The Washington Post today has an editorial on immigration, calling the White House "strangely silent". The last paragraph containing the Post's recommendation isn't so bad:
It is possible, of course, that a compromise could be found, and indeed the outline of one is visible: It would contain high levels of enforcement; new funds for the borders and for identity cards; a realistic temporary visa program; and some means of legalizing those who are here without granting them a free pass.
The dirty little secret is that when the Post says "without granting them a free pass" they're talking about the mostly-metaphoric acknowledgment of wrongdoing included in Sens. Kennedy and McCain's bill, which "requires illegals to pay a fine and back taxes and return to the back of the immigration queue, but it ultimately allows them to apply for legal status".
The players in the picture seem to have forgotten the lesson of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill from 1986-- also referred to as the '86 amnesty. This bill is an exemplar of legislative courage and I have utmost respect for Rep. Mazzoli in particular--his picture is in the dictionary twice, next to "spry" and also "sweetest person ever, bar none". However, twenty years later we know that Simpson-Mazzoli caused a spike in illegal immigration because of the promise of amnesty or grandfathering. This spike in illegal immigration combined with increased border enforcement created what some people call a "humanitarian crisis", which others refer to as a "law enforcement problem"-- people died risking their lives to cross the border.
The proponents of amnesty would do well to remember the after-effects of Simpson-Mazzoli as they lobby against anything resembling reform on capitol hill. The truth is that amnesty has very real implications for border security, because it inevitably increases attempts to cross the border. If proponents of amnesty are so deeply concerned about the fate of illegal immigrants, they'd do well to remember that once you create the promise of a free ride, people will take mortal risks to get here.
I know that the economic realities of the USA mean that we need some kind of temporary worker program. However, we also need to take our immigration laws seriously-- there are very real security risks to increased illegal immigration, so we must not increase the tempo of legal immigration at a pace that would prevent effective monitoring. I don't think we're there yet, but it's another factor to keep in mind. Moving forward, we need real border enforcement, a temporary worker program, and real law enforcement that prevents the hiring and abuse of illegal immigrants.
And one other thing: let's stop pretending that border enforcement and real immigration laws would be "racist" or "anti-Hispanic." That argument is itself invested in stereotype, because it assumes that illegal immigrants are all Hispanic (they're not), and further that all Hispanics are immigrants (they're not, either).
Comments