I've had mixed emotions about immigration as an issue for some time now, but there are reasons to rejoice the death of the latest immigration bill (assuming predictions of its doom prove accurate).

The split amongst conservatives has never been hotter. Last week the National Review even dared the Wall Street Journal editorial board to a series of debates, based on the Journal's position that seems at times almost pro-illegal immigration.

Sure, business is important, but at times the Journal has sounded like any other race-baiting liberal group, who simply whitewash all opponents as racists or xenophobes. At HotAir.com, Michelle Malkin has posted excerpts of a video from a Journal board strategy session, in which they claim that illegal-immigration opponents on the right "foam at the mouth" and even accuse them of opposing legal immigration (this is, in my opinion, beyond the pale and without merit).

The complaints of anti-amnesty conservatives by Dan Henninger, one of my otherwise favorite WSJ authors, is on the immigration topic not just misguided but bizarrely so. Henninger wrote today:

[Illegal-immigration opponents] They want the borders secured, the laws obeyed, English spoken, taxes paid, costs raised on employers of illegal workers, welfare payments suppressed, enclaved Spanish neighborhoods broken up and a very, very long path to citizenship.
Yeah. That's right. And what's wrong with that? Henninger appears to be promoting the nutty position that it's just fine and dandy that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes or obey laws or learn English all they while gladly taking the federal and state benefits that legal citizens and taxpayers are providing. Is Henninger on drugs?

Ironically, however, the board has run columns from authors whose immigration positions mirror that of the National Review, so one can't accuse the Journal board of being unfair I guess.

For example, Ed Meese, former Reagan-era attorney general, notes that the proposed immigration bill forces the Department of Homeland Security to "issue a probationary visa within one business day of the application [of probationary Z-visas], unless it discovers a reason for disqualification within that 24-hour period."

Under the proposal, issuing a probationary Z visa takes precedence over applying the regular immigration laws that govern illegal entry and presence, so that applicants could not be deported or subjected to other enforcement procedures -- even if they had been apprehended before the legislation is enacted. Thus millions of illegal aliens would quickly be allowed to remain in the U.S. with legal status.

Our security system would be overwhelmed. The task of carefully checking each applicant within one business day would be virtually impossible. If government agencies could find no basis for denying the visa application of 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta six months after he flew into the North Tower in New York City, DHS is unlikely to uncover many bad actors within a 24-hour time limit.

Moreover, the minimal documentation needed to support a probationary visa application is immediately susceptible to fraud. The extensive industry that now provides illegal aliens with false Social Security cards and other fraudulent documents will shift into high gear, producing the far less secure papers acceptable as "proof" under this proposal. Terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals will eagerly -- and easily -- exploit a security system that will be inundated by millions of applications demanding virtually immediate clearance.
That's crazy! Does anyone in their right mind trust the government to make an effective decision regarding any application in 24 hours?

Immigration lawyer Martin Lawler (ironic last name, no?) explains that the federal governments' proposed point system (out of 100 points, but oddly with no definition of how many points a person requires to immigrate) gives points based on categories such as employment, education, English/civics and family ties.

Showing how ridiculous is this system Lawler notes that actor Michael J. Fox, journalist Peter Jennings and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would have had low and likely disqualifying scores of 37, 44 and 40, respectively. (Having said that I must say one could have picked better representatives to argue their point before conservatives than choosing two left-wingers and one sometimes moderate.)

The point being, however, is that there are simply too many reasons to oppose this bill, even if you're more inclined towards the WSJ position.

The best argument overall on immigration came from columnist Peggy Noonan (again, ironically Noonan is WSJ staff), who analogized immigration to consuming a huge meal:

The past quarter-century an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants has crossed our borders. The flood is so great that no one--no one--can see or fully imagine all the many implications, all the country-changing facts of it. No one knows exactly what uncontrolled immigration is doing and will do to our country.

So what should we do?

We should stop, slow down and absorb. We should sit and settle. We should do what you do after eating an eight-course meal. We should digest what we've eaten.

We should close our borders. We should do whatever it takes to close them tight and solid. Will that take the Army? Then send the Army. Does it mean building a wall? Then build a wall, but the wall must have doors, which can be opened a little or a lot down the road once we know where we are. Should all legal immigration stop? No. We should make a list of what our nation needs, such as engineers and nurses, and then admit a lot of engineers and nurses. We should take in what we need to survive and flourish.

As we end illegal immigration, we should set ourselves to the Americanization of the immigrants we have. They haven't only joined a place of riches, it's a place of meaning. We must teach them what it is they've joined and why it is good and what is expected of them and what is owed. We stopped Americanizing ourselves 40 years ago. We've got to start telling the story of our country again.
That a girl, Peggy. Stop eating before you burst -- now that's sound advice.

Labels: amnesty, border, gluttony, immigration

Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.
-- Thomas Sewell

Labels: amnesty, border, immigration