One of the biggest surprises of this election year is that the immigration issue appears to have exploded in Oregon. Quite why this perennially liberal state, with a Congressional Delegation blemished by a D+ record on immigration, should be should be asserting national leadership on the question is not obvious, but it is:

Candidates hop aboard immigration bandwagon – Janie Har The Oregonian Sunday October 29 2006

Illegal immigration has exploded into a political free-for-all issue this fall, becoming the me-too topic for both Democrats and Republicans in campaigns from Oregon’s top executive post to seats in the Legislature.
Eugene Democratic House candidate Chris Edwards wants to deport illegal immigrants convicted of drunken driving instead of letting them sit in Oregon jails. Terry Rilling, a Cornelius Republican running for the House, favors prohibiting undocumented immigrants from getting public services. Everyone, it seems, wants to make sure only legal residents get an Oregon driver’s license.

Part of the credit apparently belongs to the Republican Gubernatorial candidate, who apparently has quite a long record of taking an interest in the issue. Part unquestionably belongs to dedicated grassroots work by organizations like Oregonians For Immigration Reform, which is strong enough to stage demonstrations, and whose leader Jim Ludwick (profiled in Area activist works to curb illegal immigration –Thelma Guerro Statesman Journal October 30 2006) was modest enough to tell The Oregonian

Four years ago, we couldn’t get candidates running for governor to even talk to us. I’d like to say it’s something we’re doing, but quite frankly, there are polls, and they show that Americans are as mad as wet hens about illegal immigration.”

Indeed, there have been signs for some time that some Oregon public officials (and news organizations) in the state were aware of the matter.

I wonder, also, if the State’s famous tradition of environmentalism has been influential.

But what is particularly significant is the reaction of the Democrats. As Professor Jim Moore of Pacific University says

The Democrats are seeing this as an issue that could cause problems and are fighting back in the traditional way by saying ’yes, we do that too.’…everybody is saying there’s a problem. If you don’t, you’re going to lose elections. Nobody wants to be seen as basically saying foreigners can come in and have a major role in the community.”

(Immigration issue back in Oregon campaigns By Joseph B. Frazier Associated Press October 25 2006)

This response proves that the message from the Oregon electorate is loud and unmistakable.

Mickey Kaus, who has a clearer view of immigration politics than the entire staff of the New York Times and his local LA Times combined, has been wondering if Speaker Pelosi will pass a Bush amnesty bill?

I’ve been trying to figure out if a Democrat-led House would actually pass some version of the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty immigration bill.

Everyone I talk to in Washington pooh-poohs the idea, arguing that Pelosi-led Democrats will never give Bush something he wants. I’d like to agree, but I’m skeptical. The only thing standing in the way of the Bush legislation was the Republican House, and if that’s gone … . Plus, there will be intense pressure from Latino groups for Democrats to take advantage of the rare welfare-reform-like opening in which a President is willing to defy his own party’s Congressional caucus. Not to mention all those new citizens for Dems to register. … V-DARE immigration-restrictionist Steve Sailer is skeptical too, though he notes the possibility of a split among the Dems, with a significant Lou-Dobbsy “preserve unskilled wages” faction finally emerging. But Sailer leaves out the possibility of a McCain presidency–which would presumably mean at least four more years of White House pressure for “comprehensive” reform. … P.S.: Anyone who can help me think through this somewhat crucial question, please e-mail. … 9:55 P.M.[Slate.com, scroll down,]

Yes, please e-mail Mickey if you have any ideas. It’s certainly a puzzlement–Nancy Pelosi isn’t eager to pass any Bush bill, but Bush’s amnesty has always been a surrender to the Democrats, who want to elect a new people. Would the Dems favor employers over workers?–wait, Pelosi is an employer!

And throwing a McCain presidency into the equation doubles the puzzlement factor–Bush is putting his vision of amnesty ahead of party loyalty, not surprising, but McCain will be worse.

McCain will always put John McCain ahead of party loyalty–I mean, looking ahead to a McCain presidency, can you say for sure which party’s ticket he’ll be elected on?