Augusta Chronicle
May 20, 2006

Isakson's plan loses - for now
But the fight for sensible immigration reform goes on

Supporters of President Bush's plan to put millions of illegal immigrants on the road to citizenship won major victories in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, but they had to first put down a gutsy effort by Georgia's freshman GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson to pump some common sense into the immigration bill.

Isakson offered an amendment that would have required the Homeland Security Department to prove the nation's borders were secure before the government could move ahead on other parts of the program, such as offering new guest worker visas or legalizing some of the 12 million illegal aliens already in the United States.

"To disagree with this amendment," said Isakson's co-sponsor and fellow Georgian and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, "sends the message to the American people that we are more eager to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship than we are to secure our borders from further illegal immigration."

He got that right, as did the other U.S. senators in our two-state area - except for Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Isakson pointed out in introducing his amendment, "In the absence of securing the border ... we're not going to have the cooperation of the American people, we're not going to have comprehensive reform, and a growing problem in this country will grow even greater."

Indeed, failure to control the border, coupled with legalization programs, simply is an invitation for more illegals to flood the country. This is what happened with the 1986 reforms. Parts of the law that called for tougher border enforcement were woefully underfunded and ignored, while the "comprehensive" parts that granted amnesty to millions of illegals moved ahead quickly.

This appears to be the direction in which the nation is headed again, at least if the Senate has its way. The measure that the Republican-controlled Senate approved Tuesday night was sponsored by a Democrat, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado. He would let the president decide when it's safe to move ahead on immigration programs unrelated to border control.

The news isn't all bad, because Isakson may have the last word after all. The U.S. House is much closer to his position than Salazar's, which means if there is to be an immigration reform bill this election year, Congress as a whole will have to move away from Salazar and closer to Isakson. The fight for sensible immigration legislation isn't lost yet.