The Senate compromise measure on Immigration reform now appears doomed, as does immigration reform legislation for this year, after a key vote to block the myriad of amendments seeking to undermine the compromise measure attracted only 38 of the 60 votes needed. As expected, there is a great deal of finger pointing going on currently. In these situations, it is more helpful to examine what the politicians did and are doing, rather than listen to what they say publicly. The GOP accuses the Democrats of not wanting the bill to go forward.
“It’s not gone forward because there’s a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
However, the actual vote on the critical procedural step blocking amendments went along party lines. Democrats voted in favor and GOP members of the Senate voted against. Rhetoric aside, had the GOP majority truly wanted the compromise measure to go forward in the form agreed, it is quite clear that it would have done so. They hold the majority and there were more than enough Democrats supporting the procedural motion to block amendments to make up the 60 votes needed. The more probable explanation is that the GOP leadership obtained the agreement of its members with the promise that they would be able to weaken and undermine the compromise measure through amendments prior to passage. Alternatively, GOP Senators fraudulently indicated their support for the compromise while al the while intending to undermine the compromise with amendments. Perhaps if Bill Frist had the clout that Tom "the Hammer" Delay previously had in the House, the Senate GOP members would have been intimidated and disciplined to stay in line with the compromise accord. Politically, it would have been better in an election year for the Senate members to pass the compromise measure without amendments and then see it scuttled in the Conference Committee, because the Senate bill differs so much from the House measure.
The tragedy in this whole episode/saga is that a truly serious issue, deserving of serious thought and action, has been trivialized by a "Swift Boat" style jingoistic smear campaign. Provoked in large measure by bigotry and pseudo patriotic attitudes, these critics have labeled any pragmatic attempt to humanely address the very real problem of undocumented aliens who already live in this country [millions of them]. Their "law & order" strategy is to build a large double or triple fence across the US-Mexican border [note that no similar proposal has been put forward for the US -Canadian border] and deport all undocumented aliens immediately. Their talisman phrase is that there must be no "amnesty." Any proposal to legalize the status of these aliens is labeled "amnesty" and is therefore deemed unacceptable. They forget or ignore the fact that this "Law & Order" approach has failed miserably over the past two decades while the problem has worsened.
Whether granting amnesty is necessarily a bad thing could be debated. What they call "amnesty" is, in fact, done daily through prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system, and in granting asylum or making deportation prosecution decisions in the immigration system as well. But the staunch "patriotic" opponents of immigration reform shun civil and reasoned debate. In addition, there is a logical inconsistency in their - "they broke our laws, they must be punished" - approach to the problem. It is a flaw that opponents should be very careful to consider. In the criminal prosecution system, an accused is usually offered leniency for cooperation with authorities in finding and convicting other lawbreakers. Law enforcement usually seeks to gain as much useful information as possible from each case they prosecute. Thus, if the "prosecution" model were used, each undocumented alien could be offered leniency in exchange for identifying the US employer who employed him or her. The government would be obliged to prosecute the employer companies, if for no reason other than efficiency. If you prosecute one alien, you yield results of only one case solved. If you prosecute and convict an employer, the chances are that you will yield multiple convictions and prevent many future violations.
As long as there are employers who are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented aliens, there will be incentives for aliens to enter this country illegally to find such work. Businesses that depend upon cheap labor for their profitability, and in some instances their survival, do not want the borders closed or the workers deported. Nor do these companies want to pay legally required minimum wages for the labor. Their solution is to illegally hire undocumented workers at wages well below the minimum required by law, workers who will never go to the authorities to complain of mistreatment. These companies are an important part of the GOP base, and find themselves in direct conflict with the "law & order" groups that oppose anything they call "amnesty." More fearful of these voting blocs than concerned about finding a practical, humane and feasible solution to the problem, Congressional representatives run for the cover of slogans in an election year.
Democrats have similar pressures, but appear to have been willing to stand by the compromise to which they publicly agreed. There may be some merit to the argument that Democrats would rather see only the GOP House Bill that criminalizes any activities that give aid and suppport, such as shelter, food and medical assistance, to undocumented aliens. That measure is so heinous that it has sparked the protest by hundreds of thousands of latinos and those who support humane treatment of undocumented aliens. It is an embarrasment to Congress and the Nation, and leaving it in the laps of GOP Representatives seeking re-election makes sense. Democrats did not have to make the effort to help the GOP through the Senate compromise. But they did so, and it is simply inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of the compromise measure.
As things now stand, the public is left in the lurch with a problem that requires courage and action from Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment