John Podhoretz explains how Democrats used the felony provision in the proposed immigration law to box Republicans in. They want a punitive bill that enrages Hispanics, so that Hispanics become as reliably Democratic voters as are African-Americans today. Should that happen, JP warns, it dooms Republicans for a generation. He is right. The GOP base had better wake-up. Think 1994 and California Governor Pete Wilson, where Proposition 187 was judged by Hispanics as too harsh on illegal aliens. It took The Terminator and a spectacularly inept Democratic Governor to give Republicans a partial lease on life there--only partial, as California is counted a Blue state in presidential contests.
David Frum writes today on NRO of 43's guest worker + amnesty program: "It's like some poli-sci program run amok." NROs' Rich Lowry sees the short-term political trump card Democrats hold: Hispanic illegals vote 2:1 Democratic. The NRO editors urge that we defer the amnesty debate until border control is re-established, a view that seemingly ignores the lesson of Prop 187. The Terminator, for his part, proposes a one-strike deportation rule for illegals who commit "serious crimes" (presumably he means felonies). GOP Senatorial stalwarts John Kyl (AZ) and John Cornyn (TX) propose 5 years and out for illegals; re-entry would be permitted by lawful re-application. They note that 40 percent of the estimated illegal population came to the US since 9/11, and thus they propose better electronic verification. Ace economist Thomas Sowell calls guest-workers gate-crashers who are, unlike guests, not invited. Sowell addresses that "take jobs Americans won't" mantra with a classic proposition of economics: price. Americans will do those jobs, but not at wages as low as illegals will accept. Sowell sees lax enforcement being driven by political calculation and by business seeking cheap labor.
International economist Jagdesh Bhagwati argues for a "middle ground" approach to illegal immigration. Legalize the inflow and treat them humanely, says he. He notes that by one estimate a Mexican who crosses the border can anticipate earning $250,000 more here than at home; so long as Mexican opportunity is so much less (generations) we can anticipate crossings. Also, amnesty violates "horizontal equity": it is unfair to treat illegals equally with legals. Missing from this view, however, is the idea of "earned citizenship"--making illegals earn their way by meeting certain standards. Problem is, as JB notes, that forging ID is too easy, and so we cannot separate one group from the other. Which brings us back to that bugaboo: a national ID card--we are paying the price of dithering on this since 9/11. As for the Democrats: They get to sit back and laugh; they see a GOP problem, and no answer looks especially good these days.
Yes we must somehow control our borders better. But radical restrictionist measures--"kick 'em out, keep 'em out"--cannot work in a country whose largest minority, some 40 million, are Hispanic. Guest workers will stay, blanket or easily earned amnesty is morally inequitable, and in the event we cannot even count illegals, so enforcement is a chimera until (if ever) we can. The IRS can find you and me, but the INS cannot find the illegals. What can we do?
We need legislation that incorporates the following: (1) a national ID card to enable us to identify illegals, without which comprehensive enforcement is impossible; (2) earned citizenship that supplants illusory guest workers and serial amnesty; (3) election reform that ensures only legal citizens get to vote. The odds? Dismal. Why do I sound so pessimistic? Try this: Seems that William Jefferson Clinton hired a chauffeur who was an illegal Pakistani immigrant. Yep, he who treated the first World Trade Center bombing as an isolated incident just had another...isolated incident. Serves him right for not consulting Hillary first. (But as to those not married to Hill, don't consult her on immigration--or anything else.)
Comments