A large sense of relief is palpable over the death of this “comprehensive immigration reform bill.” There hasn’t been much blogging in this space on the subject, due to the lack of anything incredibly vital with which to add to the cacophony. In a post over a year ago, RWB opted for securing the border first, before discussion of guest worker programs and paths to citizenship, and nothing happened in the interim to make that seem any less sensible. The chief argument in favor of this “comprehensive solution,” it seems to me, was that the only way to get anything done on immigration was to throw each and every side in the debate a bone, something that they could call their own. But a single dry bone wasn’t enough for those who believe that this country really should actually do its best to secure its borders in advance of giving out any kind of amnesty to existing illegal immigrants, and in the end even the self-important inhabitants of the U.S. Senate (or at least the Republican ones) had to bow to the onslaught of “feedback” from their constituents.

It was supposedly a political reality that nothing serious could be done about the borders without conceding to the Democrats on some form of amnesty. That alleged axiom was reiterated even today by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. Well, perhaps today’s result illustrates a different political reality: no comprehensive immigration reform monstrousity is going to succeed while the borders remain unsecured. Merely allocating funds towards securing the border with Mexico doesn’t cut it; successful implementation is what the voters are looking for. And if there are Democrats who squarely oppose the concept of securing the borders, then just maybe that might be a good issue on which to run against them, as opposed to an issue on which to throw up the white flag.

President Bush seems to have blown what little goodwill he had left with the conservative base, thanks to his strong support of this bill. I for one don’t particularly hold it against him, for the simple reason that to me it was always clear that he would support such a deal, if he ever got the chance — and I voted for him anyway. The thing that changed, and made this deal such a strong possibility, was the victory by the Democrats in the 2006 congressional elections. From the 2000 GOP convention onwards, President Bush has always made it pretty clear that he’s supported these kinds of changes to the immigration status-quo — in particular a guest worker program. He has made it clear that his vision for the Republican party was that it should be pro-immigrant, forward-looking, and in the business of reaching out to minorities and to Hispanics in particular. And there’s a whole lot to be said for that attitude. In fact I endorse it wholeheartedly. I just don’t agree that in order to be pro-immigrant one needs to be pro-illegal immigrant. I can’t but believe that the net result of this so-called comprehensive solution would have been more illegal immigrants. Unable to enforce existing immigration law, there is no evidence that the federal bureacracy would be able to enforce a brand new and considerably more labyrinthine set of regulations. The essential message to would-be illegal immigrants would be: “You may as well get here any way you can. Eventually, one way or another, America will always find some way of legalizing you once you’re here.” And it would have been a completely rational conclusion to draw.

Meanwhile, for those — potentially millions — of existing illegals who just weren’t inclined to pay the fines envisioned by this bill, or return briefly to their home countries to meet some kind of “touchback” requirement, what reason was there to think that the federal bureaucracy would be any more successful in finding, catching and deporting them than it already has been? Quite simply, the feds have proven themselves so utterly inept on this issue — since the last “comprehensive reform” was signed by President Reagan — that the voters were not willing to buy the idea that they could actually implement any of the enforcement provisions of this new bill. And that was a completely rational conclusion to draw.

The message that the American public has sent — whether the senators and congressmen have heard it clearly or not — is that they want evidence of the ability of the federal government to implement existing laws on this issue first (and in particular its ability to secure the borders), before they will put their trust and confidence in any new, um, solution.

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• The times: a-changin’ again
• Prime Time with the President
• The tide is stemmed