The political precariousness of U.S. electoral politics has again been evidenced in the recent negotiations over the immigration bill. Immigrant rights advocates and activists may have felt a mixture of anger, disgust, sadness, anxiety, and even despair during the last month or so as the national debate over immigration was focused on the passage of the truly deadly welfare and immigration bills. Once more, the rights and lives of immigrants and refugees have been trampled upon for political gain in yet another election.

There was some consolation in the fact that the elections have also provided a focal point for activity among immigrants and new citizens: rallies and marches, voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts aimed at bringing hundreds of thousands from immigrant communities into a new level of civic participation. A record number of immigrants have become new citizens this year, and good portion of them have registered in time to participate in the November elections.

Unfortunately, however, the cause of immigration was generally a defensive one, as politicians/policy makers - conservatives, moderates and liberals - either led the charge or made massive concessions to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Right.

CAMPAIGN FAILS TO ADVANCE RIGHTS

Clearly, the national presidential elections have not provided a vehicle for the advancement of any human or civil rights - in the least, immigrant rights.

In the media-dominated, sound-bite terrain of the elections, immigration has to be one of the most unpopular issues on the agenda. As candidates vie for the support of the "voters" (read: white, middle class) and to their rich backers, they have fallen all over themselves with proposals to control the "immigration problem." (Elsewhere in this issue of Network News, we talk about the long history of U.S. politics and anti-immigrant hostilities.)

The immigration bill was a recent victim of election-year jockeying for political gain. Presidential aspirants Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson raised the anti-immigrant flag early on in their campaigns, but they were unable to generally gain broad party support. However, Wilson continued to play a strong role in pushing an anti-immigrant agenda.

REPUBLICANS DOMINATE NEGOTIATIONS

In the final rounds of consideration, the legislation was dominated by the Republicans, who had their own tactical differences over the bill. It was rumored dead one day, alive and kicking the next. Would Clinton really veto the bill if the ban on education for undocumented immigrant children (the Gallegly amendment) were included? Could the Republicans deny Clinton the campaign glory of signing "their" immigration control bill in the White House Rose Garden? Could they make him look weak on immigration by giving him a bill he would be compelled to veto?

The White House directly and through various departments made known its problems with some of the bill's components, indicating its most serious concern was with the education ban. Clinton had already signed the welfare bill which practically eliminated the "safety net" of benefits for almost all immigrants. In the final hours of the immigration bill's long journey through Congress, the Administration also balked on a few other provisions. Republican leadership, over candidate Bob Dole's objections, decided to drop the education ban. While immigrant rights advocates flooded Congress and the White House with letters, phone calls, faxes and e-mail messages, few held out any hope that the bill would be taken off the congressional agenda as policy makers rushed to an early adjournment for the round of pre-election campaigning.

Further wrangling after the bill was included in the 1997 budget agreement resulted in eliminating the provision that would have deported immigrants who used more than 12 months of benefits, and which would have denied AIDS and HIV treatment for undocumented immigrants. In the end, Clinton was denied a separate signing of the immigration bill, but he has continued to tout his "strong on immigration" record.

Indeed, the combination of welfare and immigration legislation, along with the "anti-terrorism" bill passed earlier in the year, has qualitatively impacted present and future immigration. Despite Clinton's promises to re-visit some elements of legislation when he is re-elected, few believe that any substantial, meaningful changes will be made.

And after all the talk about budget savings based on restricting immigrants, this budget bill to the end was filled with "pork barrel" allocations and catering to corporate interests (not to mention that we're still paying for the savings and loan bailout).

On the "positive side," the flood of anti-immigrant activity in the last couple of years has stimulated naturalization , and voter registration of hundreds of thousands of new immigrants. Many people were admittedly moved by fear, that because of their immigrant status, they were more vulnerable to public hostility and to government restrictions. Others were moved by a sense of anger, and were determined to become citizens to have more of a voice, including being able to vote in elections for public officials and on initiatives such as Proposition 187.

Ironically, it is this new motion among established immigrants - to become enfranchised and to commit themselves to civic participation -- which was no doubt a significant concern among many supporters of Proposition 187.

Not only are states like California changing in terms of their racial make-up, but there will be in the not so distant future, also a change in the make-up of the voting population. And if these new citizens vote along with other populations of color, there will be a change in the body politic of California. Along with other key sectors of the population, these voters have to be the targets of short and long term efforts of voter education and mobilization - and certainly not just for presidential elections. Fighting to keep bilingual ballots and for more democratic election reforms, will also need to be part of our agenda of empowerment.

While today politicians want to be elected on the basis of how hard they come down on immigration, in the future, that may be the basis for losing an election! In the mean time, these new voters may play a critical role in all sorts of local elections, on candidacies and various ballot measures that affect our day-to-day lives. If informed and mobilized to vote, these new citizens may very well be able to "change the face" of America.

Cathi Tactaquin is Director of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights