I just don’t know what to make of this.
The Republicans have released their “immigration principles” and, at first read, they seem potentially fairly innocuous:
- “Border security and interior enforcement must come first.”
- Finally implement the entry-exit visa-tracking system that “has been mandated by eight separate statutes over the last 17 years.”
- “Fully implement a workable electronic employment verification system.”
- Visa and green card allocations to high-skilled employees, and a “temporary worker program” that does “not displace or disadvantage American workers.”
- Citizenship for those brought over as children.
- An amnesty program for adult illegals only after “specific enforcement triggers have been implemented.”
But according to Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller (link via instapundit.com), Republican leadership is pretty weasely when it comes to tangible plans. He cites Paul Ryan as proposing that
illegal immigrants would at first get “probationary status” along with a “work permit.” They could come ‘out of the shadows’ and live and work here. Then if measures are taken so the “border is secured” they’d get a “regular work permit.”
This comes from Greg Sargent at the Washington Post. Sargent is pro-amnesty and thinks this is a bad idea because full legalization isn’t granted soon enough. Kaus recognizes that “probationary status” would be “probationary” in name only, because no politician would dare deport someone who’s been granted this “probationary” status — and the notion of giving someone a work permit and right to stay in the country and yet claiming that they haven’t been given “legal status” — who do they think they’re kidding? This game of euphemism is worse than the prior version of proposing to give people amnesty and denying that’s what it is, using the “path to citizenship” instead. (Hint: requiring the payment of fines doesn’t make something “not amnesty” if what you’re fundamentally doing is giving them the right to stay in the country.)
So we’re left speculating. Will a Republican plan include meaningful triggers, such as full implementation of e-verify, or will it include the sort of “triggers” that exist in the Senate bill, in which legalization is contingent on the submission of a plan, not any type of implementation? Or will it be as bad as Ryan’s immediate “probationary” status? How far will a guest worker program go — all the way to Bush’s plan for employers to hire foreign workers as freely as they wish?
Reading this, it feels like I’ve stepped into a Twilight Zone episode. The Republican base wants nothing to do with amnesty, yet the GOP leadership is eager not just for a baby step forward like a children’s amnesty, but for a full-blown give-Obama-a-win let-’em-all-in legalization program, and think that if they use words like “probationary status” they can imagine they’re being strict.
Why are they doing this? Personal conviction? Generous campaign donations? An imagined belief that this is going to ingratiate them with Latinos (who would still prefer the Democrats and their high social welfare spending advocacy anyway)?
Yet there is no group stepping forward, organizing rallies and protests. We’re all just sitting at home, writing blog posts and comments, generally feeling pretty helpless. I really can’t recall a political event where the party rank-and-file felt so betrayed, or worried so much about being betrayed in the future. It just seems so dysfunctional.
And I generally agree with an “enforcement first” approach, not unlike what Mark Krikorian outlined earlier today at NationalReview.com. (That is, “enforcement first” rather than “enforcement only.”) I’ll even say that I think that requirements for large fines are inappropriate — there’d either have to be hardship waivers, or some kind of long-term payment plan, or else this wouldn’t work; though the fees would in any case have to be set at a level to cover the cost of all the associated paperwork, and the full cost of the English and citizenship classes and testing, and so on.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In