The full Senate debate on illegal immigration is still ahead of us, but the arguments that will be presented are already well-worn.
On Monday, during discussion on a procedural matter, there was a parade of Senate speakers who earnestly repeated the same comment: “We can’t deport 12 million people.” Most went on to say that the only sensible option for the country is to offer these millions “a path to citizenship.”
It must be admitted that this simple argument can’t be answered with one equally simple. Opponents of illegal immigration will have to do much better in the coming weeks to make the point that there are policy options other than the legalization of 12 million illegal immigrants. One of these is “attrition through enforcement.” That phrase is likely to become quite familiar in the coming days. Illegal immigration opponents argue that better border security, internal enforcement of existing laws and stiffer employer sanctions could ultimately encourage millions of illegal immigrants to voluntarily return to their home countries. Last year, the U.S. deported about 250,000 people. It is argued that if this number were tripled, there would be a ripple effect that would not only decrease the number of people trying to get to this country, but also reduce the number of illegal immigrants already here.
The outcome of the Senate vote may also be significantly influenced by how well opponents can focus the debate on long-term financial costs.
Typically, fiscal impacts are to be considered with every bit of legislation. In the case of the proposed immigration bill, the fiscal note might as well have read, “We don’t know and we don’t care.”
A number of organizations, notably the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), have offered their own estimates of the fiscal impact. The former has come up with a figure of $2.4 trillion, most of it in future benefits from welfare, Medicare and Social Security. The last two of these three programs are close to bankruptcy just from the pressure put upon them by the retirement of baby boomers.
The CIS has estimated the net fiscal impact at about $7,700 per immigrant household per year. In round numbers, that works out to about $35 billion or so every year.
Critics of the 2007 bill have properly focused on a basketful of enforcement promises it contains. The measure’s sponsors claim that if more border security guards are hired and 300-plus miles of fence are built, the border will have been secured. That is transparent nonsense. The border will be secured only when the flood of illegal immigrants has been stopped.
The past failure of the government to enforce all manner of immigration laws has left an indelible impression on millions of Americans. These same citizens will now accept fresh assurances from the same government that it can not only secure the borders, but also institute a massive visa program, do millions of background checks, monitor the movements and work experience of millions, levy fines and sort through affidavits.
The promises made on behalf of this bill strain the imagination, but the biggest whopper so far is the claim that illegal immigrants would have “to go to the back of the line in applying for citizenship.” Tell that to people from dozens of countries who have applied for the right to enter the U.S. Illegal immigrants who would be given immediate legal status can’t be said to be in any line.
They are here, which means they aren’t there. They will already have that which the others in the line can only seek: presence in the United States.
Ultimately, the most powerful argument against this measure may be that the bill focuses too much on the balancing of special interests, on what group gets what benefits, and too little on the question of what is in the national interest, now and many years from now.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
