Posted on 07/19/2006 1:31:57 PM PDT by catholicfreeper
Conventional wisdom insists that the immigration issue remains so polarizing, so explosively divisive – especially among Republicans – that Congress will make no progress toward meaningful reform before the November elections. New polling data, however, suggests the emergence of an overwhelming consensus behind a common sense approach to this painful, perplexing problem that makes Congressional action not only possible, but imperative.
On two of the three key elements of reform, public opinion is nearly unanimous. Americans of every ethnicity and every political perspective agree that we need both stronger efforts to block illegal crossings at the border, and more vigorous enforcement of laws against employers who knowingly hire millions of undocumented workers. Despite the hysterical charges by fringe groups that President Bush, Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy seek “open borders” that would flood the nation with some 100 million new immigrants, no participant in recent Congressional debates has advocated such a radical, suicidal course. Both the tough enforcement-only House bill and much reviled “comprehensive” approach adopted by the Senate include major commitments to stronger border enforcement – including, in both cases, the construction of an expensive high tech fence to stop illegals from entering the country. And both bills also feature tough new sanctions and enforcement mechanisms to crack down on businesses that hire illegals – with the purportedly “liberal” Senate bill actually providing tougher penalties than its counterpart from the House.
On two crucial elements of a reform agenda, in other words, House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, and some 90% of Americans strongly agree: we need more focus on securing our borders, and more vigorous efforts to stop businesses and individuals from exploiting illegal labor. That leaves the one element of the current debate that supposedly represents an unbridgeable gap between the so-called “pro-immigrant” and “anti-immigrant” forces: the question of what to do about the 11 to 12 million illegals currently living and working in the United States. Even here, however, vast majorities agree on core principles and reject the simplistic sloganeering of the political extremes.
More than three fourths of all Americans, according to the Gallup Poll and all other recent public opinion surveys, accept the notion that some of the current illegals must leave, and some of them should stay. Only tiny minorities back the idea that they should all be forced out of the country (“deportation”) or that they should all have the right to stay and become citizens (“amnesty”). Anyone who believes that it’s possible to force some twelve million human beings from their homes and jobs and schools (in one of the biggest forced migrations in human history) is indulging in a childish fantasy, and anyone who argues that it would be good for the country to place all current illegals on the fast track to citizenship is a panderer or a fool.
The most important question in the current debate isn’t whether the masses of undocumented residents should stay or go – it’s how to make the distinction between those who ought to stay and those who need to go.
On this question, two clear, distinct approaches have emerged that deserve serious consideration as the debate proceeds. The supporters of the “enforcement only” agenda argue that by closing the border, cutting off government benefits and coming down hard on employers, the government will be able to eliminate the jobs that make it possible for illegals to remain in the United States. In short order, according to this argument, the great bulk of undocumented workers will feel discouraged by their new situation and return to their countries of origin. Obviously, some unauthorized immigrants – no doubt at least several million – will find ways to remain in the United States indefinitely but according to the “starve them out” argument, the bulk of illegals will face no choice but going home.
Advocates of “comprehensive reform,” on the other hand, favor a different approach to sorting out the immigrants who need to leave and those who deserve to stay. First, all parties to this debate agree that the 450,000 criminals and violators for whom outstanding deportation orders currently exist (but who the government finds it next to impossible to apprehend) must become the focus of an aggressive new effort to remove them from the country. That still leaves some 10 million illegal immigrants (or more) whose status must be clarified. The Senate bill (generally supported by President Bush) requires payment of thousands of dollars in fines, criminal background checks, certification of consistent employment, and mastery of English, before conferring legal status and the possibility (after a total of some nine years of effort and patience) of citizenship.
In other words, the “comprehensive” approach leaves it up to the immigrant himself, ultimately, as to whether he will achieve legal status and remain in the country. The “enforcement only” approach also lets the immigrant himself decide whether to go or to stay, but instead of rewarding good behavior (paying fines, learning English, working steadily, following the law) it rewards bad behavior (defying legal rules, continuing to work in the untaxed, unregulated underground economy). In other words, rather than driving out the least desirable elements of the immigrant population, enforcement only would drive out the best—those with the most respect for the rules. Those who feel comfortable living in the shadows—or participating in gangs, smuggling, drug dealing, or other lawless activities -- will no doubt find means to continue to defy authority
Instead of 11 to 12 million illegals who are nearly all (some 94% according to government figures) living in households with one or more employed, we’ll suddenly see 11 to 12 million out-of-work and desperate individuals, trying to find some means to feed their families. The most responsible may indeed return to Mexico or Central America (but for the nearly 30% of illegals who came here from Asia, the business of “going home” is far more complicated). But without some means of repentance, restitution and earned legalization, all illegals will face only two stark choices: going home (even after many years of building lives in the US) or remaining in our country and finding news ways to break the law. It’s obviously better for the country to provide a third choice: allowing the immigrants who are most determined to “rehabilitate themselves” to do so for the sake of themselves and their children.
Most American conservatives understand the old slogan from the gun control debate: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That brilliant piece of political propaganda recognizes a basic truth: government can never remove all firearms from private ownership, so any attempt to do so will leave the worst elements of society as the only ones with weapons. By the same token, we ought to accept the parallel idea that “If illegal immigration is criminalized, only criminals will be illegal immigrants.” The same way that gun laws harm law-abiding citizens far more than crooks, “enforcement only” immigration policies damage the most responsible and hard-working immigrants more than their criminal or scam-artist counterparts.
This argument, and the notion that mass deportation is neither feasible nor desirable, leads to staggering support for the common sense provisions of comprehensive reform. The latest Gallup Poll (released on July 10, 2006) showed increasing majorities behind the earned legalization provisions of the Senate bill. In response to the question, “Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States?” a paltry 16% wanted to “deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country.” Two thirds – 66% -- favored “allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.” Another 17% backed “allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time.”
In other words, a staggering 83% (and 94% of Hispanics!) backed either “earned legalization” or some form of guest worker program. It’s difficult to get 83% of Americans to agree that Elvis is dead but they united behind the kind of immigration compromise the administration supports.
Another recent poll of Republicans (by the Tarrance group) showed similar consensus: 76% of “strong conservatives” and 77% of “Christian conservatives” backed earned legalization. Amazingly enough (given the demagoguery that has frequently dominated the airwaves), 72% of those who say they listen to talk radio every day, back the same proposition.
In other words, the nativist fringe may combine with die-hard Bush-bashers in the media to promote the idea that immigration reform will shatter the Republican coalition and alienate the President from his base, but polling data and logic rebut that argument. Far from a fatal disaster for the administration and the Congressional GOP, a sweeping compromise on fixing the nation’s broken system of immigration (including stricter enforcement at the border and the workplace, along with a rational means of earned legalization) will constitute a huge political plus and a significant historical achievement
We do not need new immigration laws. Secure the borders first and enforce current law.
Liberals like to think most fringe-lefty issues are 'divisive'. It makes it appear as though their leftist agenda has support.
Well we need to figure out what to do with those now here. Especially those with AMerican families and spouces. So I see his point
Sorry Mike, been there, done that, didn't work.
There have been more murders done by criminals who overstay their visas and or those who just invade our country than occurred during 911.
Because they occur by ones or fives or so, they seem to have less impact than 911 but these Americans are just as dead and their families are just as torn up.
Anybody who aids or abets these criminals are guilty of these murders also.
I think it didn't work because there was no public drive to make it work. The public and politicalmood is much more likely to make it work. Especially if what was not taken care of last time is this time. Such as real emplyoer sanctions that go outside the law, and real security
Well, hpefully soon as they say the wheat will be seperated from the chaff. And a mormilization of status will occur. Therefore no problem with aiding and abetting criminals
I would defer that issue to the President as he is head of the Executive branch that enforces border security and immigration law.
It didn't work the last time because politicians like Ted Kennedy gutted funding for enforcement. The vote on the fence the other day is proof they're ready to do it again. Until they secure the borders and make a real commitment to enforce the laws there's no need to pass anything at this time.
I highly suspect that if the House agrees to a compromise that funding will not be a problem. They in fact will demand it as to any security measures they will put on the border or else where
"Despite the hysterical charges by fringe groups that President Bush, Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy seek 'open borders' that would flood the nation with some 100 million new immigrants, no participant in recent Congressional debates has advocated such a radical, suicidal course."
Medved can try to spin this as he likes, but we in fact have had "open borders" for years, and continue to have them. No amount of legislation will change that; we will have to replace the current open-borders internationalist with a president who is concerned with our sovereignty before there will be anything other than window-dressing action on our southern border.
The borders should have been closed on Mr. Bush's first day in office, with an accompanying message that Clinton was derelict in his duty not to enforce our borders. Bush's failure to do so then, and particularly after 9/11, has had tragic consequences for this country.
Bush has been a huge failure on border security and national sovereignty.
There are criminals and then there are criminals. I don't see a person that has been here since 2 that was came from El Slavador has American Kids and a spouse and getting on with Life as in the same category as a bank robber. But that is jsut me and it appears to the above polls a good many folks views.
I think Bush is trying to correct that problem now with legislation that will work.
His ideas are sound. I've been thinking for a long time that there is a possible compromise between the House and Senate bills. Most of the House bill supporters realize that we're going to have to work with the ones here, and we expect to do so, but it must be AFTER not before the spigot is shut off.
The Senate would require us to swallow the existing ones as the price of getting a wall. They would probably rather skip the wall later, but if we can enforce THEM to enforce the law NOW, there might be room to work.
Trouble is, I don't know how this government can be forced to do what it doesn't want to do. I'm reminded of when Congress allocated funding for 2000 more border agents, and the Admin said they would just not spend it, and hired like 200.
The Senate has chosen to defund the fence. Why should we believe this??????
My BS-ometer is clicking into the red. Something tells me this means, "Some of the illegals should stay. Like Mrs. Medved's maid."
Put me down as "divisive"--as in highly distrustful of the conciliatory tone of this.
Dear Mr. Neocon--Joe Sixpack is nobody's fool.
Well, I do think there is a politcal will to do this now. As much as I dislike for intance Tancredo, he will serve a very useful function holding everyones feet to the fire on the funding issue. Also I think it is important to get something doen now and a consensus behind it. I have a feeling that meither party is going to want to revist this issue with the same level of hot debate and tension every year. I am afraid if we don't do this now, then if the Dems take power we very well might get something a whole lot worse. Like everything in the Senate bill plus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.