Mark Krikorian, advocating “enforcement first,” asks me, “Why would anyone fall for the claim that the government is finally serious about enforcement (and thus can be trusted with an amnesty) until programs like the jail checks (and E-Verify and US-Visit, etc.) are actually up and running, institutionalized and functioning?”
I would rephrase that slightly, Mark: “Why would anyone claim that the public is finally serious about enforcement when these programs are regularly obstructed, vitiated, and derailed by the politicians they elect, whether Democratic or Republican?”
Were this a Ross Perot computer-terminal democracy, Mark, I’ve little doubt that illegal aliens would be voted off the island (one week after “the rich” and one week before “religious fundamentalists”). But this is in fact a Republic, and your notion of “enforcement first” runs afoul of the following influential interest groups: Municipal governments heavily invested in hospitality services; communities with a lot of immigrant voters; business groups that depends on low-cost or seasonal labor; the entire U.S. agricultural sector; the fast-growing community of Hispanic citizens; non-immigrant loving business groups that demand a unified federal solution (including a “safe harbor” for employers); families and friends of illegal immigrants; Church groups; open-border liberals; and even illegal-alien-luvin’ conservatives (like yours truly).
For years now, you have operated on the premise that if you shout loudly enough about the real problems of open borders (strained budgets, criminal gangs), and the unreal problems (the superfluity of low-cost labor in a technologically developed society), “the public” would get behind the project of removing illegals, and the “interest groups” would be powerless to stop it.
Well, the interest groups have successfully stalled enforcement. And they haven’t they gone away. Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform are stronger now in Congress than they have been in years, and, as you have observed, they control the immigration policy of both political parties. I would suggest that if you are serious about enforcement, you had better consider a sit-down some of the hated interest groups. They might have a point or two.
You might, for instance, consider the non-negotiable demand of agriculture for visas for the foreign workers they want and need, rather than hectoring them on how they run their businesses. (The ag folk, by the way, are perfectly willing to include biometric ID’s on their “blue card” visas — a tracking device far superior to the easily evaded, wildly oversold E-Verify system.) You might consider protected status for illegal immigrants who have been here a long time, and can provide proof of employment. You might consider liberalizing work permits for employers in fields that experience abrupt periods of peak demand. You might consider expansion of the H1-B and L Visa programs that are universally supported by the politically powerful technology sector.
Mark, I know that you reject these accommodations, any one of which could bring you closer to a coalition that could pass a rigorous border enforcement bill.
But unless advocates of border security take practical steps to enlarge their coalition — steps which involve some degree of compromise on work visas and immigration levels — they will continue to shout, and continue to lose. And at some point, their followers will question their commitment to public safety.