Immigration debate more of same
Mistrust in government has been a common theme in recent editorials on this page, and it is front and center once again with the topic of “comprehensive” immigration reform.
Mistrust is at the heart of every criticism of the bill. Like the Obamacare legislation, it is voluminous, leading many to be leery of what surprises it may contain. It was crafted by a “gang of eight” senators, rather than going through open committee reviews, and it is now being fast-tracked by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Obviously it is intended to benefit immigrants, but critics rightfully wonder whether “a pathway to citizenship” for an estimated 12 million illegals currently in the country will benefit the American people, and just how much of an incentive will the legislation be to encourage future illegal immigration.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even if the bill passes, within 10 years an additional 5 million new immigrants and their children will enter the country illegally. That represents just a 25 percent reduction in the estimated illegal immigration if the bill doesn’t pass.
What impact will the combined legalization of current residents and continued influx of illegal workers have on wages and jobs? And doesn’t the CBO estimate call into question the supposed purpose of the legislation?
So let’s get one thing straight. There must not be any “reform” of the status of illegal immigrants until such time as there is a thorough reform of the procedures and policies that led to the current mess. The country will be in the exact same position in 10 years unless there is improved enforcement and border security to truly put a dent in future illegal immigration.
We’ve been down this road before, more than once. Most recently, Congress funded and mandated construction of a 700-mile border fence in 2006, but only a fraction of that has been built since then. And why is that? Because the Obama administration has chosen not to do it, and who knows, maybe if the Bush administration was still in charge it wouldn’t be any different.
The last time the country went along with amnesty for illegal aliens was back in 1986 under Ronald Reagan, and since then there’s been a continuous flow of illegal immigrants, getting us to the point where we are now.
Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese III recently explained his skepticism of the legislation in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
“The 1986 reform did not solve our immigration problem — in fact, the population of illegal immigrants has nearly quadrupled since that ‘comprehensive’ bill,” he wrote. “Why didn’t it work? Well, one reason is that everything else the 1986 bill promised — from border security to law enforcement — was to come later. It never did. Only amnesty prevailed, and that encouraged more illegal immigration.”
Multiple amendments to put improved enforcement first have failed to pass. But the latest development is an amendment from Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota that will be considered early next week.
The amendment would provide for an additional 20,000 border agents, about double the current number, along with $3.2 billion in surveillance equipment and a requirement to complete the 700 miles of fencing.
If it passes, maybe the amendment will make the legislation more politically palatable, but more importantly it might make it effective. Already, however, the amendment is attracting plenty of critics who question the costs and wonder about when, exactly, all these enforcement measures would occur.
Because of the past performance of our federal government, particularly when it comes to big things that are promised, there is plenty to mistrust.
Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.