Decision ‘08

Meese On Immigration

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese has been active lately on the immigration front: this morning brought an op-ed by Meese in the New York Times, and he made himself available for a conference call this morning organized by Tim Chapman, the Director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation and a columnist at townhall.com that I was fortunate enough to listen in on. Also participating in the call was Dr. Matthew Spalding, the Director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies and an adjuct fellow at the Claremont Institute.

It’s no secret to regular readers that I feel the current emphasis on immigration is a bit overblown, but nevertheless, it appears that some sort of legislation will pass, so it is imperative that we get it as right as possible. I welcomed the opportunity to hear Meese’s views, then, and found that we have much in common, as well as some differences.

Meese was, of course, right in the thick of things when the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was debated and subsequently passed, so he’s not without expertise in this area. Meese emphasized, both in his op-ed and during the conference call, that the current proposal in the Senate, in common with the approach favored by President Bush, is ‘amnesty’ by any other name, and I don’t disagree. Meese also argues, as Mickey Kaus and others have noted, that this bill doesn’t move current illegal aliens to the back of the citizenship line, as many have claimed. While the immigrant is not granted immediate citizenship, he is granted legal status to remain in this country, provided he pass some rather small hurdles such as a fine and back taxes.

The argument Meese is making, then, is for the House approach of no amnesty combined with the aggressive enforcement of existing laws - but not with an onerous mass deportation attached. Under questioning by such blogging luminaries as Captain Ed, John Hawkins, Michelle Malkin, Mary Katharine Ham, Kim Priestap, and Jon Henke, Meese stressed that the ‘incentive’ for current illegals to leave is simply the removal of the cloud of forced deportation and associated legal consequences and the right to return, legally, behind all the other people already in line. I question how much of an incentive that is, but it’s certainly fair.

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:

(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…

6 Responses to “Meese On Immigration”

1 mikebdot Says:
May 24th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I agree completely with this course of action. One thing I would like to see is that if the immigrants are allowed to stay, there should be some sort of motivation to rat out their employers. Perhaps their fine could be lessened while the company/individuals responsible for the hiring should be fined even more heavily. I don’t see why we shouldn’t get as much money out of this as we can. It would probably pay for the tax cuts for a number of years…
2 Jake Jacobsen Says:
May 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I have no problem with your plan except #3. Can you go into any detail how we would achieve this realistically? Wasn’t NAFTA supposed to accomplish this? And how do you see overcoming the very real barrier of corruption that animates Mexican society?

Oh, as to immigration issues being overblown? Just curious, where do you live, why don’t you spend a week in my neighborhood. That would be Humboldt Park in Chicago.
3 Mark Says:
May 24th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Jake, there’s no silver bullet for number three - it’s more a carrot than a stick approach. To quote Stephen Johnson:

In daily relations, public diplomacy, and development policies toward Latin America, the U.S. government must do a better job of urging hemispheric neighbors to liberalize economies, untangle and cut burdensome business regulations, and ensure equal treatment of all citizens under the law to spread prosperity more broadly.

Mexico has already gone partway under Fox, but it must continue these efforts to account for the needs of its expanding population. Candidates running for the Mexican presidency and congress this year should hear from U.S. officials that backsliding toward populism will limit economic opportunities for their own workers and create friction between our two nations.
4 Mark Says:
May 24th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Oh, and I live in Austin…
5 dmac Says:
May 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
“That would be Humboldt Park in Chicago.”

Or Logan Square - or Pilsen. My own neighborhood used to be heavily Hispanic, but has changed due to regentrification - more’s the pity.
6 Diggers Realm Says:
May 25th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, Says Amnesty Then And Now A Failure

Ed Meese, the attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, supported the 1986 amnesty that was passed. Now he says things today look similar and the amnesty that he supported in 1986 was a mistake and utter failure. We’re doomed to…