Deconstructing immigration reform

Deconstructing immigration reform

My politics are more aligned with Alan Keyes than Alan Colmes. Still, I'm not reflexively opposed to immigration reform. My only ‘non-negotiable’ is that any proposed reform is one that I could defend to someone pursuing legal immigration. The current Senate bill doesn’t pass that test; not even close.

The legal path to citizenship has four components; temporary legal authority, residency, permanent legal authority and naturalization. Legal immigrants endure lengthy waits to secure temporary legal authority in order to gain residency and hopefully pursue permanent authority and naturalization. The ‘undocumented’ acquire their residency through illegal acts and leverage the same to procure temporary authority and the resulting path to citizenship. The penalties for their transgressions involve a fine and a somewhat slower and more burdensome path to citizenship.

This is like telling the criminal who burglarized your house that he will be fined and put on probation for his crime but will be allowed to keep everything he stole while he was there. When this reform is implemented, the illegal will keep what he stole, residency in the United States.
 
Those who pursue immigration by legal means will no doubt get our admiration for waiting patiently for the past four (or six or ten) years. They will also get the back of our hand as we tell them to get back in line for however long it takes. It is the law, after all. All prospective immigrants await temporary legal authority. Unfortunately, the law-abiding wait back in Canada and Portugal while the law breakers are waiting in Arizona, Texas and South Dakota.

Any serious reform must first remove the obstacles to legal immigration that exist for some simply because they obey the current law. In addition, we must make certain that any temporary or provisional authority is conditioned on strict adherence to the law. Those who are 'in the shadows' will receive consideration for past violations of the law (amnesty if you will), but will not receive a free pass from this point forward. The legislation should require them to self identify in a timely manner. Failure to do so should preclude them from earning legal residency and should subject them to deportation.
  
“Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” It is a quote that is usually pulled out for unserious arguments. Not in this case. There are innocent victims here. People were skipped over. To ask those people to wait patiently and continue to abide by the rules while we assimilate and legalize the 'undocumented' is both indefensible and hypocritical.

This is a bad bill. They should scrap it and start from scratch. Democrats, naturally, portray this bill as compassionate. It is, but the compassion is directed toward the wrong people. Republicans should oppose this bill, but they are unable to defend  the high ground even when they own it. The media has displayed their usual deplorable lack of curiosity about the ethical ramifications of political acts.

This isn’t even a close call. Prospective legal immigrants are the harmed parties and any reform should consider them first. The sheer numbers of illegal immigrants may someday require us to make accommodations and perhaps embrace some broad-based legalization. The sensible response, however, should reflect the interests of the country at large, not the parochial interests of the lawbreakers. But… first things first. No amount of tinkering can fix this bill. The House shouldn’t act. If the Senate is serious about immigration reform, they should start over.