Senate Immigration Reform Bill's Vices and Virtues

One of the biggest stories out of Washington this last week was the emerging Senate compromise on immigration reform. The bill's turning out to be a controversial measure, with potentially affected interest groups from both sides of the spectrum ratcheting up their opposition. The proposed legislation -- bandied about as potentially the most important immigration overhaul since the 1986 Immigration Reform Act -- is actually a real complicated hodgepodge of initiatives. These range from greater attempts to control the entry of illegal migrants to the country, a guest worker program, restrictions on family reunification, as well as some type of worker skills quota system (that so far has not been completely worked out).

Now, I always enjoy reading the Wall Street Journal's editorials on immigration, but unlike on their Iraq commentaries, I usually have a major disagreement with the editorial staff's views on illegal alien issues. Here's the introduction to the Journal's Saturday editorial on the vices and virtues of the Senate immigration bill:

The White House and key Senators struck an immigration deal this week that looks like the best chance in years to balance border security with human and economic realities. There's room for improvement and a long way to go before any reform becomes law, but Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts deserve high marks for making progress.

On the plus side, the bill addresses the 12 million undocumented aliens living in the U.S. by providing a way for most to obtain legal status with minimal disruption to their lives or employers. In return for reporting to authorities, paying a $5,000 fine, passing a criminal-background check and making a "touch back" visit to their home country, illegal aliens would be eligible for a "Z" visa allowing them to keep working here.

Restrictionists are calling this "amnesty," but they were going to slap that label on anything this side of mass deportation. The public is understandably upset about the presence of so many illegal aliens in the U.S. But there is no evidence that voters want millions of foreign families--many of whom have been here for decades and have American children--uprooted and forcibly removed from the country. The restrictionist wing of the GOP simply wants no new immigration, and "amnesty" is merely a political slogan to kill any reform.

Another major part of the legislation is more problematic: This would shift immigration away from family ties and toward a merit-based model that favors better-educated immigrants with higher skills. The stated justification for this change is that the U.S. currently admits too few skilled workers due to unchecked "chain migration," which facilitates the entry of unschooled and unskilled kin. That's hard to credit, however, considering data that show the typical legal immigrant already has a higher skill level than the typical American.

We're all for admitting the world's best and brightest, but the economic benefits of immigration also derive from the way immigrant skills complement the U.S. work force. Foreign workers make the U.S. more productive because they complement us at both the high and low ends of the skills spectrum. Remove the low-end leg of the stool, and you make the economy less productive and natives worse off. Why? Because we'll be using our human capital less efficiently. Natives may end up doing jobs they're overqualified to do, or those jobs will disappear altogether and diminish our quality of life.

So far so good. The editorial also cites statistics on the numbers of immigrants working in various lower-skilled occupations (like agriculture, construction, culinary arts, and janitorial work). But I always get a kick out of the Journal's immigration pieces when they get to the topic of employer sanctions for hiring unodocument, illegal aliens. Here's their current line:

[The] GOP lawmakers want to harass businesses by increasing the penalties for unlawful hiring and require employers to electronically verify the immigration status of new employees. These conditions come from the same Republicans who say we can't repeat the mistakes of the 1986 immigration overhaul, which also featured employer sanctions.

Harass businesses? When is it harassment to mandate -- through democratically-approved legislation -- that firms join-in on the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws? I'd have to refer to earlier published articles -- or some of my own posts -- on this question, but one of the biggest problems with the employers' sanctions regime coming out of 1986 is that is was barely enforced.

The Wall Street Journal's my favorite newspaper, and I'm a big pro-capitalist, but there are some problems in corporate America's handling of immigration control issues (a transnational outlook, in many ways oppposed to U.S. domestic interests, being one of these).

In any event, those who've regularly visited this page -- especially last summer, following all the La Raza marches in Los Angeles, and so forth -- may recall that I put up a fair number of posts on the immigration reform controversy.

Check out these earlier posts for a look back at some previous analysis: "Basic Division: The GOP and Immigration Reform" (one of my most comprehensive posts on immigration, with scholarly references); "Immigration Nation: The Key Components of Immigration Reform" (immigration expert Tamar Jacoby's analysis of the immigration reform debate); "Lou Dobbs on How Radical Leftists Have Taken Over the Immigration Movement" (from the ubiquitous, populist CNN broadcast anchor); "Ordering Cheesesteak? Please Speak English" (on last year's big controversy out of Philadelphia on English only in the U.S.); "What Grandma Would Say About Immigration Reform" (Peggy Noonan's coolly argued thesis on slowing the pace of in-migration to the U.S.).

Basic Division: The GOP and Immigration Reform

In one of yesterday's posts I covered how the immigration issue is dividing GOP congressional candidates heading into the fall midterms. It turns out that yesterday's Wall Street Journal addressed that issue as well, in the paper's lead editorial, "Conservatives and Immigration." WSJ indicates that there's no more divisive issue among conservatives today than immigration, and it's a topic that generates the paper's most critical letters to the editor. The essay offers a reminder of the paper's longstanding tradition of supporting open immigration, a policy position, the editors note, that is in line with those of both President Reagan and President Bush. Here's more:

Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right. Far from selling their labor "cheap," they are traveling to the U.S. to sell it more dearly and improve their lives. Like millions of Americans before them, they and certainly their children climb the economic ladder as their skills and education increase.

We realize that critics are not inventing the manifold problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert, and a sense that the government has lost control of the border. But all of these result, ultimately, from too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas.

Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally. Give them more legal ways to enter the country, and we are likely to reduce illegal immigration far more effectively than any physical barrier along the Rio Grande ever could. This is not about rewarding bad behavior. It's about bringing immigration policy in line with economic and human reality. And the reality is that the U.S. has a growing demand for workers, while Mexico has both a large supply of such workers and too few jobs at home.

Some conservatives concede this point in theory but then insist that liberal immigration is no longer possible in a modern welfare state, which breeds dependency in a way that the America of a century ago did not. But the immigrants who arrive here come to work, not sit on the dole. And thanks to welfare reform, the welfare rolls have declined despite a surge in illegal immigration in the past decade.

The real claims that illegals make on public services are education, which can't be withheld because of a 1982 Supreme Court ruling (Plyer v. Doe), and health care, especially emergency rooms. Since denying urgent medical treatment is immoral, the answer again is to legalize cross-border labor flows and remove government obstacles to affordable health insurance. As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.

By far the largest concern we hear on the right concerns culture, especially the worry that the current Hispanic influx is so large it can resist the American genius for assimilation. Hispanics now comprise nearly a third of the population in California and Texas, the country's two biggest states, and cultural assimilation does matter.

This is where the political left does the cause of immigration no good in pursuing a separatist agenda. When such groups as La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund push for multiculturalism, bilingual education, foreign language ballots, racial quotas and the like, they undermine support for immigration among even the most open-minded Americans. Most Americans don't want to replicate the Bosnia model; nor are they pining for a U.S. version of the Quebec sovereignty movement. President Bush has been right to assert that immigrants must adopt U.S. norms, and we only wish more figures on the political left would say the same.

The editorial goes on to say that robust assimilation among newcomers is trumping identity politics, and that polls show bipartisan support for comprehenisive immigration reform focusing on both border security and guest workers.

This is a excellent editorial: It hits most of the main points of contention in the debate, and it accurately denounces the radicalism found in the multicultural left's immigration agenda. I don't think, however, the editors have given enough consideration to the lawbreaking element of the debate. The essay rightly notes that we need to increase the legal quotas for those seeking to come here, but there's not enough condemnation of the flagrant legal violations of the law as it stands. WSJ can critique the federal government for not securing the borders all it wants. But the fact remains that there's an entitlement mentality that's built up among migrants, immigration activists, and alien rights groups clammoring for the reconquista, and it's likely no immigration policy will make them happy until our sovereign borders become meaningless. Continued record high rates of illegal immigration will likely make such anti-U.S. demands even more pronounced, despite the WSJ's claim of easy generational assimilation. Other sources on assimilation are far more critical on this point, for example, Samuel Huntington, and Business Week's article, "Hispanic Nation," both citing the dramatic difference between this generation of Mexican migrants and 19th century European immigrants (especially in terms of the former's geographic contiguity and the development of Mexican ethnic enclaves resistant to English language acculturation).

Moreover, the question of whether illegals benefit the economic system -- contributing more than they take out -- remains unsettled (see James Goldsborough in Foreign Affairs, for example, or Jorge Borjas, Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy). In the end, though, pragmatism indicates that a variable-pronged approach to immigration reform will be necessary, with both stepped-up border enforcement and an increase in legal immigration quotas (but minus the guest worker program, which will likely encourage more aliens, outside of that process, to come to the U.S. illegally). Hopefully, the passage of such a policy would contribute to what Americans really want, an immigration process that is firm, fair, and equitable, and one that contributes to continued American vitality and dynamism.

The Immigration Stalemate in Congress

Today's Wall Street Journal's got timely article on the current logjam on immigration reform in Congress. Ironically, congressional attention itself has had the effect of increasing ideological polarization over the issue:

By raising illegal immigration as a political and national-security issue -- and then doing nothing about it -- Congress has given new life to an anti-immigrant movement that had long been relegated to the political fringes, say some policy watchers and think tanks.

"The conduct of members of Congress has given it license and credibility," Rev. Rivera says. With a national election around the corner, and control of Congress at stake, "nobody from Washington wants to respond to these words being hammered against us."

Congress's failure to stem illegal immigration "may well flare up in unpleasant ways," agrees Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which favors immigration restrictions and enforcement. But he adds that pro-immigration groups have responded with questionable behavior of their own, including the "We were here first" signs some Hispanics toted at rallies this spring, and charges of racism leveled at those who call for tougher border enforcement.

The problem was created, he and others say, when the House and Senate passed starkly different immigration bills. The Republican-proposed House bill calls for a fence along the border and makes illegal immigration a felony; it currently is a misdemeanor. The Senate bill, which attracted more support from Democrats than Republicans, would let most illegal immigrants stay in the U.S. after paying fines and back taxes, and largely reflects President Bush's calls for a law that supplies the economy with the workers it needs.

Congressional negotiators never met to iron out their differences, and final passage now seems unlikely before the November elections. Republicans are split between the party's pro-immigrant business wing and its anti-immigrant cultural conservatives. Democrats see political benefit in letting the issue simmer while they tar Republicans as anti-Hispanic for passing the House bill.

The high-profile debate has rallied immigration supporters, with many native-born Americans joining hundreds of thousands of immigrants at rallies calling to overhaul immigrant laws. But those rallies and the debate over the House and Senate bills also have focused public attention on the fast-growing illegal population and fanned fears of terrorists easily crossing U.S. borders.
The deadlock in Congress corresponds with several huge demographic trends. The U.S. is adding one million immigrants a year, a historical high. Half are illegal entrants, who tend to be poor, uneducated and Hispanic.

In the past, most immigrants settled in a half-dozen "gateway" states. But the growth in low-skilled jobs in the South and Midwest is luring them to states that aren't used to large numbers of foreigners.

That has captured the attention of state and local governments, which complain that they are carrying the health-care, education and other social costs of illegal immigration. Local leaders are "frustrated by the lack of federal action, so they're looking for things they can do," says Ann Morse, who tracks immigration for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

I have paid a lot of attention to the immigration issue. See, for example, my deep analysis of the GOP split over illegal immigration, as well as my post on California's success in attracting a rich diversity of legal immigrants from all over the world.

Will Immigration Hurt the GOP's Chances this Fall?

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times had an interesting piece on how the immigration reform issue is dividing Republican congressional candidates this year. Here's an excerpt:

Hoping to use the volatile issue of illegal immigration to avert a November election disaster, Republican candidates across the country increasingly are attacking their Democratic opponents on the subject.But mindful of a possible voter backlash, they are attempting to do so without seeming intolerant or divisive....

Immigration is a tricky issue for Republicans, and there are deep divisions in the party over what policy and strategy to pursue. Many blame former California Gov. Pete Wilson's backing in 1994 of anti-illegal-immigrant Proposition 187 for alienating Latinos nationwide.

In California, it sparked a wave of Latino political activism that hurt the GOP's political standing — a blow from which the party has yet to fully recover.

Still, Republican strategists have "made a decision that, whatever the risk, this is simply a very bad year and the issue is too hot not to put it in the quiver," said Floyd Ciruli, a Denver-based independent pollster.

The stepped-up Republican assault comes as House GOP leaders began a nationwide series of hearings last week bashing the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill, which they have branded the "Kennedy-Reid" bill — focusing on two prominent Democratic supporters while ignoring the lead Republican sponsor, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The linguistic dodge reflects the wide split in the GOP over two competing approaches to immigration. President Bush and pro-business Republicans favor a guest worker program and path to citizenship contained in a bill approved by the Senate.

The president reiterated his support for a guest worker program Friday during a press conference in Chicago. " To enforce this border, we've got to have a rational way that recognizes there are people sneaking across to do work Americans aren't doing," he said.

But hard-liners in the party back the tough measures contained in the House's enforcement-only legislation and fiercely oppose the president's guest worker approach.

The official GOP position is that the party will not use immigration as a political bludgeon against Democrats. Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, has made courting Latinos a priority through his years in the White House and has avoided the harsh rhetoric used to rally partisans on other issues."

It's extremely important that our party be a party of principle, which is to say we're a pro-law enforcement and pro-immigrant party," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, who worked alongside Rove in Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Still, many Republicans hope a tough-on-illegal-immigration platform can help overcome the political drag of an unpopular president and growing public sentiment against the war in Iraq in November's midterm election.

"That is voiced around here often," Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a House leader in the immigration debate, said in a telephone interview from the Capitol. " The plates have shifted politically, and if you want to get elected, you better not be perceived as being soft on illegal immigration."

Local conditions will largely determine how immigration affects individual races. And the article notes that the focus on immigration will vary depending on candidates' strategies, although a tough-on-lawbreaking platform among some GOP contenders could be particularly potent. I've written a lot about both congressional elections and illegal immigration, for example, on the structural advantages the GOP holds heading into November and on the success of the Minuteman movement in shutting-down a day-labor hiring center in Laguna Beach, California.

President Bush's National Address on Immigration Reform

President Bush, as most everyone knows, gave his national address on immigration reform last night. I'll be blogging more about the address later, as part of my ongoing series on illegal immigration. For now, check out the Los Angeles Times's front page story on the speech. Here's an excerpt:

In a rare prime-time address from the Oval Office, Bush sought to build momentum behind a broad overhaul of immigration laws now before Congress. His proposals to tighten border security were aimed at winning support from conservative lawmakers who say the nation's top concern must be to stop illegal border crossings. But Bush said that legislation must also "meet the needs of our economy" for immigrant labor by including a temporary worker program, and that it must include a path to citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. He said this path should be open to illegal immigrants who had "deep roots" in the U.S. and who were willing to learn English, pay back taxes and pay a penalty for having entered the country illegally. He called these conditions "a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation…. What I have just described is not amnesty. It is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen." The 17-minute address, coming after weeks of nationwide protests by immigrants and their advocates, was the president's clearest statement of his position on immigration. Bush also made a passionate plea for greater recognition of the contributions that immigrants make to American society, even as he acknowledged the burdens that illegal immigration imposes on local communities." Immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities," he said. " These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith and lead responsible lives."

A second Los Angeles Times article on the front page analyzed the impact of the reform proposal on the national guard. Here's part of the introduction:

President Bush on Monday infused his proposal for using the National Guard to combat illegal immigration with all the drama of an Oval Office address, but the military and civilian officials who will carry out the plan have deep misgivings about a real show of military force on the border. As a result, the president's big initiative is heavy on symbolism but will be small in scale — and largely invisible on the ground. Though about 6,000 guardsmen at a time will be assigned to the southern U.S. border in two-week stints, they will be limited to supporting roles behind the scenes.

Finally, correspondent Peter Wallsten's analysis of the effect the speech might have on the GOP's immigration rift is here. Bush is obviously worried about the conservative and restrictionist base of the party:

The main goal of Bush's address was to win back these voters by emphasizing his proposals to beef up border security. Although he echoed his long-held support for a "comprehensive" revamping of immigration laws, Bush admitted that the government "has not been in complete control of its borders." He devoted the bulk of his speech — his first on a domestic policy issue delivered from the Oval Office — to discuss using National Guard troops to help secure the border, erecting "high-tech fences" in certain areas and enacting other tough-sounding solutions. The address was only one example Monday of the White House's recognition that it must court conservatives with just six months to go before voters decide who will control Congress. Just hours before Bush spoke, Karl Rove, his senior political advisor, made a rare public appearance to assure listeners at a conservative think tank that the administration was remaining true to their ideology — despite sharp criticism from the right that Bush has allowed government spending to spiral out of control." They're missing the facts," Rove said of conservative critics during his appearance at the American Enterprise Institute. He argued that by issuing about 39 veto threats, Bush had been able to cut the growth of spending. But that may be a tough case to make, with the federal budget having gone from a surplus when Bush took office to a deficit of $319 billion in the 2005 fiscal year.And the immigration debate — much like the surprise challenge to the president earlier this year over the deal to let a Dubai firm manage operations at some U.S. ports — has some conservatives questioning whether Bush has lost touch with the base that once swooned over him. One of Bush's most impressive political feats in his 2004 reelection campaign was that he managed to maintain his strong support among conservatives and receive about 44% of the Latino vote — a far better showing than usual for a Republican candidate. The dispute over rewriting immigration laws, however, clearly has disrupted that balancing act.

For some analysis of the speech, check out this National Review immigration reform symposium, which includes some remarks from Victor Davis Hanson.

Fear and Rhetoric Killed Immigration Reform

Tamar Jacoby argues in the New York Daily News that a "do nothing" Congress killed comprehensive immigration reform. But it wasn't just that. Interested parties on all sides had something they didn't like in the legislation, and the naysayers carried the day with their rhetoric of opposition, scaring fence-sitting members of Congress and scuttling an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws:

I don't believe these naysayers speak for the American people. Poll after poll shows the public wants the immigration problem solved, pragmatically. Surveys also show that most voters - between 60% and 85% in every group - favor a solution that combines tougher enforcement with a path to eventual citizenship.

Still, in the end, the angry partisans carried the day. The rage of the extreme right trumped the hard work of the bipartisan "grand bargainers." And its bumper-sticker war cry of "Amnesty!" trumped the thoughtful compromise the reformers put together.

Who will suffer? All Americans. American business, American workers, our national security, the rule of law and eventually - if we don't correct this mistake - our tradition as a nation of immigrants.

Whatever the Lou Dobbses and Michael Savages of the world may say, the problem going forward will not be lack of enforcement. In fact, federal enforcement already is getting tougher, both on the border and in the workplace. Not only that, but state and local governments also are cracking down now, moving in on employers who hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent to them.

The catch: This enforcement alone will not solve the problem. To the degree it works, it will choke off a needed supply of foreign labor, slowing - perhaps significantly slowing - American economic growth.

But mostly, it won't work. Even the most robust enforcement will not end illegal immigration until and unless we bring our quotas more into line with the reality of our labor needs. As long as there are jobs to be filled here - jobs American workers aren't doing - foreign workers will find a way to get into the country.

Comprehensive reform would solve this problem by creating a legal program to bring in needed workers. And these more realistic quotas would by definition be easier to enforce. But without reform, the status quo will only get worse: more broken borders, more smuggler violence, more mockery of the rule of law in our neighborhoods and work sites.

The all but certain outcome will be the worst of both worlds: slower economic growth and continued illegality. And over time, that illegality will only breed more frustration and anger - frustration that could, eventually, turn into polarization with an ugly ethnic edge.

Can we as a nation solve this problem? Of course we can. We were close last week - very close. There was a plausible compromise on the table. A bipartisan group of leaders did everything they could to get it passed. A majority of senators, Democrats and Republicans were prepared to back it. And the President would have signed it into law.

Instead, rage and rhetoric triumphed. But it doesn't have to, and maybe next time it won't.

Jacoby's herself is very pragmatic on the issue, although I don't always agree with her. Compromise on immigration means that opponents will have to put aside their deepest reservations about reform and hope for the best. In my case, as regular readers will recall, being from a border state with tremendous diversity raises worries about how well new immigrants are assimilating. I don't dismiss claims that immigrants come to work for the most part, and immigrant workers may indeed be vital to certain sectors of the economy. On the other hand, migrant workers keep wages low for the less educated, hurting those with a high school education or less.

The cultural aspect to the debate resonates, however, and Jacoby is one analyst who often skips it in her analysis. In an earier post, citing Jacoby's article on immigration reform in the November/December in Foreign Affairs, I argue that she stresses the economics of immigration over cultural aspects. She basically advocates open borders, and underestimates the ability of the nation to absorb millions of legal and illegal newcomers in the contemporary age of transnationalism.

I've supported the reform legislation as a way to move forward on the issue. I hate the lawbreaking of illegal immigration, which will continue in the absence of the bill. I also hate the relegating of people to the shadows. Most of all, though, while I embrace the nation's immigrant heritage, I also recognize that strong cultural traditions are what hold a nation and people together. Out-of-control immigration -- in an age of rumbling transnationalism in the world economy and global culture -- is proving to be a divisive issue in the United States, as the failure of reform indicates.

As Peggy Noonan argues, in contrast to Jacoby's claim, Americans would like a time out. The country needs a chance to take a deep breather from unrelenting immigration, allowing newcomers to fully assimilate to the United States -- to "let go" of their original national identities by making an unambiguous "decision" that America is their true home. Previous historical generations of immigrants "cast their lot" with this country, turned their back on their original home identies, and made a "psychic investment" in membership in the American patriot tradition.

A problem with newer immigrants now is that for some it's no longer necessary to make The Decision. They don't always have to cast their lot. There are so many ways not to let go of the old country now, from choosing to believe that America is only about money, to technology that encourages you to stay in constant touch with the land you left, to TV stations that broadcast in the old language. If you're an immigrant now, you don't have to let go. Which means you don't have to fully join, to enmesh. Your psychic investment in America doesn't have to be full. It can be provisional, temporary. Or underdeveloped, or not developed at all.

Perhaps this is a larger element in the failure of immigration reform than Jacoby and others fail to acknowledge. No matter. The political calendar is moving forward, without reform. The collapse of the immigration bill does little to instill confidence in Washington's policy effectiveness. Debate on immigration might not return for a couple of years, but when it does, it will comeback with a vengeance.

America's Immigration Charade

The United States is not serious about immigration enforcement, argues Christopher Jencks in his recent article on immigration at the New York Review of Books.

Immigration "control" is all a charade, he argues. Unless the federal government is willing to seriously enforce workplace sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, there will aways be demand for foreign workers, and no amount of border enforcement will do the trick in deterring alien newcomers.

Probably the most controversial measure in this year's failed immigration reform bill was the call for blanket amnesty (which supporters called legalization). Jencks notes why the amnesty issue is so important for the future of reform:

One reason legalization arouses such intense opposition among "law and order" advocates is that they see little evidence that the federal government will ever make a serious effort to prevent further illegal immigration in the future. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was supposed to be a compromise that linked amnesty to a crackdown on firms that hired illegal immigrants in the future. But once IRCA passed, the amnesty was implemented while the crackdown never occurred. As a result, the number of illegal immigrants kept growing. This history has sent out a worldwide message: if you are an unskilled worker who dreams of living in America, your best bet is to find a way into the United States, get a job, and wait for a new amnesty.

From this observation, Jencks delves into his analysis of workplace enforcement and border security (the two basic strategies of immigration control). The federal government overwhelmingly stresses border enforcement over employer sanctions because poor illegal migrants compose a weak interest group constituency (where business lobbies generate powerful demands for economic protection). Yet, some of the most perverse problems in immigration are found at the intersection of illegal employment and government economic policies, like taxation and Social Security. Notes Jencks:

Policing the places where immigrants work can...reduce the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States, because it can reduce the number of jobs open to them and thus eliminate a principal reason for coming here. Nonetheless, the United States has never made much effort to reduce employers' willingness to hire illegal immigrants. Only fifteen firms were fined more than $5,000 for employing unauthorized immigrants in 1990, and the number dropped to twelve in 1994, two in 1998, and zero in 2004. The number of hours spent on worksite inspections also fell by more than half between 1999 and 2003. After September 11, 2001, inspections also focused more on airports, nuclear power plants, and other likely terrorist targets. Illegal immigrants who avoided such employers were therefore even less likely than before to be arrested on the job.

Inspections at workplaces did pick up after 2004. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made five times as many worksite arrests in 2006 as in 2004. But even in 2006 ICE made fewer than five thousand worksite arrests, so an illegal worker still had less than one chance in a thousand of getting arrested at work. (Once arrested, those with neither proof of American citizenship nor a valid visa are supposed to be deported, but it is not clear how often this happens.)

Under current law employers have to check a job applicant's documents, but they are not responsible for determining whether those documents are authentic. That seems reasonable. Yet as Peter Salins, a political scientist at the State University of New York, recently pointed out in The New York Times, the federal government could check the authenticity of workers' documents soon after they are hired without even visiting worksites. Informed estimates suggest that roughly seven million people are working in the United States illegally.

About half these men and women are thought to hold regular jobs, while the rest work off the books. To get a regular job workers must give their employer a Social Security number. Employers send these numbers to the Social Security Administration (SSA), so that it can credit workers' retirement accounts with both the worker's and the employer's contribution. When the SSA tries to credit an unauthorized worker's account, the number usually shows up as either nonexistent or belonging to someone with another name.

In 2002, according to Salins, the SSA took the unprecedented step of sending 950,000 letters to employers identifying such "mismatches." Employers and immigrant advocacy groups raised so many objections that the SSA cut back the program. As a result, "no-match" accounts now hold more than $586 billion. Some of these unmatched numbers can be traced to clerical errors, and some arise because people forget to tell the SSA that they have changed their name after a marriage or divorce. But the SSA believes that most unmatched numbers come from illegal immigrants using fake numbers to get work.

Read the whole thing. Jencks provides a balanced picture on the tradeoffs to businesses versus the country under a regime of tougher workplace regulation. But overall, the article is a penetrating analysis of the long-shot odds of achieving real reform in the foreseeable future:

The federal government's policy of opposing illegal immigration while refusing to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants has had huge costs. It has exacerbated popular distrust of the federal government (as indeed it should have). It has also increased hostility to foreigners, especially Mexicans, who are all suspected of having entered the country illegally. To many Americans Washington's failure to control illegal immigration, like its failure to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, is just another example of how out of touch, duplicitous, and incompetent federal officials really are. In the short run such views are good for Republicans who want to discredit government and cut federal spending. In the long run, however, extreme distrust of government also precludes sensible policies that even conservatives should favor.

Regulars here will recall that I backed the Bush administration on reform, even with my concerns that the legislation would reward lawbreaking (see here and here). Yet, Jencks' article is having me rethink my position a bit. Legalization makes little sense when one examines immigration from the lense of interest group politics. As much as I support business, it's unhelpful to keep hammering away at tougher "border enforcement" without stringent controls against the employment of illegal aliens on the job.

Importing Poverty: Immigration and the Poor

Robert Samuelson's one of those rare journalists who regularly cuts through all the baloney on any number of policy areas. His tightly-reasoned article today on immigration and poverty is an excellent example:

The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we - meaning the public, the media and politicians - missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.

The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the recent low, 11.3 percent in 2000. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.

Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.

Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.

Why is it important to get this story straight?

One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.

We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.

A second reason, notes Samuelson, is because we "import poor people" through our current policies, placing tremendous strain on public schools, social welfare programs, and health care:

We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and aid the economy the most. As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status, both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.

Sounds good to me - I've been arguing this basic point in many of my posts on immigration (here and here).

Lou Dobbs on How Leftist Radicals Have Taken Over the Illegal Immigration Movement

My previous post on the immigration crisis included a link, from Lou Dobbs at CNN, to Teddy Roosevelt's 1919 statement on the importance of assimilation in maintaining America's national identity during the country's periodic great waves of immigration. As noted previously, Dobbs has been reporting consistently on the immigration crisis, and his coverage of the recent pro-amnesty, open-borders movement represents a continuation his longstanding journalistic reporting on the American political economy from a "sovereigntist" perspective. For example, over the last couple of years, Dobbs has showcased his "Exporting America" broadcasts, a long-running series on the effects of trade globalization on the American working class.

In this recent commentary piece, Dobbs targets the growing influence of the radical left among the variety of interest group advocates found in the illegal immigration movement. Dobbs argues that the mainstream press has been "coopted" by pro-illegal immigration activists, seen particularly in the neutral nominalism of their reporting on the protests. According to Dobbs: "USA Today headlined today's demonstrations and boycott 'On Immigration's Front Lines.' The New York Times headlines its story 'With Calls for Boycott by Immigrants, Employers Gird for Unknown.' The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are both calling their coverage 'The Immigration Debate.'"

Dobbs indicates that the front group International ANSWER, a Marxist-Leninist vanguard organization, emerged as a major proponent of a national boycott, and he notes that it was no surprise that the activists had scheduled the protests for May 1st, as that day is the world's recognized annual day of international worker solidarity. Here's a longer passage from the article:

Some illegal immigration and open borders activists in the Hispanic community are deeply concerned about the involvement of the left-wing radical group. But others, like Juan Jose Gutierrez, whom I've interviewed a number of times over the past several months, manages to be both director of Latino Movement USA and a representative of ANSWER. As Gutierrez told us on my show, "The time has come...where we need to stand up and make a statement. We need to do what the American people did when they pulled away from the British crown. And I am sure that back in those days many people were concerned that was radical action." Just how significant is the impact of leftists within the illegal immigration movement? It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and even anarchic organizations. Supporters of the boycott have made no secret of their determination to try to shut down schools, businesses and entire cities. Much of Los Angeles' Seventh Street produce market, which supplies thousands of local restaurants and markets, is closed today. Many meat-packing companies like Cargill and Tyson are also closing many of their plants.

Anyone who has spent any time around a college campus recently knows that the contemporary left is marked by a wide array of radical groups and front coalitions -- from animal rights groups, anti-globalization protesters, environmental activists, and antiwar organizations. The strident anti-Americanism at the heart of the recent illegal imimigration protests was evident early on, and such sentiment is only partially disguised by the more recent attempts to hoist the American flag above the crowded streets of America this past May 1. It's unfortunate that the anti-American message of the radical groups will likely overshadow the more moderate views of some immigration reform advocates, and thereby hinder efforts toward compromise on border security, guest workers, and legalization.

The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform

I'm pretty intrigued by all the divisions among conservatives over the comprehensive immigration reform plan pending in the Senate (which as of today has been been given a new breath of life). As regular readers here know, next to the Iraq war, immigration is probably my most common topic of discussion. Indeed, I certainly don't need to defend by conservative bona fides on the issue: My posts speak for themselves.

Nevertheless, as even some of my regular visitors are voicing concerns on the bill, I thought I'd post President Bush's recent statements on the issue, and perhaps I might elicit some productive commentary. In his interview with the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel two weeks ago, President Bush made the conservative case for immigration reform.

According to Strassel, Bush is exasperated with the resistance to immigration reform:

Mr. Bush has been pilloried by his own followers in recent weeks, charged with everything from granting amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, to failing to secure the borders. He stands accused of throwing over his most loyal supporters to join with Ted Kennedy and liberals to ruin America. Can it really be that this president--who has previously identified so well with the Everyman in his party--is completely off the reservation on this issue?

The answer is no, although Mr. Bush is aware he'll have to work hard to prove it.... "I think that some of the signals that people have seen are very disturbing to very patriotic Americans, such as people flying Mexican flags during immigration rallies," or "people here illegally straining the social services of different communities," or American towns wondering whether "the basic culture of their community is going to be affected negatively by people from, basically, a foreign land," he says....

Most notably, he's passionate that immigration is fundamentally a conservative cause, embodying core Republican values, and the issue is vital to his party's political future. "Part of the reason why I think it's important for me to be out speaking about it is it might cause people to say, well, wait a minute, the president supports it, let me find out why...."

Mr. Bush even has a few words for cultural conservatives, who have perhaps been most resistant to, and most emotional over, immigration reform. He talks of a belief in opportunity, which has defined conservatives for generations. "America is a country whose soul is constantly renewed by people pursuing what has been labeled the American Dream. It's an amazing country where people can come with nothing except for God-given talent and a deep desire to improve their family's lives and succeed." He notes his time in Texas, and how many Latinos he saw arrive, whose offspring "rose to positions of prominence and became significant contributors to our society." He also gets rolling on his hallmark theme, the compassion of Americans, a quality he believes should inspire them to look beyond the political fight to the harsher human realities of this mess. "A system that has encouraged the evolution of an underground network that treats people like a commodity, to be--in many cases, to be exploited--is not right, and it's not American." He sits forward, even gets a little, well, emotional. "We are a country of law, and we ought to uphold the law. But the system in place now has created a whole group of people who are evasive of the law and, therefore, people suffer--good, decent people suffer, whether they be people paying coyotes a large sum of money relative to their income in order to be stuffed in the bottom of an 18-wheeler, or guides that they pay that then drop them off in the deserts and wish them all the best, or document forgers or innkeepers that exploit these poor people, who are mostly looking just for a chance to feed their families."

Here's what Bush said about claims of amnesty:

"This word 'amnesty' is often used to create confusion and doubt and anger. The definition of amnesty ought to be that you are allowed to become a citizen without paying any price, whatsoever. I strongly oppose that, and most of the authors of this comprehensive bill oppose that," he says. He adds that "if you're going to try to unwind immigration--the immigration bill--it's not right for the country. I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism of course, but I feel strongly that if one were to kill this bill . . . that there will be a consequence . . . from voters coming down the road, and more importantly, a consequence for the country."

I wrote critically -- earlier in the week -- on Time 's cover story supporting amnesty ("The Tear-Jerker Case for Amnesty"), and that post was generally well received (and I appreciate the positive feedback).

Of course, there are some strange fringe elements in the blogosphere (they often show up in my comments, with the most whacked-out variety being zapped with a quick click of the delete key), so let me be clear: I agree with the president: The Senate bill is not amnesty, but is rather an earned path to legalization. We need immigration reform, and if this bill fails -- for all of its flaws -- the U.S. might not achieve reform for years.

Border security, obviously, is paramount; but if people think that the country's going to round up over 12 million people and send them off to their countries of origin, it's not just going to happen. I hate the idea that we are losing our sovereignty. Believe me, I'm from a border state, and I see the weakening of the dominant culture right here in Southern California (see my recent post, "Hispanic Assimilation and the Immigration Debate," for more information). Yet, depending on how survey questionnaires are designed, a majority of Americans supports conditional legalization of aliens, not amnesty. Americans -- myself included -- are pragmatic: If there are real penalties and procedures required before legal status is obtained, we should move forward, continuing our welcoming -- and conservative -- tradition of melting-pot assimilation.

What Grandma Would Say About Immigration Reform

Peggy Noonan, over at the Wall Street Journal this weekend, published one of the most thoughtful essays on immigration reform I've read all year. She cites an 1858 speech by Abraham Lincoln, who spoke admirably about those Americans who could trace their bloodlines back to the Revolution. Lincoln also spoke about those who couldn't, and argued that newer immigrants were ultimately of the same flesh and blood as those who wrote the Declaration of Independence:

I love those words by Lincoln, and believe them. But it continues to amaze that 148 years after he said them, who populates America is still a matter of urgent argument.

Much of course has changed. Immigration in Lincoln's day was open and legal. Now it is open in effect because overwhelmingly illegal in practice. If you want to come across the border, you can, essentially, come. You make the decision about what is best for you; America does not make the decision as to what is best for it. Both Congress and the White House, our official deciders, will likely do in the next session what they did in the last: spend a lot of time trying to confuse people into thinking they're closing the borders without actually closing them. There will be talk again of fences, partial fences, fencelike entities and virtual fences. While they dither and mislead, towns and cities will continue to attempt to make their own immigration policy.

You know the facts. Immigrants are here in huge numbers, unlawfully, in the age of terror. They swell the cost of local life--emergency rooms, schools--which has an impact on local taxes. There are towns and cities that feel, and are, overwhelmed. And no one will help them.

The essential reason, I think, is that America's elites don't want America's borders closed. Businesses want low-wage workers; intellectuals are wed to global visions of cross-border prosperity; politicians want Hispanic loyalty and the Hispanic vote. It's not convenient for any of them to close the borders. If Americans on the ground are enduring difficulties over this, it's . . . too bad. This is further eroding America's already eroding faith in its institutions.

I think there are two unremarked elements of the debate that are now contributing to the government's inability or refusal to come up with a solution.

The problem is not partisanship. It is not polarization, not really. Sentiments on this of all issues in the nation of immigrants are and would be complicated, nuanced. The problem is doctrinaire-ness. Even as both parties have become less philosophical, less tied to their animating philosophies, they have become more doctrinaire. The people who should be solving the immigration problem are holding fiercely to abstractions--to big-think economic theory, to emanations of penumbras in the law--instead of facing a crucial, concrete and immediate challenge.

The second element is definitiveness. Our political figures say they have to concentrate on an overall, long-term, comprehensive answer to the immigration problem. So they huff and puff about the long-term implications of this move or that, and in the end they do nothing.

They are like people in a burning house who sit around discussing the long-term efficacy of various kinds of water hoses while the house burns down around them.

More and more our leaders forget the common sense of grandma. In most everyone's family there was a grandma who used to sit quietly in the corner and say nothing. Then someone would ask her opinion just to be polite, and she'd say something so wise, so commonsensical, it stopped everyone in their tracks. And you realized that she was smart, that she'd lived a life and seen things.

In the case of illegal immigration in America I think grandma would say, "Stop it. Build a wall. But put doors in the wall so when the problem is over, you can open the doors."

America has, since 1980, experienced the biggest wave of immigrants since the great wave of 1880-1920. And we have never stopped to absorb it. We have never stopped to digest what we've eaten. Is it any wonder we have indigestion?

We don't really have to solve the problem forever. We just have to solve it now. One wonders why we don't stop illegal immigration, now. Absorb, settle down, ease pressures--for now. Why not be empirical, and find out what's true? Some say stopping illegal immigration will lead to an increase in wages for low-income workers. This is to be desired. Let's find out if it happens.

And why not give the latest waves of immigrants time to become Americans? Time to absorb our meaning and history and traditions. Isn't that the way to help them feel "more attached" and "more firmly bound to the country we inhabit"?

I'm not sure we need more globalism, but I feel certain we need more grandmaism. A happy Thanksgiving to all, old and new.

Noonan is right on the money. As regular readers here will recall, I don't oppose immigration. Waves of newcomers have been a fundamental source of vitality throughout this country's history. Indeed, check this entry for a powerful example of successful assimilation among legal immigrants in California. I do oppose lawbreaking, however, and I've denounced the look-the-other-way mentality of the elites Noonan mentions.

Recall a couple of weeks back I posted on the groundswell of support in various states for English only legislation. I think Americans on the ground -- who are outside of the insularity of the Washington Beltway, and who have a realistic appreciation of the social disruptions of unstopped immigration -- know that it's time to slow the flow of newcomers to the country. The unchecked waves of immigration over the last decade or so have left pockets of unassimilated enclaves around the country. As this Business Week article points out, the U.S. is at risk of becoming an "Hispanic Nation" unless we move to slow the movement of people across our borders and fully incorporate our new countrymen into the fabric of society.

Takin' Another Swing at the Immigration Crisis

My school's college newspaper, The Viking, published my "letter to the editor" on the immigration crisis in today's edition. I wrote in response to a rabidly anti-American commentary piece by a student that ran a couple of weeks back, which argued that the recent immigration bill going through Congress was racist, that immigrants today were no different from those in earlier ears, and that the U.S. had "stolen" Mexico. In any case, I'm posting the full letter here:

I am writing in response to Fher Romero’s April 13 Viking commentary piece on immigration. Mr. Romero’s passionate presentation is to be commended. There are, however, a number of unqualified statements in the article. First, the proposed legislation is not racist and xenophobic, designed to “prevent mainly brown people from entering the country.” Romero is simply flashing the race card. His claims are odious and more likely to inflame racial tensions than ameliorate them. Rather, the House bill represents a forceful statement on the immigration crisis and U.S. majoritarian demands to secure the borders. Second, Mr. Romero states that “undocumented immigrants are not currently criminals.” Not true. Illegal aliens are in violation of Title 8, Section 1325, of the U.S. Code, which calls for criminal fines and imprisonment up to six months. Third, contrary to Mr. Romero, the current wave of illegal aliens differs greatly from those who came in previous eras. Nineteenth century European immigrants came by boat, and first saw Lady Liberty in New York Harbor before disembarking at Ellis Island. Today, the massive influx of migrants pours over our contiguous border with Mexico, a unique situation for the U.S., as no other country in the world defends a 2,000 mile demarcation line against foreign invasion. Fourth, and particularly offensive, are Romero’s anti-American remarks about how the Southwest was “stolen from Mexico” and how the Minutemen “should get off of my land.” Mr. Romero, Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, upon Mexico’s defeat in the Mexican American War. Our sovereign borders are recognized under international law. Stay away from lame anti-imperial arguments if you hope to persuade anyone in this debate. Recent protesters waving the Mexican flag simply make it easier for Congress to argue that illegals have no plans on assimilating to the U.S. Finally, research shows that illegal aliens, mostly uneducated laborers, cost the U.S. more in welfare, education, housing, and health care than they contribute through taxes, and children of illegals lag behind native-born Americans in educational attainment and income. In closing, we face a monumental immigration crisis, and reform is badly needed, whether that be through H.R. 4437 or some other more accommodative approach (some blend of border enforcement and amnesty). For this to happen, of course, contributors to the debate should stick with the facts, rather than attempt to incite further recriminations through ill-advised race-baiting and America-bashing.

Should anyone come to the wrong conclusion, note that I'm actually pro-immigation -- legal immigration that is. The United States is the most successful multiethnic democracy in the world. The immigrant heritage in this country enriches the nation and people beyond comprehension. It's the entitlement and anti-Americanism of the reconquista movement that I can't stand. I also firmly believe that language is the core element of national identity, and English proficiency should be a basic requirement of all newcomers to the country. Lou Dobbs on CNN is making a name for himself recently with his firm convictions surrounding the issue of illegal immigration and his steady coverage of the crisis. He had a nice piece on assimilation on the program's website a few weeks back. For a couple of articles on immigration from Newsweek's Robert Samuelson cick here and here.

Check out, as well, Samuel Huntington's, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, for a fascinating and compelling look at the variety of issues raised by recent decades of consistently high rates of immigration. Here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684870533/sr=8-2/qid=1146785051/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-7082648-7767811?%5Fencoding=UTF8

"Immigration Nation" The Key Components of Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Tamar Jacoby's got a detailed analysis of the immigration reform debate in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Jacoby notes that immigration is a top issue for the electorate, and there's little doubt that a major overhaul is due, although Congress is stymied on the way forward to reform. Yet, there may be hope:

In fact, the nation is far less divided on immigration, legal or illegal, than the current debate suggests. In the last six months, virtually every major media outlet has surveyed public attitudes on the issue, and the results have been remarkably consistent. Americans continue to take pride in the United States' heritage as a nation of immigrants. Many are uneasy about the current influx of foreigners. But an overwhelming majority -- between two-thirds and three-quarters in every major poll -- would like to see Congress address the problem with a combination of tougher enforcement and earned citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already living and working here. A strange-bedfellow coalition -- of business associations, labor unions, and the Catholic Church, among others -- has endorsed this position. In Washington, the consensus behind it is even more striking, with supporters spanning the spectrum from conservative President George W. Bush to left-leaning Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), from mavericks like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to party regulars like Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and all but a handful of congressional Democrats. But even this broad agreement may not produce a solution this fall.

Congress' failure to act is largely a product of political circumstances. The high-stakes midterm elections in November put an unusual premium on the opinions of the 20-25 percent of voters who depart from the emerging national consensus. Mostly male, white, and lacking college degrees, these naysayers believe immigrants are bad for the economy; they want to build a wall along the southern border and adamantly oppose allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens. Only about half are Republicans, and they account for no more than a quarter of the GOP. But many Republicans in Congress, particularly in the House, are convinced that this group is more intense -- more concerned, more motivated, more likely to vote on the basis of this single issue -- than anyone else likely to go to the polls. So the naysayers have become the tail wagging the dog of the immigration debate, and they may succeed in blocking a solution this year.

Still, such circumstances will not last forever. The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.

This is an excellent piece. Jacoby is very clear on the main components of realistic reform: an increase in the number of immigrant worker visas, improved border security, and legalization of the 12 million or so illegal aliens who are already in the country.

The problem here is that Jacoby's essentially advocating an open border. Hers is a market-based approach. She sides with comprehensive reform advocates, who base their arguments on the current fact of high demand for workers in the U.S. economy amid the increasing globalization of international labor. On all of the key issues in debate -- such as public services dependency among illegal aliens and the downward pressure on wages from the massive influx of unskilled workers -- she adopts laissez-faire economics, and suggest at worst that the debate on aliens' fiscal demands and depressed wages is a wash.

Further, Jacoby dodges the current problems of cultural assimilation of today's immigrant population. I wrote yesterday on the trend in increasing support for English only measures in the 2006 elections. Check as well my detailed critique of the Wall Street Journal's pro-market immigration position. In that post I linked to Samuel Huntington's recent book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity. See also Huntington's Foreign Policy article, "The Hispanic Challenge," and Victor Davis Hanson's book on the immigration landslide, Mexifornia.

The Interest Group Logjam on Immigration Policy

In my classes this semester I've been using the current immigration reform stalement as an example of hyperpluralist politics in the U.S. Hyperpluralist theory claims that the interest group system is out of control. All group demands on government are legitimate, and government's job is to advance them all -- a situtation that often leads to confusing policies or outright political gridlock. The political scientist Theodore Lowi called this "interest group liberalism."

Jonah Goldberg, in an essay earlier in the week, provides a nice example of how the logjam on immigration is explained as a case of hyperpluralism:

This weird logjam, as the word implies, has a lot of logs to it. The first log is corporations, which like illegal immigrants. Corporations generally support Republicans and centrist Democrats, and that makes the pols wary of tackling the issue head-on.

Then there's a whole set of logs on the left. Identity-politics fanatics have welcomed the undocumented as the Coalition of the Oppressed. Major universities, the editorial pages of the leading newspapers, some Christian denominations, Latino activists and various allied groups have bought into the idea that there's something fundamentally illegitimate or icky about trying to stem the tide of immigrants who come here illegally.

There are other random logs. There are libertarians who think that the principles and benefits of free trade apply to the unrestricted movements of workers just as surely as to wheat and transistors. There are neoconservatives of Jewish or Irish Catholic descent who believe that the heroic narrative of the United States as a nation of immigrants will be desecrated if the U.S. actually performs one of the minimal requirements of a modern nation-state and controls its own borders.

Jam all the logs together and you have campus leftists aligned with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Nancy Pelosi with George W. Bush and MoveOn.org with the Wall Street Journal, all standing shoulder-to-shoulder to block serious immigration reform.

With the important exception of working-class Latinos (legal and illegal), one thing that unites all of these people is that they are members of the economic and social elite. It doesn't matter that most of them can't stand each other on most issues. When it comes to immigration, they have settled on a marriage of convenience.

The worry is that this leaves a lot of room for populists, rabble rousers and opportunists to exploit immigration — as Jean-Marie Le Pen and his ilk have done across Europe. This vacuum is unsustainable. More than anything else, politicians like popular issues. Eventually someone will figure out how to claim the emotional power of the immigration issue, for one party or the other.

For Goldberg, CNN's Lou Dobbs is the current immigration debate's most vocal populist. Yet in moving forward, Goldberg notes that the conservative emphasis on preserving civic culture allows room for continued immigration to the country. With their economic nationalism, it's harder for populists to make the same case.

Testing the Party Base: Bush Pushes Immigration

This post is a follow up to my entry yesterday, "President Bush and the Conservative Crackup." It turns out that the New York Times has a related article in this morning's edition, "Bush's Push on Immigration Tests His Base." Here's the introduction:

President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.

It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign lawbreakers when he should be focusing on border security.

Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush’s impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters — a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.

“I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. “We are not all that stupid.”

This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America” inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, “I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security.” He added, “But he might lose some of you.”

Such sentiments have reverberated through talk radio, conservative publications like National Review and Fox News. They have also appeared on Web sites including RedState.com and FreeRepublic.com, where postings reflect a feeling that Mr. Bush is smiting his own coalition in pursuit of a badly needed domestic accomplishment, and working in league with the likes of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a co-author of the legislation.

White House officials said it had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.

The tensions, which have rippled through the Republican presidential field, are intensifying just as the Senate is preparing to renew debate on the measure next week. Opponents are seeking significant changes — or outright defeat of the legislation — and raising the specter of a filibuster. The battle has pitted the White House against a group that includes even Mr. Bush’s reliable supporters from his home state of Texas, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans.

White House officials said it was a debate they welcomed in pursuit of a long-sought presidential goal, but in interviews this week, they expressed frustration at what they described as ill-informed criticism that the bill provided amnesty for illegal immigrants when it in fact traded legal status for fines and fees — more than $6,000 for green card holders, officials said. They also noted that the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed 66 percent of Republicans supported its legalization provisions.

Be sure to read the whole thing. I'm a little surprised how nasty this intraparty fight is getting, although I'm glad to hear that there's a firm national constituency holding the conservative ground on immigration.

Further down in the article, there's some interesting discussion about the feud between the editors of the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, with National Review writers taking a critical stance against the Wall Street Journal's essentially open borders positions. (I have criticized the Wall Street Journal on immigration, at least a couple of times. See here and here.) The National Review 's debate challenge to the Wall Street Journal is here, and another National Review editorial opposing the Bush-Kennedy bill is here. By the way, be sure to check out this post from Bizzy Blog, which also cites the Peggy Noonan article I critiqued yesterday. But more interestingly, the Bizzy entry also has a copy of a 1984 Wall Street Journal editorial calling unequivically for an open borders policy.

I've written on immigration almost as frequently as I have on Iraq. I'm no nativist on the issue. But I do think the crisis of illegal immigration just makes hollow our claim to be a nation of laws. Further, I take seriously the cultural challenges to American national identity, which I blogged about the other day ("Hispanic Immigration and the Immigration Debate"), citing Samuel Huntington and others making the conservative case against the Mexifornication of the nation.

One last point, I don't really think the Senate bill's legalization provision constitutes blanket amnesty. There are some tough provisions and high costs for green card holders to get legal, and I doubt the alternative of deporting 12 million aliens is practical. I also support the bill's movement away from the stress on family reunification in current policy toward more attention to immigrants' job skills (and I agree with the Wall Street Journal on this point).

For more on the strengths of the Senate's immigration proposal, see this Foreign Policy essay from Phillipe Legrain. He's pragmatic, and notes that for all the bill's flaws, it will be easier to amend the problematic aspects of the legislation later, rather than lose the current opportunity for comprehensive reform.

Hispanic Assimilation and the Immigration Debate

Yesterday over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff posted a concise entry on Mexican anti-Americanism. First, it turns out, much America-bashing sentiment was on display at the Miss Universe beauty pageant in Mexico City (the crowd booed Miss America). But Mirengoff shifts his focus from the anti-Americanism in Mexico to that displayed by Mexican immigrants in the United States:

In his post from earlier today, John comments on the anti-Americanism on display in Mexico City during the Miss Universe pageant. But one need not journey to Mexico to find displays of anti-Americanism among some Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. One can find it at soccer matches here in the U.S.

It's probably unrealistic to expect illegal immigrants and even first generation legal immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, etc. to root for the U.S. when they play the immigrant's native country. And, given the intensity of the soccer rivalry between U.S. and Mexico, the vehemence of the pro-Mexicans who live here isn't surprising either. But mass booing of our national anthem and harassment of U.S. fans, as occurred in a U.S. - Mexico match in Los Angeles, is going too far. It was also discouraging when, here in Washington D.C., Salvadoran fans booed our anthem and turned against the local team because it had been forced by salary cap considerations to trade a star player from El Salvador.

One cannot base public policy on what happens at beauty pageants or soccer matches. Better instruction can be found in statistics about drop-out and graduation rates, participation rates in violent gangs, teen-pregnancies rates, and the like. Unfortunately, as Heather Mac Donald shows, the picture of our Hispanic recent-immigrant population that emerges from this data isn't pretty either.

Living in the Washington, D.C. area, I have regular contact with members of the recent-immigrant community, and have provided free legal services to several illegal immigrants. It would be a mistake to demonize these people, but just as big a mistake to romanticize them, or to label as "know-nothings" or "nativists" those concerned about some consequences of their mass influx into this country.

It's an important topic and a good post, although the example Mirengoff cites on the soccer matches is practically ancient (he links to a sports writer's post from 1998). In fact, Samuel Huntington, in his article, "The Hispanic Challenge," mentioned the soccer matches as an element of the phenomenon of Mexican-American cultural fragmentation in the United States (with Mexican-Americans as the major force of the broader Hispanic challenge). As Huntington notes, "Mexican Americans booed the U.S. national anthem and assaulted U.S. players." Huntington enumerates more examples, but it's worth reviewing his major thesis:

In the final decades of the 20th century, however, the United States' Anglo-Protestant culture and the creed that it produced came under assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity; the rise of group identities based on race, ethnicity, and gender over national identity; the impact of transnational cultural diasporas; the expanding number of immigrants with dual nationalities and dual loyalties; and the growing salience for U.S. intellectual, business, and political elites of cosmopolitan and transnational identities. The United States' national identity, like that of other nation-states, is challenged by the forces of globalization as well as the needs that globalization produces among people for smaller and more meaningful “blood and belief” identities.

In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives. Americans like to boast of their past success in assimilating millions of immigrants into their society, culture, and politics. But Americans have tended to generalize about immigrants without distinguishing among them and have focused on the economic costs and benefits of immigration, ignoring its social and cultural consequences. As a result, they have overlooked the unique characteristics and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic immigration. The extent and nature of this immigration differ fundamentally from those of previous immigration, and the assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America. This reality poses a fundamental question: Will the United States remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture? By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual transformation into two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic) and two languages (English and Spanish).

I think the cultural angle is actually one of the top issues in the current immigration reform debate. Yet, many immigration enthusiasts (especially those arguing the smooth Hispanic assimilation line) dismiss Huntington's thesis. However, as Mirengoff cites above, Heather MacDonald and a number of conservative writers have chronicled the problems of integration within the Hispanic community, especially in Southern California. See, for example, MacDonald's City Journal essay, "Seeing Today's Immigrants Straight" (scroll down particularly to her discussion of the crisis of academic failure among Hispanics in the Los Angeles Unified School District). Victor Davis Hanson make some similar points in his article, "Mexifornia, Five Years Later." (See also Business Week's cover article from 2004, "Hispanic Nation.")

For balance and comparison, though, let me also cite one recent author, Tomas Jimenez, who argues the pro-assimilation case. Jimenez had a lead essay on "The Next Americans," in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times opinion section (which I didn't find particularly persuasive). But see also his longer policy paper from the Center for Immigration Studies at UC San Diego.