The issue network against S.744 grew as the amendments to the bill were introduced in the committees. Two major immigration groups who represent thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers said they were not consulted and their concerns were ignored as the bill was drafted. The leaders of unions representing workers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a letter sent to lawmakers that the Senate immigration bill wouldn’t strengthen security of the U.S. border and failed to address problems identified by law-enforcement and immigration officials.
As the bill was moving relatively smoothly through the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, …show more content…
Certain politicians believe that sometimes a loss could be a victory. In the introduction to her book “Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making”, Stone states, that politicians always have at least two goals. First is a policy goal – whatever program or proposal they would like to see accomplished or defeated, whatever problem that would like to see solved. Perhaps more important she considers to be a political goal. Politicians always want to preserve their power, or gain enough power to accomplish their policy goals. Even though it has been an uphill battle for the anti-immigration lobby and interest groups who had been trying to block the bill in the Senate, according to Mark Kivorkian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, non-profit research organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States, believes, that “it was necessary and fruitful to fight the battle, because it really has tainted the legislation and made the bill toxic in the House.” The bill’s opponents have succeeded in defining it as an “amnesty for the illegals” which made the push for a comprehensive reform in the House much …show more content…
Either not understanding the issue fully or being too concentrated on their “pet issues” of border security the members of the issue networks created the atmosphere of technocracy, criticized by Hugh Heclo, which significantly complicated the policymaking process. What could be seen as positive traits of the issue specialists in the network, such as their dedication and the policy expertise, unfortunately contributed to complexity of the already convoluted issue of illegal immigration. Kaleidoscopic interactions within issue networks shaped the policy, helped to create a support base for it, but the resulting policy proved to be too broad to gain necessary support of the House legislators. As a result, a long needed reform died in the chambers. Both popular opinion and political pressure were defied in service of ideology and self-preservation of certain
As the bill was moving relatively smoothly through the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, …show more content…
Certain politicians believe that sometimes a loss could be a victory. In the introduction to her book “Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making”, Stone states, that politicians always have at least two goals. First is a policy goal – whatever program or proposal they would like to see accomplished or defeated, whatever problem that would like to see solved. Perhaps more important she considers to be a political goal. Politicians always want to preserve their power, or gain enough power to accomplish their policy goals. Even though it has been an uphill battle for the anti-immigration lobby and interest groups who had been trying to block the bill in the Senate, according to Mark Kivorkian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, non-profit research organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States, believes, that “it was necessary and fruitful to fight the battle, because it really has tainted the legislation and made the bill toxic in the House.” The bill’s opponents have succeeded in defining it as an “amnesty for the illegals” which made the push for a comprehensive reform in the House much …show more content…
Either not understanding the issue fully or being too concentrated on their “pet issues” of border security the members of the issue networks created the atmosphere of technocracy, criticized by Hugh Heclo, which significantly complicated the policymaking process. What could be seen as positive traits of the issue specialists in the network, such as their dedication and the policy expertise, unfortunately contributed to complexity of the already convoluted issue of illegal immigration. Kaleidoscopic interactions within issue networks shaped the policy, helped to create a support base for it, but the resulting policy proved to be too broad to gain necessary support of the House legislators. As a result, a long needed reform died in the chambers. Both popular opinion and political pressure were defied in service of ideology and self-preservation of certain