sordo?
5/21/2007 5:41:00 PM
Don't Run for the Border
America needs comprehensive immigration reform, but not a law enacted in
haste.
John Fund
Monday, May 21, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Wall Street Journal
It's understandable that the White House and its Senate negotiating
partners want to rush through the compromise immigration bill they
agreed to Thursday. Supporters acknowledge that the delicately balanced
legislation could collapse if a single destructive amendment is attached
to it. Its sponsors admit they want to minimize the political debate.
"We all know this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics
unless we move forward as quickly as possible," says Sen. John McCain, a
key architect of the bill.
But this is no way to debate the most sweeping change to our nation's
immigration laws in two decades--especially since the last comprehensive
attempt, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, failed so
spectacularly. The new bill is set to pass with much less analysis in
the Senate than the 1986 law, known as Simpson-Mazzoli, had. Senators
did not even receive the bill draft until midnight Saturday. After a
test vote scheduled for today, Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning a
final vote on the bill this Thursday, only one week after the compromise
was struck. Shouldn't senators have time to actually read the bill
they're being asked to vote on?
Even a key supporter of the bill, Sen. Jon Kyl or Arizona, admitted to
radio host Hugh Hewitt that "we don't have to rush the bill through the
Senate in a week. . . . Hopefully, the majority leader would allow it to
carry over beyond the Memorial Day recess so we could complete it."
Let's hope a comprehensive bill passes this year. If not, it will be
another two years before a new president will have another bite at the
apple. I favor a comprehensive immigration bill that combines stepped-up
border enforcement with a large guest-worker program and a method by
which we can bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows of our society.
I've written before about how President Eisenhower's Bracero
guest-worker program reduced arrests of illegal aliens at the border
from over a million in 1954 to only 45,000 by 1959. The number of
arrests remained under 100,000 a year until 1964, when President Lyndon
Johnson ended the program under pressure from labor unions.
Many immigration experts say they can't know if they support the current
compromise until they've absorbed the entire 1,000 page bill. They are
concerned that Mr. Reid seems determined to bypass normal committee
review and hearings and rush the bill to the floor. "That's like trying
to eat an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break," said former
senator Fred Thompson on ABC Radio Friday.
Why the rush? Because, to be blunt, the senators don't trust the
American people to make sound judgments on such emotional issues as
family reunification and national sovereignty. But the proper response
to this is to engage the public in the discussion, not to short-circuit
the deliberative process. One of the reasons the American people are
cynical about government is that they don't believe its officials take
the time to discharge their duties properly. Now a 1,000 page
immigration bill is being put before senators for a vote without anyone
having the time to study its details. Many will merely be leaning on
talking points prepared by their staff.
There is no doubt that the lack of deliberation will create surprises if
the bill passes. Last year the Senate passed, but the House never took
up, an 850-page immigration bill. Among the reasons the bill died in the
House was that members were furious about last-minute Senate amendments.
One required the U.S. to consult with Mexican officials before any new
fence construction could take place along the border. Another allowed
for discounted in-state tuition at state colleges and universities for
illegal aliens who reside in those states. Legal immigrants and citizens
who resided in other states would still have had to pay the full price.
The irony is that this is the Internet age. The entire immigration bill
could and should be posted online in a format that would allow changes
to be instantaneously added and highlighted. We pay our legislators well
to represent us and evaluate legislation, but the immigration bill would
probably benefit by giving constituents the ability to look over their
shoulders and shine a light on provisions that might sink the bill
further along in the legislative process.
There's an old rule in Washington that in dealing with any tough issue,
half the politicians hope that citizens don't understand it, while the
other half fear that people actually do. Here's hoping that members of
Congress and the White House ignore that tendency and come around to the
view that in the age of the Internet the people have to be consulted. In
retrospect, it's clear that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli reform with its
flawed amnesty provisions and lack of a workable guest-worker program
would never have passed if the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle had
existed then. The only way to pass this latest reform is to recognize
how much the world of instant communication has changed politics.
Populism--supporting the rights and power of average citizens--can be at
the extremes dangerous and demagogic. But in as large and diverse a
country as the U.S. consulting the people as closely as possible may be
the only way to pass an immigration bill that will stand the test of
time.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.