Immigration 9/11

The latest Immigration Bill proposal bears an uncomfortable similarity to 9/11. It hits most’s consciousness and public attention as if from out of the blue, despite many years of visible causes and effects, and this remedy is even more hastily pushed, despite some’s warning and most’s realization that the strategy and costs were inadequately understood.

Like 9/11, the proposed Immigration Bill exposes many underlying fissures in our society, in our modes of public information, and between our legislators and the governed. It could represent an opportunity for reforms in these, as well as for more careful consideration of the immigration issues raised.

That’s as far as necessary to take the analogy to stop and consider whether the Immigration Bill and the speedy adoption process as proposed are reasonable. I believe not, not only because of improvements that can and should be made in the bill itself, but also because of the missed opportunities as to process.

There’s majority consensus as to providing fair access to residency and citizenship. There’s majority consensus as to providing reliable border security and employer controls. The two majorities overlap somewhat, but are distinct over which should come first. In this bill, via the fast Z-visas, normalization of status comes first, and confidence in avoiding the next 12-million illegals is not provided.

I’ve searched mainstream, online, think-tank, and interest-group sources over past days for informed, data-rich analyses of the proposed bill, to find relatively little. I’m sure many are working diligently on this, and should be given a chance to publish and be evaluated. In the meantime, most of the discussions have either been too general or only concerned with portions or about the politics of the bill. Our modes of public information have not been themselves adequately prepared in the details and financials of immigration.

In part, this absence of useful public information is due to the closed door negotiating among our politicians in Washington, not providing lead-time to analysts. Neither have our politicians accompanied their proposed bill with estimates of cost, both legislative and among those affected. This feeds justifiable skepticism as to whether those unknown costs, likely to be huge, will be affordable or appropriated and what effect they may have on other programs and priorities. The urging of some politicians to accept the proposal speedily, nonetheless, only enrages even many of those favorably disposed, at the disregard for an informed public.

I understand arguments for compromise, or for relative political strength, but those are insufficient to mold either a majority around this bill as proposed or to adequately resolve issues raised.

I believe that immigration and security improvements are necessary. Worthwhile ones will better emerge from a better, more informed, and more respectful and democratic process.

We don’t need another Iraq mess, here at home.