- Edwards Releases Senate Fundraising Totals
- Academics Say Higher Education Prepared Them for Higher Office
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: The Mountain Region
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: New England
- Top Races in 2016: The Midwest
Today’s immigration debate reminds me of old Dr. Arbuthnot’s observation that “all political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.” In the quest to play partisan games with immigration, both parties may get caught up in an unmanageable policy crisis of their own making.
Fixing our “broken immigration system through comprehensive reform” has become a predictable series of discredited concepts, strategic falsehoods and empty promises designed to appeal to narrow interests, agreeable ethnic blocs or illegal immigrants themselves. Notice that the terminology is always changing: yesterday’s “illegal aliens” were “undocumented immigrants” and now are called “dreamers.” (I thought we were all dreamers.) We hear claims of a labor shortage with millions unemployed. The president is simultaneously the “deporter-in-chief” (claiming to be tough on illegal immigration) while abandoning routine overstay enforcement.
Let’s be honest. A true immigration overhaul would make our immigration flow workable, manageable, affordable, moral and responsive to the national interest. It would promote respect for the law and deter illegal immigration. True reform would prevent a recurrence of today’s problems tomorrow, but the parties need the statesmanship — the kind provided by the late Democratic Rep. Barbara Jordan of Texas and her immigration commission — to ensure the tough decisions needed to get it done.
Now we read of a plan to make things worse: A proposal to create a statute of limitations on illegal immigration — a rolling amnesty to keep up with the projected flow of illegal entrants and visa overstays.
The proposal has the advantage of simplicity. The executive branch has effectively lost the management of immigration. And this is a simple, if dismal, effort to normalize mass illegality. Clearly it is an accommodation for permanent ongoing illegal immigration — and a dandy strategy to further incentivize this costly behavior while letting lawbreakers and their exploiters off the hook. Why should we expect intending immigrants to conform to our laws?
The concept is neither new nor imaginative. Existing immigration law — which is civil, not criminal in nature — has a “registry date” that does something similar. The date, set now at 1972, allows an alien who can show continuous residence since then with good moral character and respect for the law to get Green Card status.
The registry date began as a practical consideration relating to valid evidence of identity and available documents dating from the early 20th century. But it is not intended as a rolling amnesty and has rarely been updated.
A few major immigration plans in the past 20 years have proposed moving that date up, but efforts to create a rolling registry date have been rebuffed as nothing more than rolling amnesty.
Breaking our immigration laws is serious business and should be treated as such. Unlike a statute of limitations in a criminal context, where evidentiary issues surrounding proof at a moment in time are in play, illegal immigration involves breaking more than one law. The initial act of illegal entry or violating the terms of a temporary visa is only the first offense.