Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

I haven't yet written about the Senate immigration "compromise" bill, in part because I haven't read the bill yet, in part because everybody else is already writing a tremendous amount about it, and in part because our politicians make me so sick lately that I can hardly stomach even discussing them.

Since I maintain all those views, allow me to provide you with a small selection of other people's comments on the bill until I get around to putting my own thoughts to virtual paper:

First (and best), I encourage you all to read this great article by the nearly-always-great Mark Steyn:
Capitulation, from A------ to Z, May 20, 2007
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/393216,CST-EDT-steyn20.article

Second, some selections from the WSJ's John Fund's thoughts on the bill:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010103

t's understandable that the White House and its Senate negotiating partners want to rush through the compromise immigration bill they agreed to Thursday. Supporters acknowledge that the delicately balanced legislation could collapse if a single destructive amendment is attached to it. Its sponsors admit they want to minimize the political debate. "We all know this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible," says Sen. John McCain, a key architect of the bill.

But this is no way to debate the most sweeping change to our nation's immigration laws in two decades--especially since the last comprehensive attempt, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, failed so spectacularly. The new bill is set to pass with much less analysis in the Senate than the 1986 law, known as Simpson-Mazzoli, had. Senators did not even receive the bill draft until midnight Saturday. After a test vote scheduled for today, Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning a final vote on the bill this Thursday, only one week after the compromise was struck. Shouldn't senators have time to actually read the bill they're being asked to vote on?...

Many immigration experts say they can't know if they support the current compromise until they've absorbed the entire 1,000 page bill. They are concerned that Mr. Reid seems determined to bypass normal committee review and hearings and rush the bill to the floor. "That's like trying to eat an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break," said former senator Fred Thompson on ABC Radio Friday.

Why the rush? Because, to be blunt, the senators don't trust the American people to make sound judgments on such emotional issues as family reunification and national sovereignty. But the proper response to this is to engage the public in the discussion, not to short-circuit the deliberative process. One of the reasons the American people are cynical about government is that they don't believe its officials take the time to discharge their duties properly. Now a 1,000 page immigration bill is being put before senators for a vote without anyone having the time to study its details. Many will merely be leaning on talking points prepared by their staff.

There is no doubt that the lack of deliberation will create surprises if the bill passes. Last year the Senate passed, but the House never took up, an 850-page immigration bill. Among the reasons the bill died in the House was that members were furious about last-minute Senate amendments. One required the U.S. to consult with Mexican officials before any new fence construction could take place along the border. Another allowed for discounted in-state tuition at state colleges and universities for illegal aliens who reside in those states. Legal immigrants and citizens who resided in other states would still have had to pay the full price.

The irony is that this is the Internet age. The entire immigration bill could and should be posted online in a format that would allow changes to be instantaneously added and highlighted. We pay our legislators well to represent us and evaluate legislation, but the immigration bill would probably benefit by giving constituents the ability to look over their shoulders and shine a light on provisions that might sink the bill further along in the legislative process.

Third, to add a little humor to the discussion, here's a joke I received by email today:

Texas Opinion Poll

The latest telephone poll taken by the office of the Governor of Texas asked whether people who live in Texas think illegal immigration is a serious problem:

A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."

B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio."

Fourth...OK, I've talked myself into thinking I should at least give a few words about this issue, so here are my basic thoughts:

1) This issue is too important to be rushed through to score political points. But, if nothing is passed soon, there is no chance that anything will be passed until after the 2008 election. The question is whether there is the time and political ability to actually create a good piece of legislation in short order. My guess, given that this bill runs to about 1000 pages long, is no.

2) I like the idea of a point system that prioritizes visa recipients based on their skills, not just on family connections. That said, I still don't think we're going nearly far enough to increase the number of visas available in all skill classes.

3) Having a provision that requires illegals to return to their home country for a year simply means that the vast majority will never attempt to comply with this law. I am not using that as an argument to just give amnesty and let them stay. Rather I would point out that I don't like laws which are unenforceable or which in themselves contain the reasons for people to avoid compliance.

4) There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats want this bill because they believe the newly-legal aliens will vote Democrat. And they're probably right as far as it goes...but I don't think it goes very far. First, I do not believe that the majority of Mexican and other hispanic illegal immigrants in the country have any real interest in becoming citizens. Many of them simply want to earn some money, send some money home, save up a bit, and then return home. Additionally, it's hard to imagine a low-skill worker lining up for a dozen years or more, paying thousands of dollars in fines, possibly having to go back home for a year, all for the right to be audited by the IRS.

5) While I understand the Democrats' political motivation (despite what must be a beating they'll take from their union masters whom they normally heed unquestioningly), the Republican motivation is much harder to understand. My guess is that John McCain and a few others want to be able to claim that they've tackled one of our biggest problems. But I think they're wrong in that strategy: It is more likely that the average Republican voter will believe they simply sold out, caved in, or gave up, and it will just add to the distance the GOP has put between itself and its core constituencies in recent years.

6) At the end of the day, the only way to deal with any problem of this sort is through serious penalties. Illegals, especially Mexicans, have repeatedly proven they are willing to take tremendous risk to come here. So, threats of prison for illegals would probably only have modest effect. More effective would be very substantial penalties on employers who hire illegals. However, I would not support going after employers unless and until there are at least 10 times, if not 50 times, more work visas available, whether for computer programmers or tomato pickers. Like it or not, there are "jobs Americans won't do" (at the price that many others would do them). And do not forget that forcing a farm to pay $12/hour to an American who might work for that instead of $6/hour for a Mexican who will do the same work (and probably better) is not a magical gain for America. It just means that we'll be paying a lot more for our tomatoes. And don't even think of arguing that I'm am then implying that American unemployment is a good thing, or a reasonable policy goal. Throughout these recent years of a massive influx of illegals, the unemployment rate in the US has continued to drop.

7) When push comes to shove, I hope this bill does not pass. Not because I hate all of it, but because it has not seen the light of day. Something this important should not be done in effective secrecy. My guess is that this bill will not pass. It will be both a good and bad outcome: good since this bill is probably very highly flawed, and bad since it probably means we will not have immigration reform for at least another 2 or 3 years.