A good interview at NRO with Lindsay Graham at Birth of a Strategy: Talking Immigration With Lindsey Graham
Anti immigration advocate Mark Krikorian who no doubt is watching these with a nervous eye at NRO chimes in (The bolding is mine)
Daniel: Good interview with Lindsey Graham. Glad to see he’s still pushing for amnesty, but his comments on strategy take us right back to the logic of comprehensiveness in immigration policy. It’s not entirely clear, but he seems to be suggesting that the constitutional amendment he’s calling for (permitting Congress to regulate citizenship at birth, without detailing a specific policy) would be part of the package that would include amnesty.
But such an amendment couldn’t be part of the amnesty package — it would have to be passed by two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states before Congress could include in “comprehensive immigration reform” any provisions actually denying citizenship to children born to future illegal aliens. Otherwise, the illegal aliens would get their amnesty but the requisite number of states may never ratify the amendment authorizing Congress to change the citizenship rules. (And I’d bet that the ACLU would go to court to try to stop consideration of the amendment in the state legislatures — I can’t imagine how that’s possible, but you know they’ll come up with something and that they’ll find a judge to buy their sophistry.)
On those terms, I might actually be for Graham’s idea: No consideration of amnesty until after we amend the Constitution to enable Congress to limit citizenship at birth! (And in the meantime, increase immigration law enforcement.).
A few things here to note. His comments about the ACLU are nonsense. No Court can prevent a Legislature from voting on a bill, He knows that and in his desperation is just throwing that out there.
Further Krikorian is trying to set up an impossible political standard. That is have Congress pass it then have it get the required numbers of States then he and the assorted anti immigration groups MIGHT consider pathway to citizenship.
The problem is everyone has to have some give and take here. Both sides don't trust each other. As a immigration reform supporter I sure as heck don't trust that Krikorian would get behind pathway if the above requirement were met.
If Graham links comprehensive immigration reform to this change he might be able to get the two-thirds of Congress he needs in able to get to to step 2. That is the state legislatures. Getting it out of Congress is the tough part I think in all this.
The more I think of this th if the language was tight( I would not use the language Graham uses because I think that could be subject to Congressional abuse and just be chaotic) it very well could get 34 States.
Here are ones that I am fairly confident would pass it:AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NC,ND,OK, SC,SD,TN, TX, UT, WV,WY.
That is 21 right off the bat.
States where I think passage would be probable I think: VA, NM,IA,IN, FL,OH
Whoa we at 27. I am leaving off other States because I am not familiar of how the immigration issues plays there.
However my gut feeling is these States would pass it
WI, PA, NJ, NH, MI, ME, NV,CO
Poof with my list we are one over!! Other states might pass it as well but I do not list them because I have no idea of the politics
In fact the only definite no vote I see is California and that is because their Democrat legislature is so reactionary.
In my view linking Comprehensive Immigration Reform to Congress VOTING this Amendment out of Congress is a good compromise. I also think it gives some Reps and Senators some politcal cover to vote for immigration reform thus making the lack of a Senate filibuster and ultimate passage more likely.
That is what Krikorian fears and why immigration reform supporters should embrace it.
2 comments:
The presumption here is that reform has to be comprehensive. We know from other bills like the Health Care bill that all kinds of mischief can creep into them simply because of their length. I doubt any congressman actually read the entire bill in that case.
A more rational approach would be a series of shorter bills that everyone can read and understand. The first should deal with border security and recognize that our borders will never be secure unless we have vigorous and continuous internal enforcement with the quick repatriation of all of those illegal aliens who are apprehended. This is the sine qua non of in depth, effective border security. If the illegals think they will be home free if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will keep coming in larger and larger numbers no matter what measures we take at the border itself.
Comprehensive reform is not uniquely defined. Until it is, it is meaningless. My concept of comprehensive reform is certain to be different from yours. I, like Krikorian, would lean toward reducing legal immigration rather than increasing it. I would be very much in favor of modifying the interpretation of the 14th amendment if it can be done either legislatively or by amendment. There are many countries in the world where birthright citizenship is not the rule. Why is it so bad that we consider that approach given our major illegal and immigration problem say nothing about tourists who come here for the purpose of dropping an instant citizen whose status they hope to capitalize on later.
Our policy should be to limit immigration of all kinds to the precise demonstrated needs of our economy by sector with the overall objective of stabilizing our population. What is it that folks don't understand about the fact that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us of these finite natural resources. Here in the Southwest water is the critical resource. Cities with burgeoning populations are buying up water rights from farmers and ranchers leaving the land unproductive for lack of water, the same land that is needed to raise the crops and cattle to feed the additional people. Seems like a losing proposition all around. LA will probably be forced into some sort of very expensive water de-salinization if its population continues to grow.
With efforts to increase alternate sources for energy and reduce pollution, population increase is counterproductive. Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per year per capita. At that rate, if our population doubles by or before the end of this century we will be producing another 6 billion tons of pollutants. Even, if, by some technological miracle, we were to be able to reduce the per capita output by half to the level of Mexico, we would have made absolutely no progress in reducing the present unacceptable level as the population doubles.
It is obvious to me that those who favor more immigration and amnesty are being very shortsighted or they have simply abandoned the American dream for our children and children's children. And they haven’t thought about the limits imposed by the available natural resources.
An environmentalist writes, "...[if we leave] our borders open to unlimited illegal entry until, and it won't be long, the social, political, and economic life of the United States is reduced to the level of life in Juarez, Guadalajara, Mexico City, El Salvador, Haiti, India, [Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sub-Saharan Africa]. To a common peneplain of overcrowding, squalor, misery, torture, crime, rape."
That says it pretty well. By extension, allowing our country to be flooded with peoples from the impoverished nations of the world will, with great certitude, bring our economy ever closer to equilibrium with the economies of the donor countries. No American will like that.
Post a Comment