This is a reprint of my column which ran in Wednesday's edition of the Potomac News. 

Summary: I'm not totally opposed to Bush's plan, and I think a good plan could come from it, but as written it needs work. It's better than either the House or Senate bills, but in conference a mix of House and Bush proposals would make a bill that would be tolerated by all (the senate bill is hopeless, but I don't deal with that here.

Critically ThinkingBy Charles Reichley

May 17, 2006

Columnist, Potomac New

On Monday night, President Bush urged Congress to pass a "comprehensive" immigration reform bill. In a prime-time speech, he delivered a five-point plan to solve the immigration crisis. In many respects his plan matched the one I outlined two weeks ago in principle, if not in specifics. But it falls short in several aspects. On the whole, though, I believe it is a good start.

Bush started with an emphasis on border security which is a new and welcome addition to his plan. Americans overwhelmingly want our borders secured. The combination of new agents, a wall near cities and population centers, and technical surveillance is a good step forward. Bush also proposes partnerships with state and local officials near the borders, and to end the process of "catch-and-release" by building more detention centers. And he called for National Guard troops to temporarily help secure the border while we train 6,000 new border control agents.

I would like to see more guard troops initially. Just as a day of strict speeding enforcement can slow down traffic for days after, a strong initial showing could deter others from crossing, even after many of the troops were removed. I also want this part of the proposal to be implemented first – we’ve been burned before with promises of security that never materialized.

Some are upset that Bush won’t build a wall over the entire border. They site Israel’s wall as an example of an affordable solution that stops most intruders. However, I dislike the idea of walling in our country. I’m happy to give Bush’s plan a chance to succeed – we can always add more fences later, but once we build the wall we are stuck with it.

Bush clarified his temporary worker program, emphasizing that "temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay". That is critical – temporary workers should NOT be allowed to overstay their visas.

He largely gave employers of illegal immigrants a pass, noting that current documentation is easy to forge, which makes it hard for companies to verify immigrant’s status. However, too many companies don’t even TRY to verify the status of employees. I want more money for enforcement, paid for by large fines on offending companies. The key to stopping illegal immigration is to remove the demand.

He proposed a new tamper-resistant immigrant id. Once that is in place companies will have no excuse for hiring illegal workers.

Bush’s speech also noted that neither mass deportation nor amnesty for all the current illegal immigrants are workable solutions, and he wanted to find "a rational middle ground", much like my "commonsense, conservative approach". The President’s middle ground "recognizes there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record."

This pool of illegal immigrants would have to "pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years." They would go the back of the line, and wouldn’t be guaranteed citizenship.

The goal is to find those who are in that first group I mentioned two weeks ago, those who want to be Americans. But I’m not convinced that "years in country" is a good way to find these immigrants, and I have real fears that this provision will be implemented in a way that opens the doors for too many people, and won’t keep out the "third group" of subversives looking to take back land for Mexico. We need more money to hire enough screeners to do this critical job correctly and promptly.

I previously argued these people should have to leave the country. But Bush made a compelling argument: uprooting families that have been here for years, when we will eventually make them citizens, is counterproductive. It isn’t fair to let them stay, but it is practical, and life isn’t always fair.

Bush finished with what sounded like an argument to make English our official language. In a previous column I examined the difficulty of assimilating people into our culture if they don’t know English. Bush seems to get that, saying we are bound together in part by the "ability to speak and write the English language". He also notes that English is "the key to unlocking the opportunity of America". On that, I am in complete agreement.

The President’s plan is a good basis for compromise between the House-passed bill, and the bills the Senate is now debating. Nobody’s going to get everything they want, but Bush’s proposal has something for everybody.

© 2006 Media General. Part of the GatewayVA Network.
Terms & Conditions