Thread: Immigration debate: What not to do NAVARRETTE

Immigration debate: What not to do

5 problems that have killed a comprehensive solution

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

SAN DIEGO — Labor Day could mark the beginning of an effort in Congress to reboot the immigration debate. Just a couple of years removed from efforts at comprehensive reform — as well as massive protests and counterprotests across the USA —lawmakers and a new president seem ready to take on one of this country's most vexing issues.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, recently laid out the principles of the legislation, many of which sound quite familiar:

• Curtailing illegal immigration to regain control of our borders.

• Creating a biometric employee verification system.

• Forcing illegal immigrants to undergo a rigorous legalization process or face deportation.

• Keeping family reunification a priority.

• Encouraging the best and brightest to immigrate to the USA.

• Discouraging businesses from using temporary guest workers.

• Making it easier for immigrants to come legally.

That legislative stew has something for everyone and likely will have the backing of the White House. President Obama, who vowed during the campaign to enact comprehensive immigration reform, might have tipped his hand at a recent summit with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. He once again pledged to overhaul the system by creating "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants, and "an orderly process for people to come" to this country. Yet, he conceded, nothing will happen before 2010 because of other priorities. Obama said he expected legislation to be drafted by the end of the year. That could be the Schumer bill.

Even so, there are reasons to be skeptical about the bill's chances. Will lawmakers really be able to sell a plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants when the U.S. unemployment rate is still above 9%? Also, Congress' record on this issue is woeful, having wasted nearly six years — from September 2001 to June 2007 — stalling, name-calling, posturing, politicking and still failing to pass a bill.

Finally, Obama is weaker politically than he was just a few months ago not exactly the time to take on another divisive issue. This could make the path to immigration reform a rockier one.

Nonetheless, I'm certain the pro-immigration reform crowd will throw caution to the wind and forge ahead. And when they do, it's worth remembering five things that sank the ship last time around:

Problem No. 1: Too many of the major players in the debate had an all-or-nothing stance.

Solution: Both sides must accept, going in, that compromise is a must; conservatives have to live with some form of legalization while immigrant activists must accept that it will come with strings attached.

Problem No. 2: Both sides put themselves on moral pedestals and attacked the motives of opponents; those on the right were dismissed as "racist" while those on the left were said to favor an amnesty free-for-all.

Solution: Both sides need to accept that the players want what they think is best for the country, even if they have a different idea of what that is and how to get there.

Problem No. 3: Reformers never satisfactorily addressed the concerns of opponents that illegal immigrants broke the law to get here and thus shouldn't be rewarded with a path to legalization.

Solution: We have to put more of the load on illegal immigrants to acknowledge wrongdoing and get right with the law — maybe even including a "touchback" requirement where immigrants go home and apply for legal re-entry.

Problem No. 4: Republicans let nativists in the party set the agenda, and the debate's tone predictably went from anti-illegal immigration to anti-immigrant to anti-Hispanic.

Solution: Republicans must ensure that the debate is race-neutral and call out conservatives who cross that line.

Problem No. 5: Democrats let organized labor dictate the terms of the reform effort by killing provisions for temporary guest workers that union officials claimed undermined U.S. workers.

Solution: Democrats have to push back against organized labor and insist on the freedom to accept a guest-worker plan — perhaps one in which numbers go up or down depending on unemployment figures.

Last time around, Americans were so busy picking sides in the immigration debate that reasonable ideas for creating a workable system were senselessly drowned out. Ideological rigidity and an unwillingness to compromise killed reform. We can have the best, most sensible ideas in the world but if the dialogue is broken, and neither side is listening, those ideas will never come to fruition.

That's not a debate. It's a distraction.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is an editorial board member of the San Diego Union-Tribune, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and a CNN.com contributor.

Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, August 26, 2009 in Forum commentary, Immigration - Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You can post a comment on the USA TODAY Online site at ths link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/ ... .html#more

Problem No. 1: Too many of the major players in the debate had an all-or-nothing stance.

Solution: Both sides must accept, going in, that compromise is a must; conservatives have to live with some form of legalization while immigrant activists must accept that it will come with strings attached.


The hell we will. We don't have to accept any type of legalization. This guy is barking up the wrong tree. This, for people who hate this country and have no respect for it's citizens or laws.

NO AMNESTY

DON'T REWARD THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS BY GIVING THE CITIZENSHIP

Here's the problem Ruben: Been there, done that. We were assured the first time that if a small number of illegals were amnestied, laws would be in place to prevent future illegal immigration. We were flat out lied to. So, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It won't happen again.

Problem No. 4: Republicans let nativists in the party set the agenda, and the debate's tone predictably went from anti-illegal immigration to anti-immigrant to anti-Hispanic.

This is a flat out LIE!

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a hemorrhoid posing as an editorial board member of the San Diego Union-Tribune