Immigration reform, take 2
Advocates of sweeping measures to reform the nation’s broken-down muddle of an immigration policy are preparing to enter the fray once again: A new bill may be introduced in Congress as early as this week.
This time hopes are high that the political map has changed just enough to make success a real possibility. Beware: Those hopes will be realized only if everyone involved in last year’s debacle has drawn the right lessons from Congress’s failure to enact a meaningful law.
What are the lessons? President Bush, who favored last year’s Senate bill but went limp when it came under attack by anti-reform forces in the House, should note that passivity in the face of his own party’s hard-liners is a prescription for further disappointment. Republican leaders in the House, who killed last year’s legislation, should conclude that they gained nothing by trying to whip up the party base with misleading talk of an “amnesty” for illegal immigrants — and probably alienated droves of coveted Hispanic voters at the elections in November.
As for Democrats, who have squabbled among themselves but now run Congress, they must take note of an opportunity staring them in the face. They have a chance to exercise leadership and score a victory on a major domestic policy problem.
The early signs are generally encouraging. The authors of the most realistic legislation in the last Congress — Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill. — are again preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill. As for Mr. Bush, he has also sounded the right notes by calling in his State of the Union address for a “legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country,” and for resolving the status of more than 11 million illegal immigrants already here, “without animosity and without amnesty.”
Still, the president’s fuzziness is worrying. He did not mention a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country in the State of the Union speech, and two of his Cabinet secretaries sidestepped it during recent testimony on Capitol Hill. It may be that their intent was to avoid, for now, inciting the hornets’ nest of opponents to eventual citizenship. But without addressing the question frontally and without providing avenues by which the nation’s underclass of undocumented workers may one day emerge from the legal shadows, the chances of an effective fix for immigration are nil.
To have a hope of success, both as legislation and as policy, immigration reform must also establish much tougher domestic controls and sanctions for employers; means by which they can verify prospective workers’ status; and counterfeit-proof identity documents for workers. There must be a process by which new immigrants can come here legally in sufficient numbers to satisfy the obvious economic demand for them and according to rules that ensure that they will not become a permanent underclass. Time is short. Chances for a reform package will fade as the 2008 presidential campaign approaches. Let’s hope that all the players take to heart last year’s lessons as this year’s debate is joined.
(This editorial originally appeared in the Washington Post.)
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Rocco wrote on Mar 6, 2007 6:42 AM:
Exasperated wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:33 AM:
steven wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:36 AM:
Barbara wrote on Mar 6, 2007 8:45 AM:
Kevin wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:20 AM:
Ed Weirdness wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:24 AM:
Nick wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:46 AM:
Sandra wrote on Mar 6, 2007 9:47 AM:
But Nancy Needs Her Grapes Picked! wrote on Mar 6, 2007 11:21 AM:
Tancredo Supporter wrote on Mar 6, 2007 11:47 AM:
alandamiann wrote on Mar 6, 2007 12:42 PM:
An invasion wrote on Mar 6, 2007 12:56 PM:
Immigrant wrote on Mar 6, 2007 2:08 PM:
Andrew wrote on Mar 6, 2007 2:15 PM:
Software Eng wrote on Mar 6, 2007 2:18 PM:
David wrote on Mar 6, 2007 3:08 PM:
Carl wrote on Mar 6, 2007 3:30 PM:
To "Immigrant" from Exasperated wrote on Mar 6, 2007 4:08 PM:
illegal immigrant wrote on Mar 6, 2007 6:40 PM:
Rocco wrote on Mar 6, 2007 7:57 PM:
Juan wrote on Mar 6, 2007 8:40 PM:
Vonhelga wrote on Mar 6, 2007 10:21 PM:
Margaux wrote on Mar 6, 2007 10:44 PM:
sweetpitbull wrote on Mar 7, 2007 12:22 AM:
gene22002 wrote on Mar 7, 2007 4:52 AM:
Shawna wrote on Mar 7, 2007 6:42 AM:
Sandra wrote on Mar 7, 2007 7:44 AM:
to Juan wrote on Mar 7, 2007 11:22 AM:
Moderate Dem wrote on Mar 7, 2007 11:45 AM:
Canada wrote on Mar 7, 2007 3:45 PM:
an amnesty by any other name wrote on Mar 7, 2007 5:59 PM:
Cookie wrote on Mar 7, 2007 9:32 PM:
Sandy wrote on Mar 8, 2007 8:46 AM:
cookie wrote on Mar 8, 2007 5:46 PM:
katherine wrote on Mar 8, 2007 8:31 PM:
spectre wrote on Mar 8, 2007 9:09 PM:
Sandra wrote on Mar 9, 2007 7:04 AM:
Rocco wrote on Mar 10, 2007 9:26 AM:
Sandy wrote on Mar 11, 2007 10:15 AM:
Surprised wrote on Mar 12, 2007 8:56 AM:
Enough! Already! wrote on Mar 12, 2007 8:58 AM:
J.K wrote on Mar 13, 2007 9:15 AM:
Tonk! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:09 PM:
MEXIFORNIA - NOT !!!! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:41 PM:
J wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:34 AM:
Simple... wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:30 AM:
To Mexifornia--not! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:37 PM:
Sandra wrote on Mar 15, 2007 9:12 PM: