Immigration reform went down in flames in 2007 because, at least partly, backers couldn’t convince Americans that their government was serious about shutting down illegal border crossings.
Unfortunately, not much has changed on that score.
The Obama administration said last week that it would push for reform next year, making good on candidate Barack Obama’s pledge. We were glad to hear it. Yet it won’t have much of a chance unless Americans are convinced the border is secure.
Furthermore, the “tough but fair” path that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke of recently has to be that, and not something that critics can legitimately call amnesty by another name.
This is a country of immigrants, but it also is a country of laws. At a time when unemployment is hovering above 10 percent, we should not easily confer legal status on 12 million illegal immigrants who broke the law to get here.
In seeking legal status, Napolitano said illegal immigrants should register with the government, pay taxes, pay a fine, undergo a criminal background check and learn English.
The details of how such requirements are constructed and to whom they will apply will be big factors in the debate.
How long will undocumented people have to have been in the U.S. to qualify? The last thing you want is for this plan to trigger a mass influx across the border.
How much of a fine are we talking about? While a large fine may satisfy the desire to see people punished for coming here illegally, is it fair to ask people who are likely at the low end of the wage scale to ante up significant amounts? Is it feasible?
Should a history of employment be a requirement? People who have had jobs for years and are paying into the system have a track record of contribution.
The border security element also must be a large part of the discussion. Napolitano contends security is tougher than it ever has been, and illegal crossings are vastly decreased.
But she also admits it has to do with our recession and diminished employment opportunities for immigrants. The distinction has to be made very clearly and convincingly.
Jobs always have been a big part of the illegal immigration equation. Prior administrations have been willing to look the other way so that businesses could tap cheap labor.
Napolitano spoke about tougher employer enforcement, and that must be a large part of the answer. Reform has to include a broad requirement that an improved E-Verify system be used to ensure legal status of employees. The Internet-based system for checking statuses has been criticized as flawed, but efforts are under way to improve it and enable it to use biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints and eye scans.
Immigration reform promises to be a knock-down, drag-out fight, especially in an election year, but it’s one that will be fought on predictable grounds.
We agree with Napolitano that the status quo is “simply unacceptable.” The real work will be in convincing lawmakers and the broader American public that the reforms will make for a better reality.
