| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 06:34:14 AM |
| Object: |
Don't Run for the Border |
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.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
