IMMIGRATION LAW AND COMMON SENSE

No sooner do are the words “common sense” and “immigration reform” appear in the same sentence than, opinions are given and deeds wrought that are neither common nor make sense.  The reason why the immigration debate is stuck in neutral, with problems and consequences unresolved, is that it has become a watershed.  

For the Democrat left, immigration serves to expand a new constituency that they presume fits into their agenda of expanded government and globalizing U.S. policy.  For the Republican right, immigration stands for a challenge to “American tradition and culture” and a frontier of the war on terror.  

Both extremes display some appeal.   However, for both sides of the political debate, the issue has become an issue to cultivate the expanding immigrant voter population.  Both radical social engineering and fear-driven contraction of immigration policy will lines in the sand will continue to stall meaningful reform.   

The record does not show the partisan results one expects. The most liberal immigration provisions of this generation came under Ronald Reagan, a general amnesty, while there was a Democrat Congress.  The most restrictive reform came under Bill Clinton, the draconian contraction of benefits of 1996, while there was a Republican Congress. Even during the “Bush 43” years with a GOP President and Congress, no significant reform happened despite Bush’s push for a “guest worker” program. Nor has it happened under the Democrat Washington of Obama except in small executive orders here and there. 

Common sense immigration reform will require knocking out the ideological underpinnings that have paralyzed reform. If it is to happen at all, it will require common sense. Congress must actually read the law and use existing structures in order to past muster with a dubious public, especially in the current economic climate, with double digit unemployment in states such as California, Nevada and Florida. Ideological stand-offs skewer the landscape.  Reform can be significant and effective, even if not comprehensive, with patient and focused application and adaptation of existing law, such as permanent codification of Immigration Nationality Act section 245(i), which facilitates family- based unification under existing law; expansion of Public Law 103 to address legalizing the long-term Central American residents with Temporary Protective Status; and doing away with the Diversity Lottery which literally gives away visas for the purpose of expanding immigration in historically under-subscribed countries.

Generous provisions for border security enforcement and collateral commitment to encourage immigrants to adapt to American language and culture would go a long way to convince those otherwise most likely to oppose immigration reform. Syrupy invocation of America’s “immigrant history” does not stand up to the post-9/11 world and our globally-oriented context. Moreover, recent immigrants appear more able and willing to cling to their homeland while living in the U.S.     

Rather than being an ideological volleyball, immigration reform requires precise legislation that best serves our national interest while rooted in the humanitarian tradition of American public policy and citizen activism.   

Now that’s common sense.