By Charles Krauthammer
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The president suggested he would hold off introducing his
own immigration bill as long as bipartisan Senate negotiations were proceeding
apace — until his own immigration bill mysteriously leaked precisely as
bipartisan Senate negotiations were proceeding apace.
A naked political maneuver and a blunt warning to
Republicans: Finish that immigration deal in Congress or I’ll propose something
I know you can’t accept — and flog the issue mercilessly next year to win back
the House.
John McCain responded (correctly) that President Obama
was creating a “cudgel” to gain “political advantage in the next election.”
Marco Rubio, a chief architect of the Senate bill, called Obama’s alternative
dead on arrival.
They doth protest quite a lot. Especially because, on the
single most important issue — instant amnesty — there is no real difference
between the proposals.
Rubio calls it “probationary legal status.” Obama uses
the term “lawful prospective immigrant.” But both would instantly legalize the
11 million illegal immigrants living here today. The moment either bill is
signed, the 11 million become eligible for legal residence, the right to work,
and relief from the prospect of deportation.
Their life in the shadows is over, which is what matters
to them above all. Call the status probationary or prospective, but, in
reality, it is permanent. There is no conceivable circumstance (short of
criminality) under which the instant legalization would be revoked.
This is bad policy. It repeats the 1986 immigration
reform that legalized (the then) 3 million while promising border enforcement —
which was never carried out. Which opened the door to today’s 11 million. And
to the next 11 million as soon as the ink is dry on this reform.
The better policy would be enforcement first, followed by
amnesty. Yes, amnesty. But only when we have assured that these 11 million
constitute the last cohort.
How to assure that? With three obvious enforcement
measures: (a) a universal E-Verify system by which employers must check the
legal status of all their hires, (b) an effective system for tracking those who
have overstayed their visas, and (c) closure of the southern border, mainly
with the kind of triple fence that has proved so successful near San Diego.
If legalization would go into effect only when these
conditions are met, there would be overwhelming bipartisan pressure to get
enforcement done as quickly as possible.
Regrettably, there appears to be zero political will to
undertake this kind of definitive solution. Democrats have little real interest
in border enforcement. They see a rising Hispanic population as the key to a
permanent Democratic majority. And Republicans are so panicked by last year’s
loss of the Hispanic vote by 44 points that they have conceded instant
legalization, as in the Rubio proposal.
Hence Rubio’s fallback. He at least makes enforcement the
trigger for any normalization beyond legalization. Specifically, enforcement is
required before the 11 million can apply for a green card.
A green card is surely a much weaker enforcement
incentive than is legalization. But it still is something. Obama’s proposal, on
the other hand, obliterates any incentive for enforcement.
Obama makes virtually automatic the eventual acquisition
of a green card and citizenship by today’s 11 million. The clock starts on the
day the bill is signed: eight years for a green card, five more for
citizenship. It doesn’t matter if the border is flooded with millions of new
illegal immigrants (anticipating yet the next amnesty). The path to citizenship
is irreversible, rendering enforcement irrelevant.
As for Obama’s enforcement measures themselves, they are
largely mere gestures: increased funding for border control, more deportation
judges, more indeterminate stretching of a system that has already demonstrably
failed. (Hence today’s 11 million.) Except for the promise of an eventual
universal E-Verify system, it is nothing but the appearance of motion.
And remember: Non-implementation of any of this has no
effect on the path to full citizenship anyway. The Rubio proposal at least
creates some pressure for real enforcement, because green-card acquisition does
not take place until the country finally verifies that its borders are under
its control. True, a far weaker incentive than requiring enforcement before
legalization. But that fight appears to be totally lost.
In the end, the only remaining vessel for enforcement is
the Rubio proposal. It is deeply flawed and highly imperfect. But given that
the Obama alternative effectively signs away America’s right to decide who
enters the country, the choice between the two proposals on the table today is
straightforward.
No comments:
Post a Comment