THE REAL PROBLEM WITH IMMIGRATION
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH IMMIGRATION
REFORM: NO ONE BELIEVES THAT THE
LAW WILL EVER BE ENFORCED
by
Ken Eliasberg.
At the outset let’s stipulate that both Parties vigorously support “immigration” —after all, aren’t we all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. This country was settled by immigrants. Moreover, I strongly believe that neither Party’s constituency supports illegal immigration. Finally, I think it is safe to say that everyone (except possibly our leaders)—Democrat and Republican, alike—wants meaningful immigration reform Where we seem to differ is as to what constitutes “meaningful.” I suspect that it is fair to say that “meaningful” lies somewhere between a total and complete amnesty, on the one hand, and a total and complete nativist policy of isolationism on the other. One further observation re our differences and divisions is in order, and that is simply this—as noted, I strongly suspect that the real differences are not as much between Republicans and Democrats as between our leaders and their constituents. That is, the leadership of each Party does not really want to touch this issue for 2 reasons: (1) The Republicans want cheap labor, and the Democrats want new voters (their ranks are thinning), and (2) each Party is deathly afraid of stepping on hispanic toes, Hispanics being the largest minority in the country and one that promises to get nothing but larger. Republicans draw back in horror whenever they are reminded of Prop. 187 (even though that Prop. failed because of poor communication (a particular talent of Republicans) and inappropriate Judicial intervention.
That said, the Bush-McCain/Kennedy Bill is not “meaningful.” It is amnesty, no matter how hard its authors try to wriggle out from under the Bill’s being so considered. Granted it is not flat out amnesty, i.e. a complete get-out-of-jail-free card. It is amnesty with some bells and whistles. But that’s not what is really standing in the way of its passage. What is (and should be) a terminal roadblock is that most of our citizenry entertains serious doubts as to whether the secure-the-borders portion of the Bill will ever be enforced. And, based on the Government’s historical enforcement record, these doubts are quite reasonable.
This Bill takes a carrot-and-stick approach to our immigration problem. And that is understandable for several reasons: (1) we are not going to throw out 12-20 million illegal aliens—forget the humane aspects of such an undertaking, the logistics would make it damn near impossible, (2) moreover, as noted in my prior effort on the immigration effort, the effect on our economy could be disastrous, and (3) neither Party has the guts to step up to the plate were such an undertaking put before them. Consequently, some form of “guest worker” legislation is going to eventually be enacted, and that legislation will provide a path to citizenship for the existing illegals, notwithstanding their violation of our laws. That’s not the real sticking point—enforcement is.
There’s an old saying—I CAN’T HEAR WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE THE NOISE OF WHAT YOU DO - and it perfectly captures the mood of our citizenry today. And, based on the fact that there has been no real effort at enforcement for the past 4 or 5 decades, there is good reason for such skepticism. What really concerns our voters—again, with good reason—is that many of us believe that no sooner than this Bill is enacted than their will be something between a relaxation or termination of the “stick” portion of the legislation. The carrot part of the legislation will remain; the stick part will fall by the wayside.
Senator McCain, as he campaigns around the country on his effort to become our next President (although this Bill and McCain/Feingold should be more than enough data to indicate why he should not serve in that office) frequently chides critics of his Bill (McCain/Kennedy) to offer an alternative if they are not happy with this measure. How about this—ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS!!!
I’ll go better, add the original House Proposals to existing laws, and then aggressively enforce the revised combination for a prolonged period—e.g. 5 years—and then we can talk about the guest worker provisions in the proposed Bill. That would lend credibility to all the conversation, and lend reality to the rhetoric. Right now, it all sounds like B.S. to most of the voters, and, folks, I’ve got news for you—IT IS.
Two final thoughts (1) the guest worker provisions are so complicated that it is doubtful that they would be rigorously followed in all events, particularly by an organization as fundamentally ineffectual as the I.N.S. (from my limited dealings with them, I came away with the distinct impression that every incompetent from every other governmental agency had been poured into the I.N.S.); and (2) Bush is a good man, and I’m fond of him, but dividing his base as he has done on this matter—by suggesting that opponents were nativist, as opposed to having legitimate issues with this Bill—is calculated to only use up what little political capital he has left. And it seems to me that, if he were going to use up his capital, he could find a lot worthier cause than this in which to do so. Next week, how about leaning on Mexico to make some effort to deal with the supply side of the equation while we focus on the demand side.?