Issues & Opinions

This month’s dose of stupidity, widely and deeply covered everywhere (really, Google it if you don’t believe me - 17 million items found as of this writing), is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill (a variation which will only find you 1,180,000 Google hits).

I don’t pretend to be able to add anything new to the debate that’s not been said before, but think it interesting to note here, for myself, what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s wildly fanciful about the process of this bill, as it progresses to its conclusion.

First, a couple basics that inform my thoughts on the matter:

• Illegal immigration is just that - illegal, and it’s illegal for many reasons, not least of which is national security
• We, as a nation, have failed lamentably in securing our borders, and the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 was an honest attempt to remedy that, providing amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens
• Depending on whose numbers you use, there are between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US today, most from Mexico and Central America
• Clearly the 1986 act failed in every meaningful way to solve the stated problem
• Undaunted, our legislative overlords are in the process of rushing through a new bill, to do the same thing, only larger by a factor of 3 to 6 times in scope
• Amazingly, they pretend to think that this time, it will work, when a three year old could argue that it won’t, and win convincingly
• Notwithstanding all the difficulties of this newly planned amnesty, uprooting 12 to 20 million residents and throwing them out of the country is too cold-hearted for most Americans, including me, to countenance
• So we’ve got a problem here, and some rational compromise is required
• Added for clarification: I don’t believe illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, come here primarily for the public benefits

However, the currently proposed immigration bill is assuredly not the compromise we need, and isn’t in fact a compromise at all - it starts on the side of aggressive generosity, and is now being whittled and wheedled (Pelosi - no skills tests, Bingaman - cut guest visa numbers from 400,000 to 200,000, risking calls for additional concessions and giveaways elsewhere, Bush - we can’t ask illegals to pay back taxes or fines) to become an even more toothless/worthless/harmful piece of legislation, one that will have the effect of throwing our Southern border wide open, and placing a drain on the country’s resources that will be bad for all, including the illegals presently here.

A page containing the summary status on S.1438 can be found here.
The full bill can be found starting here.

A quick look at the White House’s backgrounder page on the issue finds these nuggets:

President Bush Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Bill

“Immigration is a tough issue for a lot of Americans. The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity.”

President George W. Bush
May 17, 2007

Three Key Points About The Bush Administration’s Border Security And Worksite Enforcement Achievements

1. Since The President Took Office In 2001, The Administration Has More Than Doubled Funding For Border Security – From $4.6 Billion In 2001 To $10.4 Billion In 2007.

2. As A Result Of This Investment And Other Deterrence Factors, The Number Of People Apprehended For Illegally Crossing Our Southern Border Is Down By Nearly 27 Percent In 2007 From This Point In 2006.

3. Immigration And Customs Enforcement (ICE) Has Replaced The Old System Of Administrative Hearings And Fines With A Much Tougher Combination Of Criminal Prosecutions And Asset Forfeitures – A Much More Aggressive Approach Toward Cracking Down On Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Aliens. This has resulted in a significant increase in arrests for criminal violations brought in worksite enforcement actions.

…&c, &c, &c.

All that would be grand, if it mattered at all - it doesn’t, and the reasons it doesn’t matter are precisely the same as those which guarantee the functional failure of the present proposal if it’s enacted. The number of people apprehended for violating our border is down 27%. Even assuming that this actually indicates better enforcement, it’s telling that the true numbers behind the statistic aren’t disclosed here. To the extent that the number of people who evade apprehension is any meaningful non-zero number, it proves enforcement, however much more is spent on it today, is a failure. 12-20 million existing illegals is further proof.

The increased enforcement actions touted in his third bullet point sound quite draconian, until you realize he’s not talking about enforcement actions against the myriad groups of wandering day laborers in cities like Houston and other border states. He’s talking about employer actions, because this is now and has always been all about ingratiating the Republican Party with the Hispanic community, legal and illegal. Color me unimpressed.

It’s not as though Bush hasn’t always claimed to want to fix immigration - he’s actually quite good at following through with his stated intentions (not always achieving the goals, of course, but he seldom drops an issue he claims to find important). The problem is that in particularly in immigration reform, where the electoral beneficiaries are far more likely to be his opposition, he continues to play deal-maker, and gives in at the hint of opposition, even when a rational assessment would indicate he’s being played like a rube. Bidding against oneself is never good. Doing so, as Bush is presently, against the wishes of the American people (46% against, vs. 26% for), and is clearly opposed by some of those he wants to carry water for him in Congress.

Remember that justification, above, for pushing the immigration bill through? No, not the one about simply trying to regularize a tough situation for a lot of present illegals - the other one, involving ingratiation? From the Rassmussen poll link above:

The challenge for proponents of the legislation is to convince voters that they are serious about enforcement and that the proposal will truly work. Until that can be accomplished, public opposition to immigration reform is likely to remain very high. In an era where voters overwhelmingly believe that members of Congress are more interested in their careers than the public good, that will be a difficult goal to achieve.

Groveling for future votes, in a manner opposed by present voters, seems pretty craven. And par for the course, to be honest.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC), has a couple pages on his website attempting to debunk what he calls the myths surrounding the bill. He’s also got a 4 page summary of the plan, in PDF format. Both do a creditable, if not credible, job of calming fears about what the plan is, and how it will work. They even provide specific answers to some of the more inflammatory objections put forth so far, such as Hugh Hewitt’s apparent misread, in which he came to the conclusion that the bill provides ICE 24 hours to approve or deny an applicant for the “Z Visa”, conferring semi-regular status. According to the mythbusters on Graham’s site, it appears Mr. Hewitt was wrong.

Both Hewitt and Dr. Thomas Sowell, whose opinion I generally find respectable and intelligent, appear to have facts wrong in a couple of places, including their shared assertion, including Sowell’s from an article published today at National Review Online, that the “the 700-mile fence on paper that has become the two-mile fence in practice”. The White House page linked above makes specific reference to “86 miles of primary fencing” in existence today. When the goal is 700 miles, 86 doesn’t seem a lot. When the comparison is 2 versus 86, the proponent of the lower number needs to support it, or be seen overreacting.

But time will tell, and these gentlemen’s skepticism, as well as that of others, seems well warranted by other actions on the part of this bill’s supporters. Including (ahem) Lindsey Graham (R-SC), while tongue-bathing a gathering of La Raza:

It’s a 4 minute video, and aside from the mealy-mouthed thanks to McCain and Kennedy, and the repeated attempts to be seen to be as Hispanic as his audience, the money shot is in the last 10 seconds, where he says

We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up.

Not smooth at all, and not indicative of comfort in his position, by a long shot. There’s also Michael Chertoff, the Secy of DHS, who has repeatedly made unkind assertions about anyone who doesn’t think the current proposal is tough enough:

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: You know, Wolf, first, I understand there’s some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty.

…and

I understand that some people think it’s not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed.

Also not smooth, and based on his repetition, apparently it’s part of the designated talking points.

As with the hideously expensive and poorly designed Medicare Part D entitlement extensions, which Ted Kennedy called “a good down payment”, to Bush’s complete lack of embarrassment, it looks as though Bush and his team are being led down a path to destroying the remaining credibility of the Republican party, while the Democrats laugh up their sleeves.

But that’s all just politics. What about the reality?

It’ll be completely unenforceable. The presumption that 12+ million illegals will willingly pay an immediate $1,000 penalty (the provision designed to pretend this isn’t an amnesty), followed by a $4,000 fee before getting a green card, exiting the country, and getting in line for years to get back in, is interesting, if a bit laughable. Even if the bureaucracy is mustered to put those requirements into effect (hardly a guaranteed happening), the alternative, simply remaining in the underground economy, remains, and might well be the preferable alternative. We’ve shown a complete inability to effectively manage this part of the population in the US over the past decades, and there cannot be a realistic expectation that this bill will suddenly change that.

If we’re not prepared to throw out all the illegals (and we’re not, nor should we necessarily be), we’re also not prepared to deal with non-compliance to the new legislation.

I’ll leave it for others to explain the third plank of inadequacy for this proposal. There’s the politics, the enforcement, and the ruinous cost to our economy. One prediction of that last bit can be seen in the May 10, 2007 testimony before the House Committee on Small Business by Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation. $2.5 trillion is a big, big number.

Addendum - For a rebuttal of Rector’s numbers, see this non-bylined piece in today’s WSJ.

For an interesting bit of alleged backroom intrigue, see “Pelosi: Immigration bill will pass over my dead body“.

See also this, I don’t know what to call it, so I’ll call it a “head fake”, from Dick Morris - “Republicans should back immigration compromise“. The crux of Morris’ argument appears to be encapsulated here:

Democrats want Hispanics to vote but don’t want them to work and compete with their labor union allies for jobs.

Republicans want them to work (since the employers are mostly Republican) but don’t want them to vote.

This bill, unfortunately, allows current illegal immigrants to work immediately but defers giving them the franchise for almost a decade. It’s a bill a Republican should love.

As arguments go, this one’s neither flattering nor convincing.