John McCain dismisses critics of the immigration bill by saying that what we have today is a “de facto amnesty.” He’s right. The status quo reflects Washington’s decades-long unwillingness to enforce the immigration laws. It is that track record that has made the public justifiably skeptical about politicians’ latest round of promises about border and workplace enforcement. According to a Rasmussen poll taken earlier this week, by a three to one margin voters think that the government should enforce its current laws before considering new ones.
The top immigration priorities for voters are to improve border security and reduce illegal immigration. Harry Reid’s priority, on the other hand, is to “bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows.” The bill he is backing provides legalization now and promises of conservative enforcement measures and green-card reforms later. As Senator John Cornyn has explained, rather than discourage future waves of illegal immigration as advertised, this amnesty scheme can be expected to serve “as a powerful magnet” that will not deter illegal aliens anticipating the next call to bring lawbreakers “out of the shadows.” No wonder only 16 percent of voters in the Rasmussen poll believe that this bill would curb illegal immigration — and only 23 percent favor the bill.
Senator Jeff Sessions has released
a list of 20 loopholes in the “comprehensive” reform bill that comprehensively refutes the claims that we can expect effective enforcement, avoid granting legal status to serial lawbreakers, prevent fraud, or end chain migration. Perhaps the most important of these loopholes is that illegal aliens will receive legal status and “probationary benefits” without having to wait for the much-touted “enforcement triggers.”
Supporters of the bill have consistently misrepresented this feature of the bill. Dozens of conservatives signed
an oped defending the bill. It asserts: “[T]he package is built around a set of enforcement benchmarks that must be met before a single guest worker is hired or illegal immigrant legalized.” Fine conservatives these signatories may be, but they are not careful readers of legislation. If this bill is passed, every city in America will become a sanctuary city: Illegal immigrants will be considered presumptively eligible for legal status.
The bill’s weaknesses — on the merits, and in public opinion — have not kept the Senate’s compromise coalition from holding together. That coalition has so far fought off amendments from both the Right and the Left. Its principal tactic has been to offer watered-down versions of those amendments to provide cover for nervous senators. So, for example, Senator John Cornyn’s amendment to deny legal status to certain convicted felons, sex offenders, violent gang members, and members of terrorist organizations was defeated 46-51 after senators passed a far weaker alternative to it offered by Ted Kennedy. Liberal amendments that threaten the coalition will probably be dealt with similarly.
An amendment strategy can help to highlight the bill’s glaring flaws, but it is unlikely to derail the bill. To do that, senators are just going to have to be willing to do the right thing — which in this case would also be the popular thing.
