The Corner

Rubio Refining Immigration Message

Senator Rubio was on Mark Levin’s show yesterday, revising and extending his earlier remarks on amnesty to the Journal and the Times. He seems to be walking back some of what he said last week, asserting the need for “triggers” to “certify that, indeed, the workplace security thing is in place, the visa tracking is in place, and there’s some level of significant operational control of the border.” Whatever its superficial appeal, this trigger idea is an old gimmick used to reconcile the “enforcement first” demand with amnesty. A big problem with it is defining a trigger — past versions have involved a target level of appropriations or maybe certification by the four southern border governors that the border is secure. But even if there were a workable trigger, and I’ve never seen one, there would be irresistible political pressure on whoever was responsible to get the certifying over with so the amnesty could get under way.

A better approach is smaller confidence-building measures, like mandatory E-Verify in exchange for amnesty for illegals who came here as infants or toddlers. If either side welshes on the deal — as the amnesty crowd did in willfully abandoning their 1986 insincere promise to support immigration enforcement in exchange for amnesty — then the damage is contained. But if each side honors the deal, and we did get, say, full implementation of E-Verify and the most sympathetic of the DREAMers did get amnestied, then you could proceed to a further step.

And a further problem with the trigger approach is that it would require things that are already on the books. An exit-tracking system for foreign visitors, for instance, is vital to any serious immigration-control system (as Senator Rubio is now pointing out), but the requirement to implement one has been on the books for 17 years. Why would immigration hawks negotiate over something that was supposed to already be in place? The executive branch needs to keep its old promises before it starts making new ones.

Also on Levin’s show, Senator Rubio clarified his “path to citizenship.” The illegals would all get amnesty immediately, of course, but they would only have a renewable work visa. After a time, they’d be able to apply for green cards (that could lead to citizenship) only through the existing immigration system by, say, marrying a citizen or what have you. Practically speaking, that would mean millions of the amnestied illegal aliens would remain in that work-visa status for the rest of their lives, creating a strong issue for Democrats: “Vote for us and we’ll end the Jim Crow immigration status the evil Republicans have imposed on you!” We’d lose Hispanic market share with that kind of approach.

Finally Rubio seems to be calling for gigantic increases in legal immigration. He’s been stressing the need to increase share of legal immigrants who are selected based on their skills; currently, the employment-based categories account for only 13 percent of the 1 million-plus immigrants we take each year, and half of those are spouses and children of the immigrants selected for their skills, which is why he’s been saying only 6.5 percent of legal immigration is skill-based. But Rubio is also saying, as in this Spanish-language op-ed that’s being widely published, that “None of this should lead us to abandon or weaken immigration based on family.” Well, to get that 6.5 percent skilled figure up to just 25 percent of the total immigration flow, without reducing family immigration (or the visa lottery or refugee resettlement) would require an annual legal immigration level of 1.9 million a year, almost double what we have now. If Rubio wants to double legal immigration, he needs to make that clear now.

Mark Krikorian — Mark Krikorian, a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues, has served as Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) since 1995.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More