The speech Bush didn't give

June 29, 2007

U.S. senators who tried for two years to solve this nation's immigration dilemma met a bracing truth Thursday: Too many Americans distrust their comprehensive plan to regulate the flow of foreigners into this country and its economy.

Immigration reform now lies in ruin. That doesn't mean supporters of a broad immigration bill will or ought to surrender. It should, though, force them to admit they didn't do the hard work that would convince Americans to back their efforts to reduce illegal immigration and control the legal immigration our economy needs.

Specifically, they never admitted how spectacularly they and their like-minded predecessors failed to keep their word after Congress rewrote immigration law in 1986. They didn't do the difficult work that would have kept a respected, pro-business lawmaker such as Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) from recently telling a New York Times reporter how much he regrets his vote for that bill 21 years ago: "I thought then that taking care of 3 million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all. I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it." The proponents also had no retort when Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said he had supported the 1986 law "based on the very same promises we hear today. ... I will not vote to make the same mistake twice."

Thursday's devastating defeat didn't have to be. Suppose that after the 2004 election, President George W. Bush had leveled with his fellow Americans:

***

"Back in 1986, the people who write this nation's laws made promises they didn't even attempt to keep. They promised you they would control our borders, stop our employers from hiring illegal immigrants and give legal status to three million people who were here in violation of the law.

"But in succeeding years, Washington broke its pledges -- all except the one about legalizing those 3 million people. Members of Congress who'd voted for the bill stopped talking about enforcement, let alone demanding it. They had placated big business and immigrant communities full of potential voters, and they'd gotten what they wanted from President Reagan -- his signature and his morning-in-America endorsement: 'Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders.'

"Those pieties of 1986 have rung hollow ever since, and until we get square with you, the American people, [U.S. Sens.] Ted Kennedy and John McCain and I and everybody else in Washington who wants to fix immigration will get just as much of your trust on this as we deserve.

"Now, though, this cause has what it needs, a president committed to fixing this mess before he leaves office. You may not like me, but you know how I get when I'm resolute. I won't flinch.

"What matters more is that, on this issue more than most, you voters terrify Congress -- Republicans and Democrats, Senate and House. Unless you give your permission, reform won't happen.

"So here's what we in Washington have to do. We have to enforce the 1986 law we've got. It may take us a couple of years to gear up, and you may not like what you get. Expect higher prices for the goods and services you purchase when we start forcing employers to abide by that law.

"But we will show you that government can make a good-faith effort to do what it's supposed to do, which is enforce the law. We're not just going to spend more money on border control. We're going to cut the flow of illegal immigrants.

"This time, though, don't judge us by our gauzy promises and our optimistic predictions and our billions spent for border agents and technology. Judge us by whether we succeed.

"Because when we show you that we know how to enforce a law, we'll earn your support for a new one. I could say a lot today about what we'll gain from the new citizens and legal guest workers and other benefits a reform bill will give us, but until I earn your trust, I don't have the right to say any of that."

***

That would have been a fine speech for Bush to give in 2004. Just as it would be a fine speech for him, and for Democrats and Republicans who want immigration reform, to give in 2007.

After Thursday's vote, those who want a comprehensive immigration bill have to find a radically new way forward.

Do they want to be seen now and always as ruthlessly tactical, as their Senate supporters were this week in trying to silence debate on a bill that -- whether you favor or oppose it -- unarguably would change the fabric of America?

Or will they recognize that Washington has to climb out of a hole it dug 21 years ago? A hole that got perilously deeper each year the demands of the '86 law didn't even get lip service from our members of Congress and our presidents?
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... nworld-hed