A Winning Agenda: Part I – Immigration Reform
I’m going to begin today with a series of posts laying out the principles and positions that I feel can deliver the election to the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 – and beyond. I hold no lofty think-tank position, I have no pretense to being an influential voice in the party, and I speak only for myself – nevertheless, I have a little platform here, and I intend to use it.
These posts will seem simplistic to some, and that’s partially by design. I want to lay out a message that is principled, yes, but one that can win. That necessarily means an easily summarized agenda that is high-concept and low on detail. I welcome your comments and suggestions.
I hadn’t intended to begin with the immigration issue, but events have pushed it to the forefront. A massive crowd of 500,000 demonstrated yesterday in Los Angeles to:
“…oppose legislation passed by the U.S. House that would make it a felony to be in the United States illegally. It would also impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, require churches to check the legal status of parishioners before helping them, and order the construction of fences along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border”.
President Bush supports a guest-worker solution that would provide a time-limited legal stay, but not permanent citizenship, an idea that Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute sets aside as impractical and unrealistic (and convincingly so) in today’s Washington Post.
I have neither the expertise nor the inclination to solve the quandary of immigration…yet the issue is too hot not to be addressed. The political answer (as opposed to the legislative) must be based on a few simple principles:
(1). We need a steady flow of immigrants to power the engine of our economy.
(2). We must recognize the historical role of immigrants in the idea and reality of America as a nation apart from all others.
(3). We must avoid allowing our concerns to harm our standing with minority voters.
(4). Nevertheless, the law must be enforced.
Here, then is a modest proposal for the issue of immigration in the near future:
(1) Increase border security. This is a no-brainer; not only are our borders far too porous for illegal immigrants, they’re far too easily penetrated by terrorists. A rare political two-fer here.
(2) Require valid documentation for government services, excepting those that literally deal with life and death. We must not allow people to be turned out of emergency rooms when their life is on the line, for example, but we must start doing commonsense things like increasing penalties on employers who hire illegal aliens, requiring photo ID to vote, and ending such things as in-state tuition and free public schooling for the children of illegal aliens (though the latter would require a constitutional amendment, a longshot at best).
(3). Increase economic ties with Mexico, with a focus on businesses at or near the border. As goes Mexico, so go the border states. A more prosperous southern neighbor means less incentive to break the law to enter our country.
(4). Increase outreach along the border for legal immigration. Cities that have historically served as stops along the path to illegal immigration should be the targets of a PR campaign conducted by American and Mexican officials that (a) makes it clear that we mean business about enforcing the current rules, and (b) makes it clear how a person desiring to live and work in the U.S. can do so, legally.
Above all, we must not allow the need to enforce our laws and secure our borders to color our view of minority communities. Politically, it would be disastrous, but more importantly, it’s morally wrong and antithetical to the premise of our great nation…
There is one action you missed mentioning (although it is part of a law enforcement): seek out and prosecute those employers who hire and employ illegal workers. They pay sub-standard wages, do not pay taxes (income and social security), and often provide sub-standard working conditions.
Otherwise, I like the plan. A nice combination of short (border security) and long (helping to improve the economy of Mexico) term recommendations.
too many steves, thanks for the feedback. I did briefly mention your point in number two above:
…We must start doing common sense things like increasing penalties on employers who hire illegal aliens.
So, yeah, absolutely, we’re in agreement on that as well…
Ah, so you did, I don’t know how I missed that.
Also, put pressure on ’sanctuary’ cities. Their sanctuary laws only further hamper law enforcement.
You’ve actually set forth some of the approaches that candidates for State office in Arizona, on the Republican ticket, are discussing. The Republican candidate for Attorney General, Bill Montgomery, has been presenting a plan for dealing with illegal immigration along the lines of enforcing laws and preventing any further erosion of the rule of law. So, your ideas have considerable traction and Republicans are applying them.
Don’t know if anyone had a chance to see some of the hearings in Congress that were held on this issue a few weeks ago – a number of long – time ranchers who have large spreads near the border were quite compelling. They basically said two things: in the past, they didn’t care who crossed their properties, because they were all Mexican and were just trying to get a better life for themselves and their families. Many of them told of leaving food out on their back porches for the immigrants to help themselves to after they crossed. No xenophobia was expressed here.
The second point was their acute observations that the majority of crossers these days are of non – Mexican/Latino origin, and quite a few have been armed and dangerous when encountered on their properties. They also have observed quite a few numbers of Arabic immigrants of indeterminate origin, and these folks were quite unfriendly as well, particularly when approached. Not a good sign, and it presents a problem that must be addressed today.
I question priori #1 and #2.
#1. We need a steady flow of immigrants to power the engine of our economy.
Do we? I mean can you back this up with something other than an asshat CEO whining about not having timely access to cheap slave labor?
#2 We must recognize the historical role of immigrants in the idea and reality of America as a nation apart from all others.
While undoubtedly true that America gained massively from her earlier experiments with immigration there were also massive downsides and costs. Mostly to middle and lower class citizens, much like today.
As a blue collar guy there seems to be an argument that goes like this…Since we did it before we must keep doing it no matter what. Well is that true?
Do we require the enormous amounts of immigration we currently have, both legal and illegal? I tend to think no, I think it serves a variety of purposes none of which are terribly helpful to the averge American.
It tends to drive wages down and hinder the assimilation process. It tends to drag down the quality of education irrespective of however many dollars you throw at the problem and I think it’s demeaning to hear people such as our president display such contempt for the American people and it’s workers.
“Jobs Americans won’t do” is simply one of the most singularly pernicious phrases I’ve ever heard. Have you relly considered the import of that phrase? Have we as a nation truly become worthless?
As a person who has taken tremendous prde in doing a dangerous and dirty job I assure you there is no shortage of Americans willing to do these jobs, I know, I do one. What there is is a shortage of companies willing to pay good wages. Again, I’ve seen it.
I am a believer in capitalism, but pure capitalism does have a predatory side. Whenever you hear a CEO or the president whining about cheap labor take a moment and read about the formation of IBP beef, most instructive I assure you.
Jake, we’re far from pure capitalism, as I’m sure you’re aware. In fact, we’re moving towards protectionism at an alarming rate, and only rank in a tie for 9th in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.
In any event, I appreciate your comments – for a paper that backs up some of my assertion re:the importance of immigrants to the economy, I refer you to this paper by the libertiarian Cato Institute – the conclusions are much more generous than mine, but I agree with much of what it says…
I tend to agree with Jake in that the phrase “jobs Americans won’t do” didn’t just spring up out of nowhere. There are jobs that Americans don’t “want” to do, but that’s far different from “jobs they won’t do”. Because over decades they’ve been conditioned toward this thinking. It’s at least partly because they’re not willing to be exploited like illegal immigrants are for those menial jobs. This country thrives on competition at all levels and that competition is gone when there is someone who is willing to accept rock bottom or below wages. Why would I compete to collect garbage for minimum wage?
Also, our government puts a lot of consideration into a visa applicant with social credentials and education, but little or nothing into an applicant who is merely willing to work hard. They’re legally admitting a glut of people taking up the jobs we do want to do with H1B visas and ignoring the rest. Our government doesn’t put a value on simple hard work. Instead, they just ignore that the flood across the border of illegal labor is the result of their own policies.
I am increasingly annoyed with those who deliberately confound “immigrant” with “alien”. Those demonstrators (and I am flabbergasted at the chutzpah of these new “untouchables”) who chant “Mehico, Mehico, Mehico” and wave non-USA flags are not interested in becoming IMMIGRANTS – those who wish to be what we used to call “Americans”. These aliens are literally INVADERS – determined to TAKE what they wish and to REMAIN what they are – espanol-speaking (and we sure better learn to speak espanol too!!!!!!!!) reconquistadors.
All in all, I’ll mow my own lawn and wash my own dishes, thank you very much.
And for those who truly wish to become part of America, welcome.
To you others, here is the revised Pledge just for you hordes of invaders:
I pledge allegiance
To the flags
Of the diverse states of the Americas,
And for all the countries
For which they stand,
Many nations,
Bajo Dios,
With Yankee dollars for all.
[...] That’s the choice framed by the editors of the Wall Street Journal when they ask if America is to belong to Ronald Reagan or Tom Tancredo. Last weekend, I suggested Republicans adopt an agenda with both a long and short view of the immigration issue. The WSJ agrees: The immediate danger is that Republicans will ignore their longer-term interests by passing a punitive, and poll-driven, anti-immigration bill this election year. Any bill that merely harasses immigrants and employers, and stacks more cops on the border, may win cheers in the right-wing blogosphere. However, it will do nothing to address the economic incentives that will continue to exist for poor migrants to come to America to feed their families. And it will make permanent enemies of millions of Hispanics, without doing anything to draw illegals out of the shadows and help them assimilate into the mainstream of American culture and citizenship. [...]
[...] (Part I – Immigration Reform can be found here) [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
[...] My own position on the issue was laid out here, and I see no need to change it: Here, then is a modest proposal for the issue of immigration in the near future: [...]