In eight years as president, Mr. Bush has represented an ideological blend of neo-conservatism on foreign policy and a more traditional yet “compassionate” conservatism on social and economic matters. So while in many ways, he was not a traditional conservative on foreign policy, nor a true fiscal conservative economically, he was certainly and staunchly ideological. It has been rare over his two terms for Bush to break sharply from either ideological camp. An exception, perhaps the exception, was Bush’s stance on immigration.
Across the political spectrum in the United States, Americans hold conflicting views on legal and illegal immigration. At once we want to secure our borders from terrorism, ensure jobs for American citizens, and promote American culture – while also understanding that the United States is the world’s great melting pot. Of approximately 300 million Americans, fewer than 10% are descended from ancestors living here a mere 300 years ago. We are a nation that has embraced immigration from the beginning
The Bush position has differed sharply from much of the Republican base. In 2007, John McCain was the lone Republican presidential candidate still supporting the Bush plan, and it nearly cost him the nomination. It wasn’t until McCain largely abandoned Bush that he began making progress. That Bush plan, begun early this decade, but more directly promoted beginning with this May 15, 2006 speech, hinged on five pillars. Bush’s plan was to
- Secure the nation’s borders
- Create a temporary worker program
- Hold employers accountable for the workers that they hire
- Find reasonable pathways to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants that are already here
- Honor the great American tradition of the melting pot
These goals are exactly what America needed (and still needs). I am certainly no anti-immigration zealot, but I can’t argue that we should leave our borders wide open – so to a certain degree, Bush’s first point is on target. It is discouraging that all one needs to reach the United States is a passport to Mexico and an ability to swim across the Rio Grande. The Mexican border alone is 1969 miles, the US-Canada border stretches 5525 miles, and we have almost 1500 miles of coastline. The Great Wall of China, meanwhile, is 4000 miles long. So in order to effectively divide us from our neighbors, we would need a wall longer than two Great Walls of China, and a Coast Guard that can constantly patrol 1500 miles. Put simply, completely securing our borders cannot be done with walls, it probably cannot be done with technological walls, and it probably cannot be done with manpower. That is not to say that certain areas shouldn’t have a wall or fence. For those that do embrace a melting pot America – remember, it is legal immigration that makes us one.
Consequently, securing our borders starts with barriers and guards, but expands with effective policy. Bush’s temporary worker program is intended to give those that do want to come here a reason not to sneak across the border. As he says,
The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.
Now we’re talking. This understanding of border security indicates a sense of subtlety in Bush’s thinking that’s perhaps unfamiliar to many Americans. Securing our borders means more than simply cordoning off our country – it means making better legal immigration policies so that illegal immigration is less attractive. As Bush explains, temporary workers would have background checks, would be required to return home after their work period is over, and it would replace illegal workers with legal taxpayers.
To Bush’s third point, holding employers accountable today is a near impossibility with the ease of document fraud and the overwhelming dependence that many industries have on cheap immigrant labor. He says,
Comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law - and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.
By making it possible to hold employers accountable, we ensure that we can properly enforce our existing laws. Today, if we raid a factory it takes months to determine whether people are here legally or illegally. Under Bush’s plan, in five years, if you don’t have proper documentation, you’re here illegally.
Bush’s fourth point is his most controversial, and the opposition is best summed up by anti-immigration champion Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. "If the president thinks by taking one step forward with enforcement, the House will follow with two steps backwards with amnesty, he's confusing us with the Senate." Yet in a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corp. last month, 79 percent of Americans said they support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for a number of years, have a job, and pay back taxes. But those who oppose that policy are more intensely motivated: Polls show that 43 percent of opponents say the issue will be "extremely important" to them when they vote this year, compared with 24 percent of those who favor a path to citizenship.
Bush has said it perfectly: we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. Bush, I am certain, is no supporter of amnesty or of keeping illegal immigrants in the U.S. But when he looked at how it might be handled, he realized that it is entirely unrealistic to deport 11 million people. And with that thought lies perhaps the most reasonable paragraph that Mr. Bush uttered during the past eight years:
Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant -- and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently -- and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law...to pay their taxes...to learn English...and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship -- but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. 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.
Is this technically amnesty? Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. Bush had to say that it’s not in order to gain any support. The point is not whether or not we define it as amnesty. The point is that there is no other solution that is fair and realistic. We simply cannot deport that many people from our country. There are 11 million illegal immigrants, spread throughout 50 states, blending in with society, and all of our nation’s 1.5 million active duty soldiers, 1 million reserves, 20,000 border patrol agents, and approximately 700,000 police officers could never force even half of them out. It would take a purge of Nazi-like proportions in order for us to do so.
In his speech, Bush didn’t go into details, but I think a few caveats would be necessary. We would need to draw a line in the sand, say the year 2015, when illegal immigrants will immediately be deported. This assumes that the four other pillars are in place (which is why “comprehensive” immigration reform is so important). Second, we would have to outline the specific penalties for “amnesty”. Perhaps instead of penalizing, immigrants could join the armed forces, peace corps, or another volunteer organization – serving the United States – in order to gain citizenship. As Bush said,
America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue -- and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush’s legacy depends less on what he said, and more upon what he did. Mr. Bush has ultimately failed to do anything about our immigration problems, leaving us almost exactly where we were eight years ago. He has called himself a “results-oriented” president; but he did not achieve the ends that he sought. Perhaps the political winds were too strong against him for any chance of successful reform; after all, September 11, 2001 certainly changed much of our openness towards foreigners in the United States. If Bush were to push for immigration reform, it would have had to take place during his first six months, prior to terrorist attacks, prior to using all of his political capital on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or it would have had to be a full-court press throughout his presidency. Today, fears of immigration and strong nationalism are too strong to push against, and his efforts were too little, and came too late. Perhaps that is Bush’s great failure. He ran in 2000 as a Compassionate Conservative, and he meant it. He did not intend to fight two wars; he didn’t think that we’d be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists, and he probably really thought he’d be more of a uniter than a divider.
What was so great about Bush’s immigration plan? It wasn’t Republican. It wasn’t Democratic. It was pragmatic, post-partisan, it would have honored the melting pot of American culture, and above all – it would have made a difference.
0 comments:
Post a Comment