As it currently stands, the immigration debate is nothing short
of a disaster for conservatives. The “bipartisan” legislation
amounts to little more than an amnesty, which will send the message
that breaking our immigration laws doesn’t matter. It has pitted
leaders of what is supposed to be the conservative party in the
U.S., the Republican Party, against the rank and file.
One of those leaders is President George W. Bush. I hate to cut
the president any slack on this, but it should be noted that he has
previously expressed a desire to expand the Republican coalition to
include more Hispanics. Indeed, the GOP will have to appeal to more
Hispanic voters in future to win national elections. Nevertheless,
this immigration bill is not the way to go about expanding the GOP
coalition. Fortunately, it now appears that the bill will crash and
burn in the Senate.
As bad as things seem, there is an opportunity for
conservatives. One of the current candidates for the Republican
presidential nomination could both appeal to the conservative base
on immigration without alienating future Hispanic voters. Here is
the outline of the speech that such a candidate should give:
“Good evening. Immigration is one of the most contentious
domestic issues of our time. It sets many good, decent Americans
against each other. On the one hand, our nation has thrived on
immigration. It has been a strength to have so many decent people
come here, looking to better their lives, attracted to the
opportunities our great nation has to offer. But immigration also
has its ugly side, that of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration
undermines the notion of rule of law, a crucial component of any
democratic society. It taxes our welfare and criminal justice
systems.
“Thus far, our government has failed to deal with the problem of
illegal immigration. In 1986, the federal government dealt with the
3 million illegal immigrants by, in effect, ‘giving them a pass.’
It gave them amnesty, and the result was predictable: Today, we
have over 12 million illegal immigrants. As any person with common
sense will tell you, give the lawbreakers a pass, and you will only
encourage more lawbreaking. But common sense is always in short
supply in Washington, and today the elites in Washington want to
repeat the past.
“Worse, they are attacking their opponents by calling them
nativists and suggesting that they do not have the best interest of
the nation at heart. Such attacks are scurrilous. Those who want to
enforce our immigration laws want just that: enforcement of the
law.
“I propose a different path from the one that Washington elites
want us to take. Thus, I propose an immigration plan based on three
simple principles: Security and enforcement first; guest worker
programs second; amnesty never.
“Security means securing our borders. This means building fences
where appropriate, installing other security measures like sensors,
and beefing up the border patrol. It also means using computer
technology similar to that employed by the New York Police
Department in the 1990s. Called ‘CompStat,’ it enable the police to
keep track of where crimes were most frequently occurring and to
concentrate their efforts on those areas. Crime in the Big Apple
plummeted as a result. We shall use similar technology to track
where illegal border crossings most frequently occur, allowing
border agents to concentrate their efforts and thus stem the flow
of illegal immigration.
“Enforcement means that we will enforce the laws already on the
books against illegal immigration. Proponents of amnesty say that
we are not going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants already in
the country all at once. That is a red herring. What we can do is
reduce the amount of illegal immigration through attrition, by more
vigorously enforcing our laws so that, over time, we reduce the
number of illegal immigrants in this country. When we more
vigorously enforce our immigration laws, we will send the message
the breaking our immigration laws is not tolerated, and that will
reduce the amount of illegal immigration coming across our
border.
“Once we get serious about security and enforcement, then we can
begin to institute a guest-worker program. But only after we get
serious about security and enforcement. Thus, in my immigration
plan we will only institute a guest-worker program no sooner than
two-years after the security and enforcement initiative has
begun.
“Immigrants who are here illegally at the present time will have
a choice. They can return to their nation of origin within the
first six months of my program becoming law. If they return within
that time, they can then apply for guest-worker status. If they do
not return and they are later caught, they will be deported and
permanently barred from ever applying for guest-worker status.
“The guest-worker program will allow immigrants who can show
that they have prospective employment to enter the country. They
may stay for two years before they must either go back to their
country of origin or show that they still have employment, at which
time they can renew their guest-worker status for another two
years.
“To implement the guest-worker program, we will employ the
services of the private sector. We will do this, because the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is a disorganized mess.
It is very poor at tracking immigrants who come to this country.
Thus, the federal government will pay private sector companies that
will help immigrants seeking work to find employment while also
keeping track of the immigrants while they are here. The private
sector will undoubtedly find innovative ways to ensure that guest
workers do not stay here beyond the two-year limit.
“While the guest-worker program is secondary to security and
enforcement, it is a vital part of immigration reform. It sends the
message that people from foreign nations looking for work in the
U.S. can do so legally. It says that the U.S. is as it has always
been: a land of opportunity for those immigrants who are willing to
work hard and play by the rules. Immigrants who have come to the
U.S. for such opportunity have been and will continue to be a
source of strength for this nation.
“Finally, let me assure the American people that my immigration
reform will contain no amnesty. Those who have come here illegally
will not find this reform turning a blind eye to their decision to
break the law. As noted above, they must either return to their
country of origin or face the consequences. That is what is meant
by the principle of ‘amnesty never.’
“It is time for this nation to have immigration laws worthy of
the name. It is time to get serious about border security and
enforcing the laws against illegal immigration. And it is time to
construct a program for those immigrants genuinely seeking
opportunity in this great nation. Let us work toward those goals.
Thank you, God bless, and good night.”
The candidate for president who steps forward and gives a
similar speech will turn the immigration issue to his advantage.
Which one will take the initiative?
David Hogberg is a Washington writer and host of the
website Health Hog.
