WalkingThinkTank.com
ideas that go places
FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 2007
The great divide in immigration reform is over what to do
about the estimated 12 million people who are here illegally.
One side in the political debate wants to put them on a path
to permanent legal residence. The other side appears content
to chase some away, while recognizing that most would
continue to reside in the U.S. illegally.
Both sides offer some reasonable arguments, but neither side
of the debate has been willing to face up to the consequences
of the past two decades of an incoherent immigration policy
compounded by lax enforcement and a hopelessly inadequate
employment-verification system. Washington created this
mess by maintaining, in effect, an open-door policy for illegal
immigration – and both Republicans and Democrats share
the blame. Yet those who demand an immediate path to
permanent residence ignore the fact that this failure has led
to a public crisis of confidence in government, while the
enforcement-only side ignores the humanity of those who
came to provide for their families and find a better life - and
the fact that they came to our country because our
government maintained the conditions under which they
were welcomed.
The effect of the present stalemate is to condemn us to a
dismal status quo in which illegal immigration continues,
while raids on businesses strike fear into the hearts of illegal
immigrants. And if illegal immigration really is the national
security concern our politicians have warned us about – and
there’s no reason to doubt that it is – then there is no excuse
for inaction.
Our politicians face a choice of whether they will face up to
reality or resist compromise and pave the way for a dark and
divisive chapter in our nation's history. Fortunately, despite
the vast chasm that appears to separate the two sides, there
is a sensible middle ground that would advance the goals of
fair-minded advocates on both sides of the debate.
Those who want to put illegal immigrants on a path to
permanent legal status say their approach is both realistic –
since the economy depends on millions of undocumented
workers and the government doesn’t have the capability of
hunting them down and driving them from the country – and
compassionate, because it would allow them to come out of
the shadows and stop living in fear.
Many who oppose granting legal status acknowledge that
rounding up 12 million illegal immigrants and sending them
home is neither practical nor desirable. But they worry that if
we reward illegality, all we’ll do is encourage more people to
come here illegally, as did the 1986 amnesty. What’s more,
they fear that Washington will abandon its new commitment
to secure the border and penalize those who employ illegal
workers once the 12 million illegal immigrants are made legal.
“Rightfully, the American people have grown to be cynical
about the words of Congress on immigration,” said
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama in leading the fight
this summer to stop a Senate bill that opponents charged
would repeat the mistakes made in 1986.
Sessions railed that the bill authored by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-
Mass., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., would have legalized any
illegal immigrant who arrived in the U.S. by January 1st of
this year – including those who arrived after the Senate
wrestled unsuccessfully with immigration reform in 2006 and
President Bush deployed National Guard troops to the
border. But rather than making an argument against reform,
Sessions was inadvertently driving home the price of the
Senate’s inability to pass legislation last year and again this
summer: more illegal immigration.
While some in Congress say they could support legalizing
illegal immigrants who have put down roots – those who
arrived in the U.S. before 2004, for example – immigration
experts say such provisions are unworkable and merely “an
invitation to fraud.” Illegal immigrants who arrived after the
cut-off date would have a great incentive to forge the pay
stubs and rent receipts that would make it look like they
arrived earlier, and immigration officials would have an
impossible task in trying to authenticate tens of millions of
documents.
Those opposed to giving illegal immigrants now in the
country a path to permanent residence are focusing their
efforts on reinforcing security along the border with Mexico,
and the Senate is ready to appropriate another $3 billion to
that end. But while such efforts may curtail border crossings,
an estimated 45% of illegal immigrants come to the U.S.
legally but overstay their visas.
The revered Jon Kyl, who fought against last year’s
legalization effort but helped forge this year’s immigration
bill, changed sides in the debate because he concluded that a
strong bipartisan consensus must be achieved for Congress to
commit the necessary resources to tackle illegal immigration.
Kyl argued that provisions in the bill to create a new
employee-verification system and a tracking system for
those who overstay their visas are critical. While Kyl’s
Republican colleagues raised doubts that his reforms would
do enough to stop illegal immigration and argued that the
government was ill-equipped to implement them, Kyl
responded, “Skepticism is not a reason for not acting.”
True enough. But addressing public skepticism is the key to a
political compromise over immigration. And that means
members of Congress and the public who are skeptical that
the government will uphold its commitment to enforcement
shouldn’t simply have to trust, they should be able to verify –
before they support a path to permanent residence for
current illegal immigrants.
What would this mean in practical terms? It doesn’t mean a
border-focused, enforcement-only approach under which the
ranks of illegal immigrants would likely continue to balloon,
albeit at a more moderate pace. That would only be the
equivalent of moving backwards in slow motion. The only
way forward is to offer illegal immigrants temporary visas for
a long-enough period – say five years – so they would risk
paying a fee and gaining legal status, even though there
would be no guarantee that Congress would extend their
visas. Those who didn’t come forward in coming months
would forfeit any hope of ever becoming a legal resident.
The middle ground between embracing illegal immigrants as
permanent residents and treating them as non-entities and
criminals is simply treating them as respected guests.
Remember, respect is a two-way street. And if we treat
today’s illegal immigrants as respected guests, we can, in
turn, ask them to respect our laws, our communities and our
desire to put an end to illegal immigration.
Why is this the sensible middle ground? First of all, it gives
illegal immigrants the chance to show that they respect and
will abide by our laws before we have put them on a glide
path to permanent residence.
For conservatives who might argue that illegal immigrants
who respected our laws never would have come here in the
first place, the weakness in their argument is that these
immigrants have demonstrated about as much respect for
our laws as have the federal government and sanctuary cities
that have been willing enablers of illegal immigration.
Secondly, offering temporary – instead of permanent – legal
status would provide everyone with the right incentives to
combat the problem of illegal immigration because the future
status of the millions granted temporary visas may well hinge
on whether the new enforcement efforts are effective.
When Congress returns after several years to the issue of
what to do about the formerly illegal immigrants whose
special visas are running out, it will take into consideration
the fact that these residents respected our laws and took the
risk of coming forward even though their final status was left
undetermined. But members also will consider whether
enforcement measures to cut off illegal immigration have
worked.
Thus, everybody’s interests will be aligned – both those who
want to stop illegal immigration and those looking out for the
interests of current illegal immigrants. And for the first time,
even immigrant communities will have a great deal at stake
in discouraging illegal immigration.
Members of Congress who back a path to permanent
residence for illegal immigrants should be willing to support
this compromise, especially if they believe that enforcement
measures can succeed in getting control of illegal immigration.
What choice do they really have? After the Senate handily
rejected permanent legalization, the alternative to this
compromise is bleak: Years of immigration raids and
increasing resentment toward the illegal population as it
continues to grow. Their refusal to accept this compromise
could doom the best and perhaps only chance for illegal
immigrants to take the first step on a path to possible
permanent residence. After all, immigration reform passed
the Senate by a 62 to 36 vote in 2006 before stalling in the
House, but only 46 senators voted to advance this year’s bill.
The political climate seems to be growing less favorable. And
Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a former political advisor to
President Clinton and now in the Democrats' leadership team
in the House, said recently that Congress likely wouldn't
return to immigration reform until 2013 - what would be the
second term of a Democrat elected president in 2008.
By failing to compromise, those who seek to protect illegal
immigrants will subject them to a dehumanizing backlash.
Harsh legislation is advancing in states and municipalities
around the country because of Washington's failure to come
up with a responsible policy, and the failure of government is
fueling resentment that's being focused on illegal immigrants.
What’s more, supporters of a path to permanent residence
who reject the compromise I am proposing would have to
take the political risk of encouraging illegal behavior and
putting national security at risk by their refusal to approve
the necessary enforcement tools to combat illegal
immigration.
Fair-minded people believe that if we grant a path to
permanent residence now, we’re just asking to wind up back
in the same place, with many millions more illegal
immigrants. But a stalemate such as we have now that
precludes aggressive workplace enforcement is also likely to
result in millions more illegal immigrants. Those who reject
granting temporary legal status to the illegal population
would have a hard time justifying why the ugly and false
promise of driving millions of illegal immigrants out of the
country is more important than national security and a
chance to finally get illegal immigration under control.
This compromise constitutes not just sound policy but sound
politics. Either side that rejects it would be abdicating
responsibility, jeopardizing national security and paving the
way for an influx of millions more illegal immigrants, all on
behalf of an unlikely goal.
Only by granting temporary visas can we show compassion
while sending a message that the open door to illegal
immigration has closed. Those focused on security and
enforcement get what they want. Those who want to see
illegal immigrants invited out of the shadows and treated
with respect get what they want. The goals of both sides will
be furthered by this compromise and Washington will have a
chance to finally get a handle on illegal immigration, restore
the rule of law and restore the people’s confidence. And by
treating every person with dignity, America will live up to our
highest values and remain a beacon of freedom.
what do you think?
about the estimated 12 million people who are here illegally.
One side in the political debate wants to put them on a path
to permanent legal residence. The other side appears content
to chase some away, while recognizing that most would
continue to reside in the U.S. illegally.
Both sides offer some reasonable arguments, but neither side
of the debate has been willing to face up to the consequences
of the past two decades of an incoherent immigration policy
compounded by lax enforcement and a hopelessly inadequate
employment-verification system. Washington created this
mess by maintaining, in effect, an open-door policy for illegal
immigration – and both Republicans and Democrats share
the blame. Yet those who demand an immediate path to
permanent residence ignore the fact that this failure has led
to a public crisis of confidence in government, while the
enforcement-only side ignores the humanity of those who
came to provide for their families and find a better life - and
the fact that they came to our country because our
government maintained the conditions under which they
were welcomed.
The effect of the present stalemate is to condemn us to a
dismal status quo in which illegal immigration continues,
while raids on businesses strike fear into the hearts of illegal
immigrants. And if illegal immigration really is the national
security concern our politicians have warned us about – and
there’s no reason to doubt that it is – then there is no excuse
for inaction.
Our politicians face a choice of whether they will face up to
reality or resist compromise and pave the way for a dark and
divisive chapter in our nation's history. Fortunately, despite
the vast chasm that appears to separate the two sides, there
is a sensible middle ground that would advance the goals of
fair-minded advocates on both sides of the debate.
Those who want to put illegal immigrants on a path to
permanent legal status say their approach is both realistic –
since the economy depends on millions of undocumented
workers and the government doesn’t have the capability of
hunting them down and driving them from the country – and
compassionate, because it would allow them to come out of
the shadows and stop living in fear.
Many who oppose granting legal status acknowledge that
rounding up 12 million illegal immigrants and sending them
home is neither practical nor desirable. But they worry that if
we reward illegality, all we’ll do is encourage more people to
come here illegally, as did the 1986 amnesty. What’s more,
they fear that Washington will abandon its new commitment
to secure the border and penalize those who employ illegal
workers once the 12 million illegal immigrants are made legal.
“Rightfully, the American people have grown to be cynical
about the words of Congress on immigration,” said
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama in leading the fight
this summer to stop a Senate bill that opponents charged
would repeat the mistakes made in 1986.
Sessions railed that the bill authored by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-
Mass., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., would have legalized any
illegal immigrant who arrived in the U.S. by January 1st of
this year – including those who arrived after the Senate
wrestled unsuccessfully with immigration reform in 2006 and
President Bush deployed National Guard troops to the
border. But rather than making an argument against reform,
Sessions was inadvertently driving home the price of the
Senate’s inability to pass legislation last year and again this
summer: more illegal immigration.
While some in Congress say they could support legalizing
illegal immigrants who have put down roots – those who
arrived in the U.S. before 2004, for example – immigration
experts say such provisions are unworkable and merely “an
invitation to fraud.” Illegal immigrants who arrived after the
cut-off date would have a great incentive to forge the pay
stubs and rent receipts that would make it look like they
arrived earlier, and immigration officials would have an
impossible task in trying to authenticate tens of millions of
documents.
Those opposed to giving illegal immigrants now in the
country a path to permanent residence are focusing their
efforts on reinforcing security along the border with Mexico,
and the Senate is ready to appropriate another $3 billion to
that end. But while such efforts may curtail border crossings,
an estimated 45% of illegal immigrants come to the U.S.
legally but overstay their visas.
The revered Jon Kyl, who fought against last year’s
legalization effort but helped forge this year’s immigration
bill, changed sides in the debate because he concluded that a
strong bipartisan consensus must be achieved for Congress to
commit the necessary resources to tackle illegal immigration.
Kyl argued that provisions in the bill to create a new
employee-verification system and a tracking system for
those who overstay their visas are critical. While Kyl’s
Republican colleagues raised doubts that his reforms would
do enough to stop illegal immigration and argued that the
government was ill-equipped to implement them, Kyl
responded, “Skepticism is not a reason for not acting.”
True enough. But addressing public skepticism is the key to a
political compromise over immigration. And that means
members of Congress and the public who are skeptical that
the government will uphold its commitment to enforcement
shouldn’t simply have to trust, they should be able to verify –
before they support a path to permanent residence for
current illegal immigrants.
What would this mean in practical terms? It doesn’t mean a
border-focused, enforcement-only approach under which the
ranks of illegal immigrants would likely continue to balloon,
albeit at a more moderate pace. That would only be the
equivalent of moving backwards in slow motion. The only
way forward is to offer illegal immigrants temporary visas for
a long-enough period – say five years – so they would risk
paying a fee and gaining legal status, even though there
would be no guarantee that Congress would extend their
visas. Those who didn’t come forward in coming months
would forfeit any hope of ever becoming a legal resident.
The middle ground between embracing illegal immigrants as
permanent residents and treating them as non-entities and
criminals is simply treating them as respected guests.
Remember, respect is a two-way street. And if we treat
today’s illegal immigrants as respected guests, we can, in
turn, ask them to respect our laws, our communities and our
desire to put an end to illegal immigration.
Why is this the sensible middle ground? First of all, it gives
illegal immigrants the chance to show that they respect and
will abide by our laws before we have put them on a glide
path to permanent residence.
For conservatives who might argue that illegal immigrants
who respected our laws never would have come here in the
first place, the weakness in their argument is that these
immigrants have demonstrated about as much respect for
our laws as have the federal government and sanctuary cities
that have been willing enablers of illegal immigration.
Secondly, offering temporary – instead of permanent – legal
status would provide everyone with the right incentives to
combat the problem of illegal immigration because the future
status of the millions granted temporary visas may well hinge
on whether the new enforcement efforts are effective.
When Congress returns after several years to the issue of
what to do about the formerly illegal immigrants whose
special visas are running out, it will take into consideration
the fact that these residents respected our laws and took the
risk of coming forward even though their final status was left
undetermined. But members also will consider whether
enforcement measures to cut off illegal immigration have
worked.
Thus, everybody’s interests will be aligned – both those who
want to stop illegal immigration and those looking out for the
interests of current illegal immigrants. And for the first time,
even immigrant communities will have a great deal at stake
in discouraging illegal immigration.
Members of Congress who back a path to permanent
residence for illegal immigrants should be willing to support
this compromise, especially if they believe that enforcement
measures can succeed in getting control of illegal immigration.
What choice do they really have? After the Senate handily
rejected permanent legalization, the alternative to this
compromise is bleak: Years of immigration raids and
increasing resentment toward the illegal population as it
continues to grow. Their refusal to accept this compromise
could doom the best and perhaps only chance for illegal
immigrants to take the first step on a path to possible
permanent residence. After all, immigration reform passed
the Senate by a 62 to 36 vote in 2006 before stalling in the
House, but only 46 senators voted to advance this year’s bill.
The political climate seems to be growing less favorable. And
Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a former political advisor to
President Clinton and now in the Democrats' leadership team
in the House, said recently that Congress likely wouldn't
return to immigration reform until 2013 - what would be the
second term of a Democrat elected president in 2008.
By failing to compromise, those who seek to protect illegal
immigrants will subject them to a dehumanizing backlash.
Harsh legislation is advancing in states and municipalities
around the country because of Washington's failure to come
up with a responsible policy, and the failure of government is
fueling resentment that's being focused on illegal immigrants.
What’s more, supporters of a path to permanent residence
who reject the compromise I am proposing would have to
take the political risk of encouraging illegal behavior and
putting national security at risk by their refusal to approve
the necessary enforcement tools to combat illegal
immigration.
Fair-minded people believe that if we grant a path to
permanent residence now, we’re just asking to wind up back
in the same place, with many millions more illegal
immigrants. But a stalemate such as we have now that
precludes aggressive workplace enforcement is also likely to
result in millions more illegal immigrants. Those who reject
granting temporary legal status to the illegal population
would have a hard time justifying why the ugly and false
promise of driving millions of illegal immigrants out of the
country is more important than national security and a
chance to finally get illegal immigration under control.
This compromise constitutes not just sound policy but sound
politics. Either side that rejects it would be abdicating
responsibility, jeopardizing national security and paving the
way for an influx of millions more illegal immigrants, all on
behalf of an unlikely goal.
Only by granting temporary visas can we show compassion
while sending a message that the open door to illegal
immigration has closed. Those focused on security and
enforcement get what they want. Those who want to see
illegal immigrants invited out of the shadows and treated
with respect get what they want. The goals of both sides will
be furthered by this compromise and Washington will have a
chance to finally get a handle on illegal immigration, restore
the rule of law and restore the people’s confidence. And by
treating every person with dignity, America will live up to our
highest values and remain a beacon of freedom.
what do you think?
ABOUT THIS SITE
WalkingThinkTank.com
an independent's search
for fairness, responsibility
and common sense
e-mail
WalkingThinkTank.com
an independent's search
for fairness, responsibility
and common sense