There is a surefire way of telling who is winning the debate over illegal immigration.
Count the number of times the word “amnesty” is used. If that word has been replaced with phrases like “earned legalization” or “normalization” or “fair treatment,” the opponents of illegal immigration are losing the battle.
Monday, when President Bush was addressing the issue of immigration in Yuma, Ariz., predictably there was a lot of dancing around the use of the word “amnesty.” The president for some time now only uses that word to declare that he is against it.
It would be much more truthful to say that he favors amnesty but prefers to call it other names, like “comprehensive reform.”
Press accounts of his Arizona visit proclaimed that he has devised a much more conservative approach to the topic. This claim cannot be squared with the fact that one of the people applauding his new approach is Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. That is the same Sen. Kennedy who in 1965 claimed the immigration act of that year wouldn’t have any important impact on the number or ethnic mix of immigrants entering the country. That assertion was, even by Kennedy standards, a spectacular whopper.
The best that can be said of the president’s latest proposal is that it shows some imagination. He has toughened his stance on border enforcement. He has also dropped the last year’s proposal to simply let 12 million or so illegal immigrants line up for a guest-worker program. Instead, the White House is talking about issuing what would be called Z visas to those who are here illegally. These visas are a very thinly disguised mechanism that would impose a modest cost but allow everyone who is here illegally to stay put for three years. At the end of that time, they would have to pay $3,500 to renew the visa and this renewal process could go on forever. Put another way, the cost of illegal admission to the country would work out to about $1,000 per year.
Considering that smugglers charge the new clients many times that amount, the financial burden should be quite bearable. The Z visa is amnesty by another name.
The plan being circulated by the White House contains some seemingly tough language. Any illegal immigrant who wanted to achieve permanent status would have to return to his or her home country, apply through the embassy for re-entry and pay a $10,000 fine. Sounds rough, but is it?
If one can stay in this country and achieve legal status by paying a little more than $1,000 a year, why would anyone want, or more importantly need, permanent status and a green card?
The president’s plan has already been greeted with protests by those who have historically supported open borders. They don’t like the idea that anyone who is here illegally should have to pay anybody anything. That view isn’t likely to change.
What is not so clear is whether most American citizens, who oppose amnesty, can be fooled by a bill that grants amnesty by another name.
Bush’s speech Monday is part of an ongoing shell game. The object of that game is to convince the public that there can be a compromise between those who favor tough enforcement and those who prefer open borders.
Common sense suggests such a compromise is impossible. Opponents of illegal immigration cannot support a bill that includes “amnesty” by any name. Supporters of open borders cannot imagine a bill that doesn’t somehow include it.
Sad to say, but tough talk about $10,000 fines and Z visas doesn’t do a thing to bring agreement on illegal immigration any closer.
The president is still a long way away from the most conservative wing of his party. That wing favors enforcement, the end to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, much stiffer employer penalties, and the passage of time before any guest-worker program could be put in place.
People in this camp know that an immigration bill will be worthy of passage only if and when Edward Kennedy roundly condemns it.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
