How Did the Immigration Bill Fail?

Earlier today, I talked about Dan Balz's assessment that the immigration bill died due to lack of leadership on the bill. That is still true because the bills sponsors and cheerleaders failed to understand the limits of their leadership. Mark Krikorian noted that sometimes, when the public doesn't really care, leaders can lead a public down a path that policy elites like because the general public doesn't care. But the immigration bill demonstrates a different kind of leadership failure--not understanding that you can't lead the public in a big way when the opinion is so against your actions. So why did the bill fail:

The reason was simple — public outrage.

Immigration is one of those areas where public and elite views differ widely (for instance, see here and here). But most of the time that doesn’t really matter, because immigration seldom ranks high enough in voter concerns for politicians to take much notice. This gives lawmakers and bureaucrats a relatively free hand to cater to the preferences of businesses and racial-identity groups and anti-borders activists in promoting ever-higher immigration levels and ever-looser enforcement.

But that only works when you’re pushing bills or administrative measures that are relatively narrow and targeted.

snip

The accumulation of such small measures has a large effect, but it’s hard for non-specialists to see, and so it continues, like the proverbial frog sitting still in a pot of water while the temperature approaches boiling.

But when you assemble a huge “comprehensive” Frankenstein’s monster of a bill, stitching together body parts from all different aspects of the issue, it’s a different story. Then the media, and thus the public, start taking notice. And people don’t like what they see.

snip

It seems that the overreaching of amnesty advocates has politicized a lot of people, and not just conservatives, over the non-enforcement of the immigration law. And that’s a good thing too — if the White House concludes that amnesty is unattainable, there will be a strong temptation to end the enforcement show that’s been staged over the past six months or so, with workplace raids designed to bolster the administration’s credibility on the issue. A vigilant citizenry will be required to ensure that doesn’t happen — that enforcement is not only not discontinued, but that it’s expanded, so we can end the Bush administration’s “silent amnesty” and get to work implementing a real strategy of attrition through enforcement.

While Krikorian is right that most Americans don't know or appreciate the minutae of the bill, the guts of the bill are understandable and the American people didn't like it.

But another thing, exemplified by this post, really galled Americans, who tend to believe in following the rules. We were going to reward people who broke the rules, not on a case by case basis, but wholesale and that just rubbed people the wrong way.