A Senate bill that the president prefers would allow a majority of illegal immigrants to take a path to permanent residency and citizenship after paying fines, fees and back taxes and learning English. The harsh House bill emphasizes enforcement and offers no provision for illegal immigrants or future guest workers - Clarence Page, columnist - "Make-believe policy on immigration"I always enjoy it when these two sides of the illegal immigration issue are put out there. You will always know on which side of the argument the author stands. Clarence wants "comprehensive" immigration reform; not the "harsh House bill."
"Comprehensive" reform allows for all sorts of hurry up and get it out the door deals chock full of contradictory language, which pretty much negates any good it may provide. I do realize that pols will be pols and that the "harsh House" route can contain the same type of legalize, but at least in smaller pieces it should be easier to hold the gang to account. But, "people power" as posted by Morning Coffee this a.m. seems more possible with less smoke and mirrors involved.
The idea of any government doing anything in a "comprehensive" manner, with a one-size fits all prescription strikes me as a bit far fetched. Whereas, a "harsh" issue by issue, step by step approach should at least allow more effective results.
Question: would the recent "comprehensive" reform, were it now enacted resolve the problem? I don't think so, as the media for one would go to sleep on this issue and would only revisit it a short few years from now when it became apparent that we had another 10+ million illegal entrants to contend with again. We've been here before and the pols were all set to deal with it as they had in the past; they're a lazy, self-absorbed, full of sh*t bunch when you get right down to it.
As per the course, many in support of the "comprehensive" angle want the argument to be that the House bill is bad, racist, xenophobic, pro evil big business, etc. They ask thinks like; what about the poor low wage earner or the criminally low minimum wage?
According to Page we all enjoy the advantages of the "Make-believe" immigration policy:
If the jobs paid more, more Americans probably would take them. But that would run the risk of reducing profits for employers or raising prices for consumers. Rather than risk a price increase for lettuce, many Americans prefer to look the other way. The result is what I call a make-believe immigration policy of laws that few people feel bound to respect.However, Page doesn't really know what the "advantageous" really would be willing to endure in the name of real immigration legislation. We're likely already paying via taxes, for farm subsidies on that lettuce so maybe it would get even cheaper if it was imported (which it bloody likely already is).
Ultimately, Page's stance is against what the Coalition Against Illegal Immigration is all about. So when he says "the result is what I call a make-believe immigration policiy of laws that few people feel bound to respect," I get the distinct impression that he really hasn't been listening or reading very well.
We're sick and tired of "make-believe immigration policy...that few people feel bound to respect!"
Op/ed piece here
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**
