Our editor
Bird Dog has asked that 
I pen a little comment on the so-called "immigration reform" bill currently on the Senate floor. This bill, as written, will do two main things: (1) give permanent residency to almost all illegal aliens in the USA (a number estimated at anywhere from 12 to 20 million - no one knows) and (2) create a massive increase in LEGAL immigration with the "guest" (i.e. permanent) worker program. (Calling this an "illegal immigration" bill is highly misleading, as its true legacy would be a big increase in legal immigration from the new visa categories, and from all the relatives of these visa recipients who would become eligible for green cards.)
Now, 11 years ago, if anyone cares to think back, Congress was considering the report of an immigration committee headed up by the late Barbara Jordan (D-TX). Her sensible recommendations, borne out of seven years of studies and analysis, advocated a modest decrease in legal immigration. A Republican Congress rejected even this reasonable measure, reaffirming the core principle of US immigration policy of the last 40 years: always MORE, never mind who, how or why.
I think the biggest error many people make in approaching the issue is that they view it primarily in terms of morality, as though the issue were not mainly about the key questions of "who" and "how many" but vague notions of fairness and historical tradition - as though attitudes mattered more than actual consequences of policy. This approach, of course, is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place: the 1965 immigration bill, which inaugurated the current era of mass third-world immigration, was inspired in part by the Civil Rights act and attempted to apply egalitarian principles to immigration policy. Since then, every attempted "fix" to the broken system has only exacerbated the problem, since no one has questioned this approach to immigration policy, or even advanced a justification, apart from tired cliches, as for why we even still have a policy of large-scale immigration.
Immigration is not an "emotional" issue, as many in the press like to write, but a highly number-intensive one, susceptible to statistical analysis, economic number-crunching and all sorts of other useful tools. Fortunately, many smart people have done just these sorts of studies, and the results are out there for all to find (though rarely reported by the mainstream media).
As for the current bill - many other bloggers have provided excellent critiques, and I will not repeat them. Any real reform would have to do the following: (1) Severely restrict the number of legal immigrants (to 400k or below); (2) abolish family reunification; (3) amend the "birthright citizenship" clause in the 14th Amendment; (4) demand workplace enforcement; and (5) take seriously efforts at integration and assimilation for those we do admit. With that done, it would actually be possible to start reducing the illegal population through enforcement of existing laws.
Photo: Senators Mel Martinez, Lindsay Graham and Ted Kennedy amuse themselves at a press conference about their immigration bill last week.
Update: Michelle lists all of the freebies in the illegals' goody bag. Sweet.
A quote from Don Surber:The first job of the government is not to give me food stamps; the first job of the government is not to give me Social Security; the first job of the government is not to give me a college loan; the first job of the government is
Tracked: Jun 08, 08:32