Marietta Daily Journal
May 18, 2006

Stakes too high to misfire on immigration reform

It's becoming more and more apparent that the battles in Washington and around the country over immigration reform are sizing up as the kind of political turning point seen only rarely, such as those triggered by the passage of civil-rights legislation in the mid-1960s or by the Roe v. Wade decision. Those milestones sent most blacks and most liberals, respectively, into the fold of the Democratic Party, where they've remained.

While the immigration-reform bills now on the table deal with the nuts and bolts of how to improve border security and improve our guest worker program, what's really at play here are Hispanic voters. In other words, Hispanics' perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in the final immigration-reform bill, and by the two political parties, likely will play a decisive role in which party most of that huge bloc of voters aligns with in coming elections, perhaps for a generation or more. So there's much more at stake than a guest-worker program, or one congressional election.

That's likely a big reason that President Bush - who's not on the ballot this year, and never will be again - is taking the long view about what's best for his party and is proposing a moderate course on immigration reform. He would send 6,000 National Guard troops to help patrol the border and would give many of the estimated 12 million Hispanics now in this country illegally a chance at citizenship.

His proposal is certainly more "real-world" than that being pushed by GOP leaders in the House. Their version not only would secure the border, but would slam the door on future citizenship and would make felons of those in this country illegally.

The president's plan was approved 55-40 in a vote that crossed party lines. Unfortunately, in so doing, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), also supported by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) that would have mandated that the borders be secured before any of the other immigration-reform procedures included in the bill could have been implemented.

Isakson's proposal was the kind of common-sense, middle-ground legislation that we've come to expect from him ever since his early days in the Georgia Legislature three decades ago. Isakson's plan was reasonable enough to have been supported by most of the Senate, had the president seen fit to support it, and likely would have won support in the House as well. Regardless, Sen. Isakson can be proud of having netted 40 votes for his amendment, a huge accomplishment for a freshman legislator.

Even so, the Bush version of immigration reform deserves support. It got another boost on Wednesday when the Senate voted overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border, as well as 500 miles of vehicle barriers. Yet many in the House and elsewhere are still adamant that Bush's plan amounts to an "amnesty" program for illegals.

The facts are that the president's proposal would require those seeking citizenship to undergo a background check, pay back taxes and learn English. That's not an amnesty, at least not in the sense of the blanket amnesty approved in 1986 during the Reagan Administration. Moreover, with 12 million illegals in the country, mass deportations, even in stages over several years, are out of the question and would amount to political suicide for the GOP.

It's crucial that the path-to-citizenship provisions that are part of the final version of whatever bill is passed stress assimilation, rather than separatism. But it's just as obvious that our economy has come to rely on the labor provided willingly and well by those in our country without permission.

The president and Congress need to resolve this issue and fast, before emotions inflame any further. Congress and a string of presidents created the problem by refusing to enforce immigration laws and secure the borders. Securing the borders should still come first in any reform, but that reform must be reasonable and rational, and at present, the president's bill is the one that comes closest to meeting that standard.