As if he doesn’t have enough on his plate, with two wars, health care reform and 10 percent unemployment, President Obama has signaled he’ll take on immigration reform next year.
In an election year.
Hey, good luck with that.
Few issues are as polarizing and emotional as immigration. But should Democrats, who must figure they’re going to take it on the chin in 2010 anyway, wish to push forward with the controversial issue, a University of Denver panel has teed it up nicely for them.
The diverse panel last week released an effective blueprint for what bipartisan legislation might look like.
“The left and the right fringe won’t like” the plan, said panel member Polly Baca, a former Democratic state lawmaker. “But policy isn’t made from an extreme point of view.”
The panel — which also included Kay Norton, president of the University of Northern Colorado (and one-time lawyer for Swift, the Greeley meat-packing company raided by feds in 2006), beer titan Pete Coors, and Del Hock, retired CEO and chairman of Public Service Company of Colorado — ultimately came up with 25 recommendations for solving an issue the country has debated for more than 20 years.
Among the most notable:
• Continue efforts to strengthen border security.
• Require all employers to use E-Verify, or a similar program for checking employment eligibility, and penalize those who don’t.
• Make some level of English language proficiency a requirement for obtaining permanent residency or citizenship.
• Increase the number of employment-based visas and create seasonal employment visas.
• And, perhaps most controversially, establish an employment ID card for everyone — immigrants and 80-year-old natives alike — to be used by all employers, along with E-Verify, to determine employment eligibility. And once that is done, grant a one-time amnesty for those here illegally.
Immigration reform doesn’t work without a secure ID card, yet last time that’s where it all fell apart.
In 1986, Congress passed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. The measure, signed by President Reagan, was supposed to curtail future illegal immigration by cracking down on employers who hired undocumented workers.
Yet the House stripped from the bill a provision calling for the employment card. Even though it would have been used only when seeking work, it quickly became known as a national ID card. Some on the right called it “the mark of Cain,” while some on the left called it a slippery slope to Nazi Germany.
The reform ultimately failed because employers had no way — and still have no way — of knowing for sure if a potential hire was legal. “If you have that [card] and E-Verify, you can weed out people — people who are here illegally — at a high degree of confidence,” said James Griesemer, DU professor and chair of the panel.
Much of what the panel came up with makes sense. The border needs to be more secure. Immigrants need to learn to speak English. And employers, who shouldn’t have to play immigration cop, need a secure and reliable system to weed out legal from illegal when hiring.
But even panel members concede that reaching a consensus wasn’t easy. “It’s not easy to give a little bit on the things that matter here,” Baca said, holding her hand over her heart. “But you need to.”
And therein lies the problem. Congress also would need to reach a consensus, and I just don’t see that happening in 2010. Or anytime soon.
If Congress couldn’t pass a secure ID card in 1986, how can it pass reform in today’s hyper-polarized world, where some Americans think even the president himself is an illegal immigrant?
Dan Haley can be reached at dhaley@denverpost.com.
