« One of Four Young Muslims in U.S. Justify Suicide Bombings, So . . . Let’s Offer Them Amnesty! | Main | A Message from Your Senator: You're a Bunch of Ingrates! »
June 11, 2007
Why the Grassroots Roared Over the Senate Immigration Plan
In a front page story in its Sunday edition, The New York Times, one of the leading cheerleaders for the Senate immigration legislation, acknowledged that the bill ignited a furious rebellion from Americans across the country and even across the political spectrum. The demise of the bill - at least for the time being - in the Times' estimation, was predicated on the opponents' ability to convince a broad swath of the public that it amounted to amnesty, while proponents of the measure did not do a very good job convincing them otherwise.
There is no question that the perception that the bill championed by leading senators and President Bush was an amnesty aroused a visceral response from millions of Americans. But public opposition ran much deeper than many of the bill's supporters care to acknowledge. Americans rejected not only provisions of the legislation, but many of the premises on which President Bush and the Senate authors promoted it.
Premise 1: This nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. This assertion made repeatedly by the president, members of Congress and many in the media, argues that before we can enforce our immigration laws, we need to a cut a deal with the people who break our immigration laws. The people who are living in our country illegally must be afforded a way to legalize their status, and the business interests that have broken other laws by employing illegal aliens must be given a legal means to hire the foreign workers they want. Then, and only then, can we consider enforcing our immigration laws - and few, if any, Americans actually believe they would be enforced even then. (This country does need comprehensive immigration reform, but of our legal immigration policies, not our policies against illegal immigration.)
Premise 2: The status quo is a de facto amnesty. This is a statement that has been made by both Arizona Senator John McCain and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. The status quo is a de facto amnesty only if the government refuses to enforce its own laws. The idea suggests that the only alternative to a de facto amnesty is a de jure one. As bad as a de facto amnesty brought about through government inaction might be, it is still reversible. Once Congress affirmatively grants people the right to remain, it cannot be undone.
Premise 3: This bill is the best we can do and it's better than nothing at all. Not a single proponent of the Senate bill categorically stated that it was a good piece of legislation. Everyone described it as a flawed bill and the only real alternative to the status quo. It was flawed kind of like the levee system protecting New Orleans was flawed. As far as being the only alternative to the status quo, that is only true if you accept Premise 1, that the people who break our laws have to get something out of the bargain.
Premise 4: The American public supports President Bush's notion of "comprehensive" immigration reform. The polling data that allegedly backs up the assertion that the public favors the Bush-Senate approach to dealing with illegal immigration assumes that there are only two diametrically opposite options for dealing with the problem, with nothing in between. The Time article cites its own poll as proof of public support. The critical question in their poll conducted in late May reads as follows: If you had to choose, what do you think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two year: They should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status, OR They should be deported back to their native country? Okay, the American public doesn't have much stomach for mass deportations, but what about other forms of enforcement? Of course, if you don't give people other options, you can make it look as though there is support for amnesty.
Premise 5: As long as there is some penalty attached, it's not amnesty. The American public isn't much interested in semantic discussions about the definition of the word amnesty. For them, the bottom line is that the people who broke our laws in order to live, work and take advantage of our social safety net, get to live, work and take advantage of our social safety net. The fact that illegal aliens would have to pay a few fines and wait a few years for a green card does not change the public's perception that in the end, the illegal aliens win. The problem for proponents of the bill is not that they did a poor job countering claims that it is was an amnesty; their problem is that the pubic isn't stupid.
Posted on at June 11, 2007 05:54 PM