Our immigration problem is, generally, of two prongs: (I) an unsecured border and a flow of illegal immigration and (II) millions of illegal immigrants currently in residence in the United States. Both problems demand a solution, but the horse must come before the cart.
Over the decades various reforms have been enacted and all have failed because the border was never secure and the problem has kept rearing its ugly head. So that the next reform does not meet the same fate it is a prerequisite that we solve the first problem first. The federal government must secure the border, period. Mark Krikorian has offered many methods that would make this possible. Build the fence approved by Congress last year, verify the legality of immigrant workers, punish those who employ illegals, train local officers for border security, prosecute and jail those who enter illegally, make legal status a labor standard, etc.1
It is illogical, pointless, and backwards to try to deal with standing water when the flow is still spewing from the spigot. Stop the flow first. Once this has been accomplished—once the flow of illegal immigration has been stopped—then our second problem—what to do with those who have already illegally entered the country and taken residence—can be addressed.2
Beyond the simple and unavoidable practicality and common sense of this approach, I believe it is the only conceivable one through which any enactment of reform could be politically possible, as the rejection of comprehensive reform last year and this year have demonstrated.(I mean this from a conservative standpoint at least, as I cannot really judge what effect this first things approach would have in alleviating the labor objections from the left to comprehensive reform.)
I could very well be misreading my conservative friends, but what I think their objection to is not so much a path to citizenship—or "amnesty", if you will—per se, but that the reform recently proposed and rejected was the same bill of goods that they’ve been sold before. They’ve agreed to an amnesty-for-border security compromise in the past, most recently in 1986, only to see the flow of illegal immigration continue, if not increase, making it little wonder that so few now seem willing to accept another compromise, especially when there is every likelihood that, in keeping with history, another reform will be necessary in twenty years. As the editors of National Review have written, "Until we see that enforcement taking place—and see the government standing up to the interests that will squeal when it does—we should not contemplate providing an amnesty."3
If any reform is to be enacted, it must be done differently this time so that it will be a permanent reform and not just a band-aid. Take care of the flow first and then I do believe that conservatives will be at the very least open to a path to citizenship. As Charles Krauthammer has written, an amnesty would be acceptable if it were the last.("If these are indeed the last illegal immigrants to come in, let us generously and humanely take them out of the shadows.")4 So too would most conservatives, I think.
1. Krikorian, Mark (2007, July 9). 'Give Me The Tools'. National Review, LIX(12), 20-24.
2. Though my views on immigration have evolved since the issue first genuinely erupted onto the public consciousness about a year ago, I still maintain as I always have that the best way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants currently in residence in the United States—the standing water—is to enact a path to citizenship, one which compels illegals to pay all back taxes and to get in line behind those who have already begun the process of legal migration.
3. Editorial, (2007, July 9). Fool Me Twice. National Review, LIX(12), 16.
4. Krauthammer, Charles (2007, May 25). Amnesty Acceptable if it's the Last. The Washington Post, Retrieved July 14, 2007, from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/amnesty_acceptable_if_its_the.html
No comments:
Post a Comment