.)

Then there's the "fleeing felon rule," which traditionally allowed officers (and often bystanders) to use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. Since 1985, lethal force has not been allowed, so I don't think people would be authorized to shoot aliens for running away. But felony status would increase the number of what police call "felony stops."

I could play devil's advocate with this (and I know a good case can be made for the bill) but my concern is that the creation of 12 million new felons (with God-knows how many accomplices) is not something to be taken lightly.

Does anyone know well this might play with the voters? I haven't seen the polls. But after thinking it over, I am inclined to think that the draconian Sensenbrenner bill will help the Republicans -- provided it does not actually pass.

I'll try to explain.

Some have asked whether the felon bill is "threatening to undercut a decade-long effort by President Bush and his party to court Hispanic voters, just as both parties are gearing up for the 2006 elections." There's the obvious argument that it will galvanize the Republican base, but on the other hand passage of it might give the Democrats something to run against. ("The Republicans are going to imprison your entire family!")

What happens in November depends on a lot of things. As things stand, even if the hardline Sensenbrenner felony bill doesn't prevail, as long as the immigration issue stays alive, I think the Republicans will be seen as the party that at least tried to do something (and thus, would be more likely to do something in the future).

Recent polls show that the supposedly embattled Arnold Schwarzenegger is suddenly doing pretty well. Although Arnold is not a hard-liner on immigration by Republican standards, immigration is now a major issue, and his past remark that the border should be closed may have resonated in his favor. Today's LA Times says that the recent protests "reshape the governor's race":

A poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that illegal immigration has emerged as the top concern among Republicans in the state and the second most important among all of those surveyed. With the exception of education, the subjects that all three candidates have embraced have fallen behind.

The governor has not entirely ignored illegal immigration. He offered support for the civilian Minuteman border-patrol group last year and said California should "close the border," a comment he quickly rescinded.

On Tuesday, he outlined his views on immigration in an opinion piece in The Times. He endorsed a guest-worker program to help California businesses and argued against "criminalizing immigrants for coming here," though he also said that making citizens out of all illegal immigrants in the United States would be "anarchy."

The fact that the "choice" is seen as being between citizenship and felony status is almost as absurd as asking people to choose between sodomy laws and gay marriage. It only shows how hugely polarizing the issue is. And while a majority of Americans might not want to imprison 12 million people who have crossed the border illegally, that does not mean they want their conduct rewarded. Americans were hugely pissed off to begin with, and now that they've seen the angry demonstrations by people with no right to be here, they're in no mood for rewarding illegal behavior.

The Sensenbrenner bill allows the Republicans to play good cop/bad cop. Come November, they can take all the credit for taking a hard line on immigration, and if it fails, they won't have to face the tough questions about tearing families apart and putting people in jail.

At the risk of sounding like the cynical Machiavellian I sometimes am, I think the Republicans will be helped by the Sensenbrenner bill -- as long as it never becomes law.

By far the best way would be to get the Democrats to kill it, or at least be seen as killing it.

Hillary Clinton was off to a good start when she denounced the Sensenbrenner as being likely to lead to a "police state." And she did even better with last week's criminalize Jesus remark. But since the Mexican flags and the Reconquista stuff, she's been much too silent. Tim Graham says the "police state" remark is now being downplayed. What's the matter? Can't she be annointed as the Sensenbrenner bill killer?

And what's up with Karl Rove? Can't he do a better job of making sure that Indymedia and Moveon.org wave the "Reconquista" signs and Mexican flags? Why is Moveon.org so damned silent about the immigration issue? (Well, at least Indymedia hasn't been sleeping on the job, but I'm disappointed in Moveon.org.) How about Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore? Where are they now that the undocumented need them?

If the Democrats are to be seen as killing the bill, the Republicans will have to work harder.

Right now it's looking as though the Senate Republicans are going to kill the Sensenbrenner bill by burying it in a lack of consensus.

(I guess that's a form of cood cop/bad cop.)

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Mickey Kaus begins by noting Paul Krugman's observation ("high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration") and thinks the ball should be in the Democrats' camp:

Krugman is clearly way off the PC/Dem/elite legalization reservation here. Republican Tony Blankley noticed. But will the Left? ... P.S.: The effect of immigrants in driving down the wages of unskilled African-American men is not just an economic question. It's a profound social question. Only by offering a decent living through legitimate work will we have a chance of integrating the large segment--maybe almost half--of the black male populations that's currently spinning off into a separate, destructive, "left behind" culture (even as black women are joining the regular labor force in record numbers). Where's the Congressional Black Caucus?

I'm not expecting answers.

AND MORE: Also via Glenn Reynolds, McQ at QandO thinks border control should come first. Yes, and it should have come first long ago. It's the one thing on which there's overwhelming popular (as opposed to political) consensus.

UPDATE (03/31/06): Sean Kinsell (while "of two minds" on how far to go with enforcement) also sees a backlash as a likely result of the recent demonstrations:

If the purpose of the demonstrations over the last few weeks was to win over Middle America, I'm thinking there were some serious miscalculations. Waving the Mexican flag or painting your face in its colors is a poor way to indicate your loyalty to the US. And thronging the streets of LA in the hundreds of thousands is...I mean, only the Blue City liberals who recall 60s-era demonstrations fondly as opportunities for The People to Speak Truth to Power are likely to be moved to sympathize, and they're already on the side of illegal aliens, anyway.