Another Perspective On Immigration Reform

While the ongoing immigration debate may well expose great fissures within our society - gaps between Left, Right, or otherwise, what it most exposes are the fractures in our Federal Government that are going to require far more than an acceptable immigration package to mend, provided there remains the ability and will to ever mend those institutional fractures at all.

Regardless of your feelings on illegal immigration, there's no other way to explain a Federal Government having allowed itself to be taken hostage by a group of individuals genuinely and identifiably operating outside of the law, unless that government (lawmaking body) previously opted to abandon the fundamental principle of the rule of law. In some ways, it really is as simple as that. And it holds true for our legislative, judicial and executive branches. This is a systemic problem. It is not the work of any one man, party, or group.

I've already vented enough anger at the pending immigration bill. I'm reserving the rest, at least for today, as it's required elsewhere in my world right now. You can check a few reax below. But my not angry thoughts on this at this minute? It isn't an act, so much as it is a symptom.

It's a symptom of a large government that has by and large abandoned its job description as dictated by the Constitution - basically to protect and defend America. Today it's job is to self-perpetuate, more than anything else. It sees things only in the context of itself: who will support us, who won't? It sees America as fractious groups of people, or dollars, as those are things they can count - things, as opposed to principles, which they have learned to count on when making decisions and law.

The people behind this bill, including Bush, aren't malevolent. A big part of the problem is, they don't want to harm, or be perceived to be harming anyone, including illegal immigrants who may ultimately one day vote. Doing perceived harm to people isn't how a government secures support and votes. Unfortunately, that means principle be damned, because if government had lived up to its supposed guiding principles after any previous amnesty or immigration reform, we wouldn't be where we are today.

And that, for me today, is the core of the problem. We the people no longer trust government to look to principle for its guiding light. Instead, they look to the people in the form of all too vocal lobbies with representing this or that mass of people or dollars as their only mission. That is not the Representative form of government the Constitution had in mind.

It's an unfortunate view of the situation. It means, if the people are correct, then no reform or legislation is going to place protecting Constitutionally defined principles as foremost in its view. That simply isn't what they see as their pathway to the greatest number of votes. If we do not seriously start considering term limits, or another path to put a stop to careerist politicians some are starting to see as political dynasties, we the people can only expect to see more and more legislation designed first and foremost to serve the government, the people and Constitutional principles be damned.

Instapundit:

More than hostility to illegal immigrants, I think a lot of the backlash is driven by the sense that Washington insiders don't really value what ordinary law-abiding people do by way of living their lives and, you know, abiding by the law.

Michelle Malkin, clearly and understandably steamed:

Mark Steyn: who doesn't even talk, American, but is a citizen, I know - and has a point:

Instead of attempting to draw the undocumented out of the shadows, it might be fairer to allow the rest of us to "live in the shadows", too. My suggestion is that, on the day this bill comes into effect, all 300 million US citizens and legal residents should apply for a Z visa.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Very good post in all respects. Thank you.

[Fred Beloit]

I wonder if jj and yeswanker are illegal immigrants. (Not the best segue I have ever come up with, but this needs saying, if Dan will permit.) They don't seem to understand a very simple idea. If I pour a gallon of bleach into, say, Lake Ontario, there is one part per lake volume in it. Now if I pour another gallon in I have increased the bleach content of the water by 100%, have I not. The question is, however, how much have I changed the chemical properties of Lake Ontario's water, not how much have I increased the bleach content. By that standard one gallon is almost meaningless chemically and completely meaningless in practical terms. That they cannot grasp this simple idea must mean they have been educated abroad, where the rightness or correctness of a concept depends on how one FEELS about it.

[seekeronos]

I think we would do well to call another Constitutional Convention, plug term limits and an anti-nepotism clause into the Constitution to prevent dynasties and long multi-term Senators and Representatives.

And specifically outlaw all political parties and related political organs; Let every man who wants to be President run on his own merits.

[pa]

Good post, Bill, and it inspires a question: If this legislation is passed, could it be challenged in court on Constitutional grounds or other legal points? For one thing, it doesn't afford equal protection/standing in the law. For example, illegals would be exempt from paying back taxes -- a benefit that most citizens would probably like to have for themselves, too, but would be severely punished for trying. The government is using the excuse that it would be too difficult to figure out who owes what, but surely they shouldn't be able to hide behind their double incompetence in allowing the problem to get so enormously out of control and their inability to manage tax paperwork and hold employers accountable -- those employers certainly know what they paid people, even if off the books, and can produce the necessary data. (If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then incompetence or willful refusal to have enforced the law for some decades should be no excuse either.)

As details about last year's version came to light, many shocking provisions were revealed. For example, farm workers were to be given protections (re termination and pay rates) that are not granted to any American citizens working in the same jobs, even when working for the same employer. Another provision gave illegals much better Social Security rights than citizens (e.g., benefits would be calculated to include years when they worked here illegally but did not pay into the system, and they would have the right to take their SS benefits as a lump sum payout and skip back home to Mexico). I suspect that this new bill likewise includes innumerable privileges and protections that are denied to American citizens, perhaps many of the very same items that we found so outrageous last time. If so, could such unfair and unequal treatment be challenged on Constitutional grounds?

Surely the provision that requires applications to be approved automatically if no adverse factors are discovered within 24 hours of submission is unrealistic beyond belief. So if hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of illegals submit paperwork on the first day, bureaucrats are seriously expected to investigate every single one of those applications within 24 hours? And if they don't, every one of these unreviewed applications is automatically approved? Why even pretend to bother? How is a procedure that is so guaranteed to fail ever going to identify the "bad guys" who are supposed to be screened out -- the proclaimed objective of getting all the decent illegals out of the shadows and into the light so the indecent ones can be spotted more easily? Clearly, every one of these applications is going to be approved automatically. Could this provision be challenged in court successfully? I'm sure that the stupidity of a piece of legislation is not in itself illegal, but surely a lawyer could define the problem in effective legal terms better than I.

It seems especially hard on all us ordinary folk who would be discriminated against by these new laws, when it is so clear that government created this problem in the first place by not enforcing existing laws and by not fulfilling its Constitutional duties to (1) protect our borders and (2) put the interests of American citizens first. We could use some protections against the incompetence of government and our masters. I'm sure government can't be sued for failing to do its job, but can't it be held accountable in court for incompetent legislation that seeks to paper over its past failings, especially in ways that put its citizens at a disadvantage? (And by "accountable" I mean overturning the legislation in court, not just holding them accountable at the ballot box, a threat that means nothing to protected incumbents.)

I expect that you can list many other examples that might warrant a challenge in court, especially as careful study of its specific provisions is done over the coming days. Could a legal case be built that would lead to this legislation, or parts of it at least, being overturned by a court, preferably the Supreme Court?

Related thought: Everyone seems all worked up about the growing number of Hispanics and their power as a voting block, with supporters of this legislation claiming that we have to cater to this important electorate to get their votes. Well exactly how did they get to be such a big percentage of the population to begin with? Let me take a wild guess: failure to enforce the laws in the first place. Politicians willfully and negligently brought this on us, but we the citizens are going to pay a very high price for it. Not fair at all!

[Robert]

I absolutely love watching the lightbulb go on above Right-wingers heads.
"You mean, Conservatism and the Republican Party don't care about the common man and are just siding with big business?"

Welcome to America kids. We've been waiting for you to figure it out.

What to do about it?
Get rid of this one-and-a-half party system. Trash it, and never let these lowlifes on the national stage ever again.

[Fred Beloit]

Hey, Robert, the Democrat party that the Libs have elected are supporting the new war funding legislation without restrictions in spite of folks like you with their heads in the sand. Do you know why? It is because this is what the American people wanted. So much for the polls you folks keep talking about.