Jan 10 2008
Victor Davis Hanson Calls For Comprehensive Immigration Reform
I hate to say this but no politician is going to go near the immigration issue for at least a couple of years. The problem isn’t the there are no solutions – there are tons of good ideas out there. The problem is a small minority cannot stomach long term illegal workers, who have integrated into our communities (and who provide one of the best ways to integrate future immigrants), would stay in America under a new legal status after paying a hefty financial penalty (paying back taxes can suck your spending money dry). This is the barrier to progress which will delay any changes for more years to come (they have delayed progress for three years now already). Instead of working to fix up the legislation to fill holes they may find, they resist all bills that deal with the 900 pound Gorilla on this issue: the 10-15 million long term illegals now in our country.
Victor Davis Hanson outlines this multi-faceted issue quite well today. He notes we need stronger borders (few are against this), he notes a guest worker program that monitors people and limits their time here, etc. He could have noted deporting felony criminals instantly when they are done doing their time behind bars. He could have mentioned the end to a path to citizenship for migrant workers. There are also heavy penalties for employers who hire illegal workers. All of these aspects of comprehensive reform have been included in one form or another in previous bills. Were they perfect? No – don’t demand perfection from a democratic government. It is a fantasy, a delaying tactic. It is carted out to create divisions. You can only get reasonable progress out of something like the US Congress, never perfection. Anybody tells you otherwise and they are lying to you or themselves.
But fixing these and dealing with long term issues was not the intention of the opponents. They used imperfections to stop any dealing with the issue of long term illegals. Borders have nothing to do with the long term illegals. Neither do crimes by immigrants (because anyone who commits a felony is out as part of the bill). These issues have never been the stumbling point for fixing the immigration problem. But let’s see what VDH proposes:
To the extent Democratic candidates ignore illegal immigration, or demonize those who worry over hundreds of thousands of new illegal aliens each year, or talk of guest workers and amnesty before they mention closing the borders, it is a losing issue that could alienate millions of voters.
Democratic candidates can’t really claim that redneck racists are rushing to the border to clash with poor campesinos just crossing to better their lives, because many poor Democrats also resent how illegal labor drives down their own wages. It is mostly the American poor and middle class who worry about the sudden influx of thousands who don’t speak English and often need public assistance.
But the Republican candidates have to watch it, too. If blanket amnesty is a losing issue, so also is mass deportation — the practicality and morality of which are rarely considered by those rightly calling for an end to illegal immigration. Busing every illegal alien back to Mexico right now might resemble the past messy partition of India and Pakistan, and reopen the issue in a way that Democrats can legitimately exploit.
What then might an astute candidate advocate?
Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.
…
Finally, deport aliens who have broken the law, are not working or have just arrived. Some illegal aliens will not like the new atmosphere of tough enforcement and will voluntarily go back home. Others may have criminal records or no history of employment and should leave as well.
But many millions of law-abiding, employed illegal aliens of long residence will wish to stay. We should allow these to remain in the United States while they apply for citizenship — if they are willing to learn promptly our language and customs.
Republican candidates must risk angering their base by ruling out mass deportation. Democrats should support closing the border tightly and quickly — and not cave in to open-borders pressure groups.
Nice proposal – and we just saw those elements in the last comprehensive bill. In fact that is what VHD is outlining – the same damn bill that has been before Congress twice now. The most talked about issues aren’t the divisive point – and ignoring that fact is simply trying to shove the problem under the rug. I applaud VDH for trying, but it is a useless effort until one thing happens.
The one thing that could fix this mess is this: the amnesty hypochondriacs accept that the long term illegals will not be asked or forced or driven to leave the country as part of reform – they will pay for the misdemeanor crimes they have committed (fines and back taxes). That is all that is required. And it will never happen.
The amnesty hypochondriacs cannot do it – they are too emotionally wedded to the idea of dumping all illegals. Just as the dems are too emotionally wedded to losing Iraq to al-Qaeda, the hypochondriacs cannot back down now. And since they will not accept this reality they will continue to make immigration radio-active because it gives them purpose (and media attention, etc).
The fact is some people prefer to have the emotional issue ripping apart at the country and that is where it will stay for the foreseeable future. Which means, despite all the hot air and claims to the contrary, we will have the same problems continue and fester. There is only one way to deal with an intransigent force in politics – beat it. On the matter of Iraq dems are losing the debate and support as success trumps their pessimism. Same will happen to the hypochondriacs. There never will be mass forced deportations in America. America would never survive them.
Addendum: I think I need to point out why this issue is the way it is. There are only three general paths to rally the electorate behind and those are the ones we can chose from – no others.
The one option on the far left is real open borders and instant citizenship. The proponents may throw some static around marginal details to try and confuse and hide the core plan – but that is business as usual in politics. No one is going to support this idea.
The option on the far right is the deportation, purging, coercion – whatever you want to call it – of all illegal workers. I envision Tancredo and Savage leading a pitch fork toting mob through the fields to round up illegal immigrants as part of ‘coercion’. No one is going to support this idea either. The fact is we would see our security agents diverted from finding terrorist to raiding crop fields, restaurant kitchens and daycare centers. As a plan to deal with terrorism it is about as good as putting our forces in Okinawa to monitor events in Iraq.
Then you had the compromise position. Deport those here under 2 years and those who are criminals (gives something for the pitch fork toters to do). But let those here long term pay retribution for their unlawful misdemeanor violations through fines and back taxes (since they have ‘free-loaded’ on us for so long).
The other issues in terms of borders, employer sanctions, and a real guest worker program that was limited in time, restricted as a path to citizenship, etc are independent of this matter – remember that.
The far right says purge or nothing. But what they know and fear is the compromise position is heavily favored in polls. So they try and lump option 1 (open borders) and 2 (it ain’t about borders, it’s about long term illegal workers) together. That is why they are against ‘amnesty’ but it really is a ‘border security’ issue! See the attempt to confuse and divert? Here’s the deal. Anyone who retains the status quo is really heading us towards option 1 – open borders. That is what we have (remember, we can live with ‘current laws’!).
There is not way out of this as long as the fringes stay on the fringe. The left actually gave up a lot of ground to the comprehensive bill. They couldn’t even get instant citizenship for the long term illegals like they have before. So the stage is set for good, reasonable progress which passes the reality test – can it get through Congress. Why anyone would destroy the GOP over nannies, gardeners and construction workers is beyond me.
One of my readers thought the immigration debate here was laughable. Dude, you should understand the issue from where I sit! Do we let al-Qaede come across our borders freely (option 1) or do we focus our limited security resource chasing down babysitters to dump them on the streets in Mexico (option 3). When you stand back and look at the core focus of the options you realize why America is so fed up with the foolishness of hyper-partisan politics. It if wasn’t so damn dangerous it would make a great Monty Python skit.
Fred has a plan, and has had for sometime. He has a White Paper on every issue.
I think this is the only way to go in today’s world.
AJ
I’ll go along with what you say but would add that any illegals caught should be immediately deported not turned loose to be lost in the country. People who have been here for years, have learned the language, assimmulated and become loyal to the US are welcome as far as I am concerned. We need to seal the borders to stop those previously deported from coming back. The borders are a joke until we do that. We also need to back our border guards when they apprehend or shoot drug runners and not send them to prison for doing their jobs. It is outrageous that those two guards are in prison for shooting that drug runner. I wouldn’t care if they had killed him. When the police say halt your should do so or get shot. Whatever happened to law enforcement? These people are destroying our citizens especially our kids and this guy is a serial drug runner.
I was shocked to hear the unions filing a suit to prevent the government from sending the letters to employers. I understood the courts’ job was to interpret the law and since this is a law enacted by congress how can any one sue to have it overturned? The judge should have dismissed it immediately.
When I was young an old codger made the statement that the country was going to hell in a handbasket. I thought he was crazy. I now understand what he meant.
BarbaraS,
I agree. We need to catch and release (over the border). The problem is not open borders in the future, it is dealing with 25+ years of open borders in the past. You don’t have to be for open borders to realize the challenge of dealing with the result of open borders into the future.
I kind of don’t think there is the luxury of time to mess with
this issue.
I’m guessing that in less than two years time Iran will give nuclear
weapons to The Revolutionary Guard, and over in Pakistan,
Musharaff will have been toppled and Al-Qaeda will get at
least a few of that country’s weapons.
So by about 2011, it is a pretty good chance that New York,
DC, San Diego, London and Paris will disappear on the same day,
destroyed by sailboat borne terrorist delivery systems.
Sure, we can debate about Faith, Hope, and Charity,
open borders and amnesty, social justice and on and on and on,
except there isn’t time.
It would appear that President Bush, barring a December
attack on Iran and Pakistan, has lost his nerve, and absolutely
none of the democrat candidates had any nerve to begin with.
The only solution for the individual is to protect himself by moving
out of the big cities, the ones accessible by water especially.
Fear mongering? I don’t think so.
The President of Iran told us that the return of the 12th imam
would happen in two years. That was a year ago.
We cannot even talk about these issues because everybody just
wants them to go away.
1938 and all that.
AJ,
We’ve disagreed on illegal immigration and amnesty before. I’ve read Hanson’s article, and his book Mexifornia — and I’m a 5th generation Californian who’s seen what has happened to a once wonderful state….
I’m not an absolutist who insists every illegal, no matter what the extenuating circumstances, be ignominiously dragged off to the border, but there is a fundamental issue that keeps me out of your ‘comprehensive solution’ camp. The issue is trust. I simply don’t trust politicians on the left or in the center on immigration to keep their word on securing the border or on enforcing any limits that are initially placed on legalization.
So, the reason I’m a ‘border enforcement firsts’ kind of guy is not because I want to deport every illegal, but because I want to see results that will establish some trust that when we solve the problem, it will be a long(ish) term solution.
IF the border were secured, and IF we proposed a regime that would allow long term illegals, who (1) have become fluent in English, (2) are culturally assimilated and are prepared to completely renounce any dual citizenship, (3) have maintained clean records – no felonies and no significant misdemeanors, and (4) have not been, are prepared to permanently forgo any claim to being, a public charge or to collect social security for periods before they are legalized, to become regularized, I could support it.
The problem I see in practical political terms, however, is that there will be lax enforcement of the fluency in English requirement and the ‘time requirements’ (e.g. if we say you have to have been here X years to qualify, there will be pressure to lessen it), and the ‘clean records’ requirement will not be enforced. And there will be pressure to let people collect welfare. And that’s only the beginning, because the same people will push the envelope on loosening border security.
Do you seriously think that it will be any more politically possible to deport every illegal alien who has committed a serious misdemeanor or felony, or who refuses to learn English and assimilate? I wonder.
I also think we have to have a fairly long cut off (minimum of 5 years here before the legislation was proposed) before anyone is eligible for regularization, to avoid the rush to legalization.
Again, even under that sort of scheme we’re talking about deporting a pretty large number of folks. Can you see it happening? Would you support those deportations (even if we don’t agree on the exact criteria, can you agree that there would be serious criteria and that they would be rigorously enforced)? If not, then any plan will fail.
Cato,
If you don’t trust the feds to make good on their agreements then just quit. This is that ‘perfection’ crap that is so meaningless. It wouldn’t matter what they say – which means you end up with the status quo. The ones who ‘lied’ were the ones who said we could live with current laws. The ones who ‘lied’ claimed borders were the issue when it was amnesty of long term illegals. The ones who lied called Bush and others like him “traitor” and “RINO”. If you want to look at track records Bush never lied. You have put your trust in the wrong place.
Sorry, but that is just another dodge to avoid facing the reality. Either compromise, fix up the holes and keep the pressure on to execute or just give it up. Your argument is not an answer, it is a rationalization not to do anything. Which is the worst answer out there.
There is much misconception over the word “illegal”. One is “illegal” ONLY if they have been previously deported and have returned. If you haven’t gone though proper procedure to get here you aren’t “illegal” so much as you are here through “improper” procedure. It is up to a judge to decide. When someone who is not here on a valid visa is caught they have a choice. They can waive their right to an immigration hearing and accept deportation. If they do that then if they are ever caught here again without a valid visa, they can be jailed and will likely never get here again though legal means. If they are deported and come back without going through proper procedure, THEN they are “illegal” aliens. Otherwise they are simply aliens who have skirted proper procedure.
Now, if you decide to have a hearing, a judge can allow you to stay and often do. If you have been here a long time, are a good member of the community, have not been in trouble, have held down a job for years, have learned english and attempted to assimilate, the judge could very well allow you to stay. If you know only Spanish or Spanglish, are covered with gang tattoos, have been here only a short time, have no visible means of support, chances are good that your a$$ is outta here.
By law, an “illegal alien” is one who has been deported in the past and has come back.
AJ,
You didn’t answer my question: “Again, even under that sort of scheme we’re talking about deporting a pretty large number of folks. Can you see it happening? Would you support those deportations (even if we don’t agree on the exact criteria, can you agree that there would be serious criteria and that they would be rigorously enforced)?”
In fact, I don’t think you’re being responsive at all. The history of immigration reform from the 1966 bill through the Reagan Amnesty and to the present is the pressure and laxness I am concerned about. It is not a cop out to say, ‘borders first’. It’s along the lines of Reagan’s “trust but verify” — that is, I do not want to do anything irrevocable in terms of legalization until I see that it won’t lead to a whole lot more illegals coming in. I’m not saying anyone “lied” – I’m just looking at the history of what happened and asking why I should believe it will be different this time.
Who among the 12+ million illegals would you let stay, and who would you deport? Do you think the political will exists to deport ANYBODY?
I’d even be willing to do the enforcement and legalization discussion in parallel as long as there was no irreversible legalization until the deal done and done, and that anyone who had come recently or had a criminal record would really be deported and face a secure border when they tried to get back in.
Cato,
I have answered that question a million times – but will do once more.
No. deportation of the long term, law abiding illegal is a dangerous waste of resources and diversion to our security needs against terrorists.
Why some folks, when trying to find needles in haystacks, focus on the hay is beyond me. I have done the math many times, but divide 15 million illegals by something like deporting 1000 a day and do the math. We are talking years and all of the focused on law abiding undocumented workers.
In addition it is politically unsustainable over the period needed. A few weeks with repeated stories like Elian Gonzales hitting the airwaves and headlines (and they will) and the whole thing will be brought to stop.
legally it is also questionable. The courts will note that (a) under the laws these people entered the country (or stayed) illegally the violation was a misdemeanor. You cannot retroactively change punishments for crimes committed prior to the new laws.
And I could go on and on and on about what a total fantasy and waste of time the idea truly is.
No. Never. I want to stop terrorists, not chase down hotel maids.
To deport 1000 a day IF they all decided to have a deportation hearing (which they are entitled to by law) would be impossible. At 6 cases heard per judge per day, it would require the hiring of 167 additional judges to hear 1000 cases/day. Lets say each judge works 250 days a year, that is 250,000 cases per year. For 15 million cases we are talking a 60 year backlog and that is assuming that not another single cases arrives in the country.
Impossible. And dumb when you consider that the vast majority of these people are hard working, church going people.
AJ, If you’re not willing to deport ANY illegals, then what incentive is there for them to learn English, assimilate, and become fully contributing members of society?
I agree that stopping terrorists are the first priority.
However, I am not willing to give EVERY illegal entrant into the US who has arrived by the time we stop talking about this a pass to say. I agree that the majority are hardworking – I’m not so sure about the church-going part, but no matter – but you have to, in my view, differentiate between those who will NOT be a burden on society and those who either commit crimes or WILL be a burden on society. And, you have to exclude those who are not prepared to give their sole loyalty to the US and our cultural and political values. I don’ think that’s asking too much.
Cato,
Why are you making me repeat what is clearly written above???
Newly arrived illegals – out. Felons-out. New immigrant workers 3-6 year stints and out.
This is why you folks are losing this debate. Focus!!!!
Go to any catholic church in a major city. Also, the LDS church has been recruiting migrants like mad out west.
AJ,
You miss my point, which is not that I disagree particularly on who should stay and who should go, but that there will be tremendous political pressure not to deport ANYONE. I was asking if you are willing to see the bad publicity that results from deporting all the felons (I’d add serious misdemeanors, but that may just be a quibble) and if you think a compromise could successfully resist that pressure.
The related question, is if the country has the political will to deport a substantial number (felons and new arrivals), what’s the difference between deporting (say) 3 million and deporting 12 million? Just numbers?
Where we part company, is I’m not willing to agree that anyone gets to be legal if we can’t successfully close the border and get rid of the ones we’ve agreed will be deported.
The dog is chasing it’s tail again. Maybe you purists should stay home on election day after all.
If mass deportation damages the economy, I am not going to be in favor of it. I am also not going to be in favor of solutions (such as doing nothing) that perpetuate the “under the table” hiring of migrants. The solution I am going to favor is one that brings them above board, on the tax roles, and allows them to work.
We have only 5% unemployment in this country. They are not taking jobs away from anyone.
Also, there is going to be massive pressure to do NOTHING because there are too many very powerful people making a lot of money on the way things are. As long as drug cartels can pump millions into political parties, for example, there will never be a fence.
There are a lot of powerful people making literally billions the way things are now. It isn’t going to change.
Cato,
You have clearly stumbled into the absurd in order to defend the ground you are on. Who is going to find deporting felons a problem?
Christ, I about died laughing on that one. Were we part company is when you go off into fantasy land and the rest of us are still hear trying to deal with reality.
Too funny.
Yep, the joke is on the ‘Shamnesty’ shouters. I just want to ask them what they achieved when they had all three seats at the table? They achieved destruction of a party. Don’t ever think that this was not the driving force behind almost every one of those things we all fought about. It was the fuel.
The Dems in power would definitely open the doors, if they could hide it from their base. They will find a way to legalize more quickly those millions of voters already here. Just a fact.
No, I do not thank Malkin for her role in this fiasco. She never receives enough credit. Zero. We get zero. Can’t even get English because ‘they do not trust the government’. Give me a break. Zero.