Saturday, May 19, 2007

Law and Order starring …Rudy Giuliani?

So we have a new immigration bill. The left doesn’t like it, the right hates it, and the middle …well, they aren’t so hot about it either. And yet it seems destined to pass and become law. Since there is so much emotion around illegal immigration, it seems highly unlikely that this new bill will make the issue go away.

So after the legislation is passed, where does the debate go?

The biggest problem with the 1986 reform was that the “promise” of enforcement to prevent future illegal immigration in exchange for amnesty, wasn’t kept. Conservatives are desperate not to let that happen again, so we’re starting to hear rumblings about the next big fight. Enforcement.

Since the right has already been burned once, they are going to be obsessive about the enforcement provisions of the new law. They will be looking for the first microscopic hint of backsliding and when they find it, conservatives are going to scream bloody murder.

When the enforcement fight starts (about 9 seconds after the bill is signed), Republicans are going to be looking for a leader to save them from a repeat of 1986. There is going to be an opportunity for a major Republican presidential candidate to grab the issue and become that leader.

That’s where Rudy comes in. The only thing standing between him and the nomination is low support from the right wing of the party, so he would benefit from showing leadership on immigration enforcement more than any other candidate. He also has the most credibility in the party as being tough on crime. The biggest criticism of Giuliani as Mayor was that he was, if anything, too ruthless in enforcing the law.

If Giuliani positions himself as the tough as nails crime fighter who can enforce the law and shut down illegal immigration, the right wing of the party will line up behind him in a New York minute.

The only question is, will he see the opportunity and take it?

The Logic of Immigration

Immigration reform is an emotionally charged issue and the most contentious part is the decision about what to do with the 12+ million illegal immigrants already here. Should they be allowed to stay?

Sometimes examining the most extreme cases can help shed light on a difficult question, so let’s do that with the “path to citizenship”.

Case #1:

A 26 year old man came here illegally from Nicaragua 8 years ago. He speaks no English, has made no attempt to assimilate and has supported himself by leading a violent street gang that controls the drug trade in a large American city. He is personally responsible for half a dozen vicious murders.

Should he be given a path to citizenship? The obvious answer is no. Everyone would agree we should track him down, slap him in handcuffs and throw him out of the country.

Case#2:

A Mexican couple crosses the border illegally with their 6 month old son. He is put up for adoption and grows up not knowing he is in the country illegally. He speaks only English, graduates from Harvard with honors, then turns down a high paying corporate job to become a Marine Corps officer. While in combat, he is seriously wounded saving the lives of dozens of civilians and is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Should he be given a path to citizenship? Most Americans would insist that he be granted citizenship immediately. We are obviously a far better country having citizens like him.

Most illegal immigrants are neither mass murderers nor national heroes. They fall somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes, but the point is still valid. Some illegal immigrants are nearer the former case, are destructive to our country and should be expelled. Others are closer to the second example and are already valuable members of our American family.

If we accept this simple logic that we as a nation would be better off if some fraction of the illegal immigrant community were granted legal status and acknowledged as the good Americans they are, and some fraction were compelled, as best we can, to leave, then the only remaining question for our policy makers is: By what standards do we decide who should stay and who should go?