So much for principle from the Mavericky Senator McCain.

He was courting swing votes and got jilted.

Hence the junior high quality of his response.

I really think we should avoid using meaningless terms like "immigration reform". Everyone knows reform is good, right? So immigration reform means better immigration policy. Who would be against that?

The devil, as always, is in the details, and the Bush immigration "reform" plan was full of devils.

I can agree that we aren't likely to see comprehensive immigration reform for a few years, but I do think that we can get the DREAM Act passed. It has already been introduced in this Congress by L. Diaz-Balart and Berman in the House and by Lugar and Durbin in the Senate. It would be a meaningful first step for Obama and the legislature to take in tackling immigration reform. I have blogged about it many times, but most recently here:

http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/03/27/in-spirit-of-bipartisanship-dream-act-reintroduced-in-congress/

As for McCain's remarks, he's a sore loser, and unfortunately, his party has taken him to task for even putting his name on the last attempt at immigration reform (McCain-Kennedy).

Immigration as an issue has crazy cuts across the citizenry that make it very dicey indeed, especially in a severe economic downturn. There is no uniform party-based responses, and even geographic locations are very tricky. Danger lurks there.

Although I'd like to see this addressed in a fair manner, this is an issue that won't be fairly responded too, but demogoged relentlessly. Its toxic now more than under Bush.

With all that it on the shoulders of Obama and the Congress (budget, financial chaos, healthcare, climate/energy, AF-Pak, Israel, Iran, N. Korea, education, et. al.) this is an issue where failure to act is less bothersome to public discourse than exciting more foaming mouths.

But McCain is really an a-hole: "You people", indeed. I hope his ass gets tossed on his reelection try and he may have provided the incentive.

Rob Mac has it exactly right. Everybody wants "reform", so until you spell out the specifics, you're talking about nothing.

I think Obama will be very cautious. I would be very surprised if any comprehensive reform is going to be attempted. I think it will be done in small way like pushing the DREAM Act and offsetting it politically with adding more border patrol and worksite enforcement.

In short, I think we will have the status quo for bit longer.

If Obama really wanted to drive a stake into the heart of the right, he'd make a push for comprehensive immigration reform next year. Republicans would tear each other apart and lose Hispanics for a generation in the process. It would be a great political move.

The kind of “solution” envisioned by the hegemonic forces in our country, business and political and cultural elites of both parties, would be the de facto end of the United States. At least that’s what 75% or 80% of Americans, the non-elites, seem to be thinking. As it stands now, civil war or revolution would result. Before the elites can implement their “solution,” they’ll need to finish the job of degrading, demoralizing, deracinating, dumbing down, impoverishing, and disarming the majority of Americans. You’ve already gotten a strong start, fellas and gals, so just keep up the good work.

McCain is a liar. When he is in the presidential election, he said that he support immigration reform. He failed the election. He should help Obama to accomplish the task, but now he takes himself out of it because many people hadn't voted him..

Immigration reform is only a political hot potato because it means "amnesty".

An immigration reform that granted amnesty but also was serious about border security and increasing deportations for future illegals would not be nearly as unpopular.

The only problem voters have with immigration reform is that it doesn't actually solve anything.

Why not have a tax amnesty as well? What would a tax amnesty solve if it wasn't paired with better future enforcement? Understand where I'm coming from?

There should not be another amnesty. We did that in 1986 with several subsequent acts of weaking of the enforcement promises and continual broading of the benefits. Will we have a new amnesty every twenty years or so. The 1986 ACT was expected generate at the most, 1.5 million applications. Instead the final figure was 3 million. More if all the other amnesty court decisions are included. Today it is projected that 12 million applications will be generated under another amnesty. Will that actually result in 24 million applications? But of course if we break it up into several chunks, i.e. Dream Act, maybe the pro illegal immigrant crowd will be able to claim far few numbers when the final amnesty takes place. Mo more amnesties. I love this country and I am very, very afraid for its future