No matter how they try to disguise it, members of the Senate -- including some Republicans -- are trying to reward people who have broken our laws. If the Senate bill introduced by John McCain (R?-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is not drastically altered or stopped, illegal aliens may be given the permission to live here that they spurned asking, but now demand. I cannot imagine a greater slap in the face to generations of immigrants, my ancestors among them, who filled out all the required forms, waited patiently for permission, and were grateful for the chance to become Americans.
The real question is: why should we even consider dismissing punishment for an entire category of lawbreakers? Imagine the reaction should the Senate debate, say, whether to give car thieves a "path to ownership." The McCain bill, which McCain pretends is not an amnesty, would allow those who deliberately violated our laws to simply pay a fine and continue to live here. If that's not amnesty, what is? Meanwhile, legitimate, law-abiding immigrants are forced to spend years in the countries they long to escape, awaiting legal permission to come here. Where is the fairness in that? What message would it send to the millions who are following proper procedure if we reward those who didn't?
The primary reason we hear for not following the law and simply expelling illegal immigrants is that they're just too numerous. Eleven million illegal immigrants are too many to arrest, we are told; we should just accept that they're here. Too many criminals means the end of pursuit? That line of reasoning ought to come as a great relief to the many petty criminals in the United States, who surely number more than that. Next time a cop stops you for speeding, tell him he should just stop trying, as there are too many speeders to catch.
We often hear that it would be "mean" to break up families by deporting illegals. Should we let other types of lawbreakers out of prison because it's "mean" to keep families apart? Unlike prisoners, there's no reason that illegal immigrants can't take their American families with them when they leave -- we don't force people to stay in America against their will.
A common argument against deporting illegal immigrants is that they "contribute to the economy" by paying sales taxes, if not income tax on under-the-counter day jobs. That contribution is more than offset by the general abuse of free emergency room services that have caused hospital and health care costs to spiral out of control. How many of our tax dollars go to arrest, prosecute, feed, clothe, house and provide medical and legal services to the illegal immigrants who make up more than 25% of our prison population? Also, I think most Americans would accept a minor hit to the economy in return for erasing non-citizens who have no right to vote from the rolls.
We are commonly told, even by President Bush, that illegal immigrants perform "jobs Americans won't do." We are told that prices would rise if employers had to hire Americans to perform those jobs. These are perhaps the worst deceptions of all. There's no such thing as a job American workers won't do -- only a wage American employers won't pay. The reason illegal immigrants perform those jobs for such low pay is that they can't apply for better jobs or seek higher wages. Why can't legal immigrants or Americans fill those jobs? What is it about a green card or American citizenship that leads people to refuse that work? Why, the low pay, of course. And once those illegal immigrants are given any sort of legal status, they too will refuse those low-paying jobs. Whether their illegal employees are turned into or replaced by legal workers, employers are going to have to pay a fair wage.
The only reason for McCain's "not-really-amnesty-just-looks-like-it" bill is pure election-year politics. Democrats always pander to illegal immigrants by offering them goodies, as they do criminals, minorities, feminists, unions and any other special-interest group that promises to deliver votes. Too many Republicans are simply ignoring the wishes of the people they supposedly represent, in order to prevent Democrats from winning in November. If Republicans plan to govern by doing exactly the same things as Democrats, however, then what's the difference?
The first step in fixing the problem is securing our southern border, the source of most illegal immigration. We cannot possibly proceed with any sort of "guest program" until illegal immigration is reduced by a sizeable percentage. We are told that the border's too long, and that it would take thousands of men and women to patrol it. Well, we already have thousands of men and women dedicated to guarding our nation: the National Guard. Every border-state Governor should require the Guard to train on and patrol the border. We also have advanced technology like UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), satellite photography and motion detectors. I don't care if we man the border with Boy Scouts carrying Swiss Army knives, as long as illegal immigration is stopped.
Second, we need to enforce the laws against illegal immigration. Congress needs to pass something closer to the bill already passed by the House, at least the part that makes illegal presence in the country a felony. Illegal immigrants should be given six months to leave the country, after which the law will take effect. Those who leave of their own accord should be allowed to apply for re-admittance, and be treated like any other applicant. Every government service and private employer should automatically check Social Security numbers as a matter of course. Why else do we provide our Social Security numbers on most job and license applications? As a concession to the "bleeding hearts," those who leave voluntarily could be given some sort of relocation assistance. Those who refuse to leave would be tracked down and deported, forever barred from re-entry.
Third, we need to reform our current immigration process. Legal immigration takes far too long and is mired in bureaucracy. It takes years for a person with no criminal history to enter this country legally, and they waste far too much of their time (and our tax dollars) interviewing with bureaucrats and filling out even more forms once they get here. If we want to know why people find it easier to simply break the law, our tortuous entry process is the place to start.
Only after the border is secured and illegality made, well, illegal could we create a "guest worker" program. Of course, the idea that all these "guest workers" will leave of their own accord, if conditions don't change, is ludicrous. If laws against illegal entry into this country aren't enforced, how many guest workers will leave, and how many will simply go underground, awaiting the next wishy-washy amnesty-that-isn't-really-amnesty?
The only positive side of the McCain-Kennedy bill is that by putting his name on it, McCain gave his bid for the 2008 Presidential race a Viking funeral. If this bill somehow gets passed and signed, however, we might as well all write in Vicente Fox.
