Chicago Tribune Editorial - 1 and 2 make 0
Chicago Tribune Editorial - 1 and 2 make 0
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published July 8, 2006
At first, it sounds like the voice of reason speaking. The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives could reconcile their seemingly irreconcilable immigration reform bills with a simple two-step plan.
Step 1: Stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. Step 2 (to take effect only after Step 1 is successful): Establish a guest-worker program and a path to earned citizenship for immigrants who have been living here illegally.
The voice says this approach would marry the House's insistence on border enforcement with the Senate's desire to accommodate millions of undocumented immigrants who already live here and the businesses that depend on them. Everybody wins, eventually.
The idea has generated scattered support in both houses, and a White House staffer has said the president thinks the notion is "something we should take a close look at." But this plan is a deal for deal's sake. It won't solve anything.
It's nice to hear earnest talk of compromise as House and Senate members embark on a summer of dueling public hearings in support of their respective bills. (This week it's the House's very scary "Border Vulnerabilities and International Terrorism" in San Diego vs. the Senate's feel-good "Contributions of Immigrants to the U.S. Armed Forces" in Miami.)
But there's a problem with the 1-2 plan. Step 1 won't work without Step 2.
Two decades of failed immigration policy should have taught us a few things. We can't sew the border shut, for example. As long as there are jobs waiting on the other side, immigrants will find holes to squeeze through. To stop employers from hiring illegal workers, the House and Senate propose a reliable electronic system for verifying the immigration status of job applicants, but that system would take several years to set up. Meanwhile, illegal immigration will continue, or even increase. The 12 million who are already here aren't likely to go home and wait for Step 2. And that's a good thing, because Step 1 doesn't address the problem of how to replace them with legal workers. So Step 1 is bound to fail, which means Step 2 will never happen. This compromise comes up empty.
The sensible solution isn't always to split the difference, and there are signs that Americans might understand that better than their elected representatives think. A Manhattan Institute poll of likely Republican voters, for example, found that more than a third believe the Senate's "earned citizenship" plan is exactly what the House critics say it is: an amnesty program. But three-fourths of the Republicans say we should pass it anyway. And almost as many think it's "very" or "extremely" important for Congress to pass an immigration bill this year.
Now that sounds like the voice of reason.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published July 8, 2006
At first, it sounds like the voice of reason speaking. The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives could reconcile their seemingly irreconcilable immigration reform bills with a simple two-step plan.
Step 1: Stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. Step 2 (to take effect only after Step 1 is successful): Establish a guest-worker program and a path to earned citizenship for immigrants who have been living here illegally.
The voice says this approach would marry the House's insistence on border enforcement with the Senate's desire to accommodate millions of undocumented immigrants who already live here and the businesses that depend on them. Everybody wins, eventually.
The idea has generated scattered support in both houses, and a White House staffer has said the president thinks the notion is "something we should take a close look at." But this plan is a deal for deal's sake. It won't solve anything.
It's nice to hear earnest talk of compromise as House and Senate members embark on a summer of dueling public hearings in support of their respective bills. (This week it's the House's very scary "Border Vulnerabilities and International Terrorism" in San Diego vs. the Senate's feel-good "Contributions of Immigrants to the U.S. Armed Forces" in Miami.)
But there's a problem with the 1-2 plan. Step 1 won't work without Step 2.
Two decades of failed immigration policy should have taught us a few things. We can't sew the border shut, for example. As long as there are jobs waiting on the other side, immigrants will find holes to squeeze through. To stop employers from hiring illegal workers, the House and Senate propose a reliable electronic system for verifying the immigration status of job applicants, but that system would take several years to set up. Meanwhile, illegal immigration will continue, or even increase. The 12 million who are already here aren't likely to go home and wait for Step 2. And that's a good thing, because Step 1 doesn't address the problem of how to replace them with legal workers. So Step 1 is bound to fail, which means Step 2 will never happen. This compromise comes up empty.
The sensible solution isn't always to split the difference, and there are signs that Americans might understand that better than their elected representatives think. A Manhattan Institute poll of likely Republican voters, for example, found that more than a third believe the Senate's "earned citizenship" plan is exactly what the House critics say it is: an amnesty program. But three-fourths of the Republicans say we should pass it anyway. And almost as many think it's "very" or "extremely" important for Congress to pass an immigration bill this year.
Now that sounds like the voice of reason.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 6:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home