Requiem for Reform
The immigration bill is dead.
What next?
by Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
07/05/2007
THE IMMIGRATION BILL is dead, but the immigration issue is alive. And since the thundering herd that opposed the bill offers only stiffer border enforcement as an alternative, it's left to advocates to come up with a better (and less narrow) measure. I don't mean better in some theoretical or ideological sense, but better in terms of winning public support, passing the next Congress, and becoming the law of the land in 2009 or 2010.
The Republican architects of this year's bill--chiefly Senators Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and John Kyl of Arizona--were actually working on improving their own legislation in substantial ways before time ran out in the Senate in late June. Their amendment was never introduced and never came to a vote.
But what Graham and Kyl advocated, belatedly, should not be forgotten when a new bill is drafted. Two of the amendment's three major parts dealt with the single most controversial part of the bill, those relentlessly denounced Z visas that would allow illegal immigrants already in the country to stay indefinitely. Critics insisted that handing out Z visas to illegals constituted amnesty, and, in truth, they amounted to a sort of amnesty.
Indeed, the bill would have bestowed probationary Z visas on all unlawful immigrants 24 hours after the law went into effect, even if preliminary criminal database searches and other checks had not been completed--and few would have. Instead, the Graham-Kyl amendment said all checks to weed out criminals and others ineligible for permanent status would have to be finished before a probationary Z visa--good for 18 months or so--could be granted.
The second change would have required the head of household in an illegal immigrant family to return to his or her home country, if only briefly, to qualify for a permanent Z visa. In the bill, a so-called touchback was required only if the immigrant were, after eight years with a Z visa, seeking to become an American citizen.
The earlier touchback, plus the more sensible standard for a probationary visa, might ease the anxiety of opponents who feel illegal immigrants shouldn't be given any favorable treatment at all. That was its aim anyway. Whether Democratic sponsors of this year's bipartisan bill would have gone along--that we'll never know.
The third Graham-Kyl change involved a less controversial yet enormously important aspect of illegal immigration: the 3 million to 4 million immigrants who overstay their visas. They would face a crackdown, with their names added to the nation's criminal database if they didn't report within 48 hours and with their chances of avoiding quick deportation sharply reduced.
Graham told me he concluded these changes were necessary after listening to hours of complaints about the original bill from senators, constituents, and interest groups. Without the changes, he said, he wouldn't have voted for the bill. Without Graham's support, it had little chance of passage. As it turned out, the bill (which I thought well worth enacting) was never directly voted on.
The Graham-Kyl amendment didn't deal with two other areas of heartburn for foes of this year's now defunct bill: the seriousness of border enforcement and the effectiveness of assimilation of millions of immigrants. And these are concerns the Bush administration--and the next administration, Republican or Democratic--must significantly ease if comprehensive immigration reform is to pass, ever.
Bush officials, however, took the exactly wrong tack on border protection after the bill failed on June 28. The president had promised an extra $4.4 billion for beefing up the border once the bill passed. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Fox News Sunday that the money "was going to be secured by the payments made by illegals, so it would not bust the budget." With no bill, he said, there's no money.
"I think now those who have a better way ought to come forward with that better way," Chertoff said. He was referring sarcastically to foes of the bill. The problem is they don't have responsibility for the border, the administration does. And it's up to the administration to demonstrate its seriousness about border enforcement. Coming up with the $4.4 billion would help.
One other step: waiting a year or so after the border is strengthened to make certain that the strengthening has actually reduced illegal immigration to a trickle.
As for assimilation, it has a history of having worked famously to turn immigrants into Americans, quickly in the case of some immigrant groups, more slowly with others. Still, many critics of immigration reform believe assimilation simply doesn't work any more, especially with Spanish-speaking immigrants.
The answer is to make sure it does work in a way that satisfies most Americans. A good first step would be the requirement that illegal immigrants who wish to stay here swear an oath of allegiance to the United States and to maintaining its borders.
Also, the bar should be set fairly high for learning about America. Learning English is certain to be mandated in the next immigration reform bill. But immigrants who seek to become citizens should also be required to study the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the national anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the history behind American holidays from Martin Luther King Day to Thanksgiving.
Here's the point: as crushing as the defeat of this year's bill was, a lot can be learned from the experience. And if it's not learned, the next immigration reform bill will face the same cruel fate.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
weeklystandard.com |
