WSJ on Immigration
I'm not the only one. The Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal is with me on the President's speech.
President Bush laid out a "rational middle ground" on immigration Monday night amid an irrational election year. The question in the next few weeks is whether his own political party is smart enough to seize the moment and follow, or would rather run off on the anti-immigration rails.
Everybody I talk to says "rails!" I was speaking with a Bush-supporting but Tancredo-friendly relative yesterday. He's of the "wall first" flavor and I respect him immensely. But he said that the government isn't ready to create ID cards. I asked if we were more ready to build a 2000 mile wall. "Is the environmental impact study complete?"
An accompanying graph shows a nice linear rise in border patrol agents from 4,000 in 1994 to under 12,000 today. I think this belies the concept that enforcement has been ignored or gravely under funded Yes, it could be improved (and I think the President laid out exactly how) but enforcement-only will not work. The President's plan of fence, technology, more agents, guard troops, ID cards, and employer enforcement would combine to provide effective enforcement, while legal paths to work and citizenship would relieve the pressure on the border.
The reason has less to do with policy -- Mr. Blunt is not a policy man -- than with this year's elections. The President's approval ratings are down, Congress's are even lower thanks to its poor record of achievement, and so the Members have grabbed immigration enforcement as the issue to turn out the GOP base. We'll find out in November if it worked, though for now all it seems to have done is divide the party and drive Mr. Bush's ratings even lower.
The President is offering Congress a way out of this box canyon. His proposal for a guest-worker program is a serious attempt to reduce the incentives that immigrants have to enter the U.S. illegally. He also realizes that, for the illegals already here, mass deportations are impractical and would spell political suicide for the GOP. Hence, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying this week to garner more support for a bipartisan plan that would put these illegal workers on a path to citizenship if they pass a background check, pay fines, learn English and satisfy other requirements.
[...]
We realize we're pushing uphill by mentioning these realities amid what has become a full-fledged political panic. Mr. Bush probably also erred in not objecting more vigorously last year when the House GOP rolled out its punitive legislation that makes working here illegally a felony. That bill has both inflamed Hispanics and made immigration control a larger and more polarizing issue than it needed to be this year. If Republicans want to emerge with their majority intact, they'll take Mr. Bush's advice and support reform that does more about immigration than pretending that more border police will solve the problem.
Internecine
Posted by jk at May 17, 2006 2:27 PM
The Democrats made a brilliant move when they insisted on language in the House immigration bill making illegal immigration a felony. This one fact is cited almost universally as the "GOP's punitive legislation." Brilliant move, Nancy!
The single biggest complaint I have about "guest worker" is "path to citizenship." If you want to be a citizen, follow the rules already in place. Period.
BUT... I strongly endorse the idea of revising immigration law to eliminate quotas on legal entry for the purpose of employment. I.D. everyone, keep out the criminals and terrorists, then let the markets run the show.
On top of this we still need to stop spending tax dollars on bilinguality and, since non-citizen workers will no longer be "in the shadows" they can be held to all the same civil standards as citizens are.
As a free bonus, once the law about legal entry is changed then everyone who came in before is no longer a criminal.
The Democrats made a brilliant move when they insisted on language in the House immigration bill making illegal immigration a felony. This one fact is cited almost universally as the "GOP's punitive legislation." Brilliant move, Nancy!
The single biggest complaint I have about "guest worker" is "path to citizenship." If you want to be a citizen, follow the rules already in place. Period.
BUT... I strongly endorse the idea of revising immigration law to eliminate quotas on legal entry for the purpose of employment. I.D. everyone, keep out the criminals and terrorists, then let the markets run the show.
On top of this we still need to stop spending tax dollars on bilinguality and, since non-citizen workers will no longer be "in the shadows" they can be held to all the same civil standards as citizens are.
As a free bonus, once the law about legal entry is changed then everyone who came in before is no longer a criminal.
Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2006 3:56 PMI am looking for those who are more enforcement oriented than I who were won over by the President's balanced plan. I don't expect you to dance about giddily, but would call yourself "supportive" of the President's outline?
Posted by: jk at May 18, 2006 4:18 PMI heard the beginning of his speech before leaving for dinner with in-laws, but what I heard sounded good - the beginning part, where he was speaking in generalities about values and such. As for his proposed plan I can't say that I really understand the details.
My general sense though is that it it more like Reagan's 1984 "amnesty" than like a sustainable solution to an ongoing problem. I could be wrong, but that's how it comes across.
I still have yet to hear the president or anyone in government talk about unlimited legal work permits. They always focus on "path to citizenship" and never mention that annual quotas and, thus, motivation to immigrate illegally, will remain.
Can you tell me what the president's "balanced plan" does to eliminate the current scarcity of opportunities for legal immigration?
Posted by: johngalt at May 19, 2006 4:21 PM | What do you think? [3]