Can someone please explain to me the vital importance of what’s referred to as “comprehensive immigration reform” as opposed to individual bills, debated individually, that enacted into law policies that had the support of a consensus of Americans? Is it that omnibus bills allow legislators reasonable deniability as well as providing the possibility of hiding provisions that a consensus of Americans oppose within a labyrinthine “comprehensive” bill?
Well, at least part of the argument is a practical one that deal with what it takes to get an issue like this through Congress and to the President’s desk. As is often the case, it is arguably easier to pass a big bill filled with pieces that different coalitions can support rather than a series of smaller ones that can become the singular focus of reform opponents.
The other argument would be that the immigration “problem” is a multi-faceted one that can’t really be dealt with piecemeal. Yea, there are probably some issues that could get through Congress easily on their own, but most of them are things that really would not solve the real problems that exist under the broad category of “immigration.” These include not just “border security,” whatever that means, but also a legal immigration system that is absurdly bureaucratic and slow, the fact that there is a demonstrably need for some kind of guest worker program in the technology field and, of course, in agriculture, and the issues that surround the 10-12 million people living here illegally, many of whom have children that are in fact American citizens by virtue of having been born here.
In the end, though, I don’t think the problems with immigration reform right now have anything to do with the size of the bill. It has to do with the fact that there is a substantial number of Republicans in Congress who are listening to a base that don’t want Congress to do anything at all about this issue.
The polls don’t bear that out, Doug. There’s a majority of Republicans and Democrats both who are in agreement and want reform in this area. I think the problem is more that the most highly motivated in both parties which includes the big donors are radicals, on the extreme and opposing ends.
As to the guest worker issue, I’ve repeated my proposals on this area many times. The facts don’t support the idea that we need a lot of technology guest workers but I’m open to the possibility. My proposal would be a central clearing house for jobs for which H1-B visas are being sought and employers being required to hire domestic applicants who satisfy the requirements.
What’s actually going on with the H1-B visas is that large employers are trying to push down wages. IMO that’s not a legitimate reason to import guest workers.
I think both Dave and Doug’s observations concerning the relative ease in passing broad legislation are true. But it doesn’t make them good or even acceptable results.
The ACA is an excellent example. I presume we could all agree that portability and pre-existing conditions coverage were holes in the system in need of redress. We got something comprehensive that is a complete mess. (How many of the exchanges have now folded? How many have signed up? How are premium increases doing? ).
From a purely economic point of view, balancing the now entrenched cost structures and pricing practices for products and services offered to tens and tens of millions of consumers vs the depressing effects of immigration policy on wages is a problem I wouldn’t want to take on. But I would submit that an issue by issue treatment would result in better public policy than something “comprehensive.” Of course I would be hallucinating to think that will happen.
And Doug, your swipe at corporate wing Republicans is no doubt true, but should be balanced by the observation that Democrats are just importing votes and sacrificing their supposed constituents for the benefit of tech and agribusiness. Talk about income inequality…….
Perhaps in polls of Republicans generally, but the most vocal voices inside the Republican Party, and the group that seems to tend to be the most activist during primary season comes from the group I spoke. Were it not the case, then we would not have seen the Republican House basically do nothing on this issue notwithstanding the fact that both the Chamber of Commerce and religious groups were calling on them to put forward some kind of reform package. The anti-immigration group I speak of may not be the majority in the GOP, but they are among the loudest, and they’ve got many Republicans running away from this issue as fast as they possibly can.
Look at what happened to Rick Perry when he criticized Mitt Romney’s idiotic “self-deportation” argument back in the 2012 campaign.
I thought the buzz phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” came about as a pejorative for conservatives, based on the fact that the 80’s “comprehensive reform” led to betrayal of the border enforcement provisions that were supposed to happen.
The supposed “anti immigration” rhetoric is usually centered on one basic concern — border enforcement. If this one issue were realistically addressed, with real and completed physical deterrents in place (that have long been promised), with border patrol’s hands not being tied to enforce border intrusions, and the Bush Trafficking Victims Protection laws being amended to prevent exploitation of allowing more illegal immigrants from crossing over and staying in the U.S., you would have far less contentious considerations about other immigration reforms.
Comprehensive “anything,” though, usually provides an over-abundance of bureaucratic cover, camouflage and confusion, imbuing said legislation with undesirable mutations of what was to be accomplished. Drew brought up the ACA, which is a prime example of all the unexpected consequences that such a comprehensive approach imposes on the good intentions meant to rectify specific problems.
I think is of vital importance to people who place a high priority on legalizing the illegal aliens because they think the only way legalization will pass Congress is if it is tied to enforcement measures.
People who care mainly about enforcing the law don’t think is important and suspect backers of comprehensive legislation only care about increasing immigration and have little interest in enforcing the law.