A different kind of immigration reform

This isn’t a fairytale. Magical sugar plums aren’t falling from the trees and soft, cuddly animals aren’t prancing through the woods reciting aged nursery rhymes with Goldie Lox.

Rather, this is reality, and no matter how enticing the gleefully arranged sugar-coated gum drops of Edward Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein appear, keep in mind that they are merely disillusioned ploys to garner the Hispanic demographic in the upcoming midterm election. The fact of the matter is that the immigration debate is an unsightly one, digging its insidious thorns into all reaches of social life, inciting passionate emotions and stretching the malleable moral fiber of this country—and Congressmen don’t like making unsightly legislation—especially during an election year—even if it may be the proper legislation. So, since I’m not running for public office in 2006, I’ll take the hard stance that many politicians are too afraid to take. I’ll propose the unsightly legislation.

As the deafening emotions encasing the immigration debate dwindle, but still linger as an ever-persistent sputter, and Congressional lawmakers in the House and Senate tidy up their respective versions of the fallout of those tightly guarded emotions, America is inching closer to a great debate between the House and Senate over immigration, with the most tantalizing, white-hot issue being: amnesty, or more amnesty?

And there seems to be no alternative. The choice is almost exclusively between a recently passed House bill that takes a relatively tough stance on illegal immigrants, with some provisions forcing illegal aliens to transfer back to their home country before reapplying for citizenship, and a pending Senate bill that reflects a more quasi-liberal, tolerant approach to handling the country’s current illegal aliens—a more forgive and forget ideal.

There are overt fundamental flaws in both bills. The House bill, a stringent and unforgiving piece of legislation, is laudable in theory, but infeasible in practice because it provides no incentive for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in to authorities. What motivation do illegal aliens have to rise from their undetectable state of tax evasion and government fraud when they can simply slip by undetected, living a sheltered, serene life, free of governmental quagmires and complexities?

Conversely, the Senate bill, a more lenient bill, is too magnanimous, considering these illegal aliens broke the law. But, perhaps more importantly, the bill encourages future illegal immigration by offering a relatively painless path to citizenship—as oppose to the House bill, which promises a droning paperwork process and a painful sting to the wallet.

Furthermore, both bills require a degree of trust, and the broken rhetoric of illegal immigrants is usually not the most reliable source. Both the House and Senate bills would require illegal aliens to submit information proving how many years they’ve resided in America, soaking up the government’s resources and conniving their way out of taxes and social accountability, so the government can determine if the illegal needs to be temporarily deported. The fatal flaw: since illegal immigrants can acquire phony social security numbers, and with identity theft running rampant, forging dates on paperwork is child’s play in today’s technological era—and the government is always a step behind technology.

With both tattered pieces of legislation wallowing in their frayed pool of infeasibility, and while Congress seems content with their lethargically jaded fruition, the fundamental question of immigration reform remains unscathed by Congress’ meek efforts.

The following is my attempt to dig past the layers of ineptness and divulge a valid, plausible solution to the immigration problem.

As much as I would love to detain every illegal alien, stick them on a bus, and ship them back to their motherland, I understand that the situation is much more complex and that deporting the illegal transgressors will only complicate this already exasperating quandary. However, the afore mentioned sugar-coated rhetoric of Kennedy and the rest of the Democratic party, along with much of the Republican party—this ploy of “earned citizenship”—is a gross injustice to all the law-abiding immigrants waiting patiently in line, and an unequivocal disregard for America’s legal system.

So, without forcibly deporting the illegal aliens, but also without granting amnesty, my plan is to abolish all minimum wage and labor laws regarding undocumented/illegal workers.

The plan, which attacks the cause of the problem, rather than the effect, would work threefold: first, it encourages current illegal aliens to reconsider their state of affairs—forcing them to endure inhumane working conditions and even more repugnantly inferior wages—enticing at least some to leave, but hopefully in sporadic amounts so the economy will maintain its buoyancy and won’t recede. Secondly, for the same reason it encourages current illegal immigrants to leave, the plan acts as a disincentive, discouraging future criminals from crossing the border, acting as a figurative wall of apprehension and malevolence, looming dauntingly over the heads of the demoralized transgressor, instilling a disheartening sense of trepidation and anxiety. Lastly, the plan would bolster the bottom line of the floundering small business and farming industries that depend on illegal labor to break even, especially in light of the recent billion dollar conglomerate boom.

Now, realistically speaking, a Congressman would see his party gasp in horror if this type of legislation was ever proposed, not because it isn’t cost effective and logical, but because of sinister partisan passions that often blur reality and hinder practical legislation, culminating in an improbable monstrosity that is neither effective nor logical. Especially during election years, as afore mentioned, national parties tend to be as hands off and laissez-faire as possible, for fear of upsetting a potential demographic.

In this case, the potential demographic is Hispanic, both legal and illegal. And with approximately twelve million illegal Hispanics and countless more legal Hispanics currently in America, the party that tends to their needs and butters them up the most will inevitably win their cherished vote, while the other party will be left at a distinct and possibly insurmountable disadvantage.

It’s sad, but it’s reality.

The second prong of the immigration debate, border security, is slightly less complicated. Most Americans agree that stringent border security is a necessary measure and a significant amount support the construction of a wall, both material and virtual, to hamper and mitigate the flow of illegal immigration.

President Bush has been advocating his plan for illegal immigration more aggressively recently, essentially copyrighting the phrase “comprehensive” immigration reform. His plan involves a guest worker program, a middle ground between House and Senate bills regarding amnesty, and plans for a prodigious wall and the expansion of America’s border patrol division. Bush believes that all three components, in the same bill, are needed to adequately address the immigration issue.

However, history dictates that the more “comprehensive” a bill becomes, the less likely it is to pass as law. If Bush did his research, he’d find that Henry “The Great Compromiser” Clay’s Compromise of 1850 failed in Congress as a “comprehensive” piece of legislation. But, when Clay separated each component into separate bills, most of the original pieces passed into law.

What Bush needs to understand is that, first and foremost, defending America’s porous borders is paramount, and dealing with the current illegal aliens is a less dire problem. Thus, Bush should exclusively champion border security, enacting the proper measures to carry out that plan, and then worry about the illegal immigrants here today.

No matter what Congressional leaders advocate, there’s no instantaneous solution to the immigration problem. There’s no glorious explanation hiding serenely for the government to uncover, and there’s no fairytale ending in the foreseeable future.

Some believe my immigration reform plan is too harsh—a callous, compassionless plan that would culminate in the needless torment of millions of people. But keep in mind: there’s no pretty solution to this issue, no magic switch that will make it all go away.

Remember, this is real life, not fairytale.

Picking up the trash

It has survived a preemptive attack based on “faulty intelligence.”

It has endured rhetoric ranging from “tyrannical” to “incompetent.”

It has even remained resilient through “thousands of tactical errors.”

What, you ask, is it?

It is my unwavering loyalty to the Bush Administration. But to be honest, in light of recent events, it’s wearing quite thin.

When President Bush offered his rationale for invading Iraq, it sounded logical—or at the very least, defendable: protecting the American people, liberating an impoverished society, seeking justice—sounded like a fairly patriotic platform.

And when the left callously taunted and mocked the Commander in Chief, there I was, standing by his side, taking jabs and uppercuts for the good of the cause. And after all the scrutiny, harboring no ill feelings, I’m still standing by the President on Iraq, as I turn into a garbage can for the entire liberal faction to dump their baggage, their soiled smear of lies and deception.

While the War on Terror certainly tested the allegiance of every Bush loyalist, and called for a degree of latitude and trust in the President, most ardent Bush followers stood firm, stubbornly discrediting liberal propagandists whilst zealously advocating the administration’s agenda.

However, when word of alleged unwarranted wiretappings of American citizens hit the headlines, dedication and advocacy morphed into distrust and vexation, and separated true Bush supporters from quasi, halfhearted frauds.

The President’s rationale was quite simple, despite its poor elucidation: tapping calls to or from the Middle East is not only justified, but necessary to the ongoing, ever intensifying, War on Terror. And, like virtually every major moral issue, the right wing bought into Bush’s theory while the left wing griped about civil liberty violations.

But still, despite a growing anti-Bush movement from the left, screams of impeachment from the far left, and even whispers of dissention within the conservative confines, there I was, standing firm, collecting more smear, filling my garbage bag with more propaganda and half-baked, ill-conceived glut, with my ever resilient devotion to the most powerful man in the free world left wholly intact, sporting only a few minor tarnishes and oil stains.

It wasn’t until the President announced a deal that would hand over major port operations to an Arab company based in a country that formerly recognized the Taliban that my loyalty began to dwindle, as I found myself questioning the integrity and competency of the Bush administration.

For the first time, an administration whose strong suit has always been security—when all else fails, play the defense card—now finds themselves on the short end of the stick, trailing in a battle they cannot afford to lose.

According to some polls, four out of five Republicans dissented with Bush on the Dubai ports deal and one would be hard-pressed to find a Democrat vouching for the President. The American people spoke their minds, and rightfully persuaded the termination of this ludicrous and potentially devastating deal.

A brief but disturbingly soundless calm sunk in after the ports deal debacle ceased its thunderous reverberations. Having not stirred controversy in, oh, about two weeks, the Bush administration was relatively serene, as were the clamoring dogs of the left wing, usually hooting and hollering about some impulsive “travesty” against America, instead found uncharacteristically fastening their scarcely used muzzles.

But this tranquility was short lived, proving to be nothing more than the eye of the storm, as a debate loomed that would shake the groundwork of the nation, force politicians to take fiercely divided sides, and incite thousands to rise in protest.

Previously at the end of the bill docket, astray from the buzz of everyday politics, nothing more than a lingering afterthought, with so many other issues stealing the limelight, immigration and border security were covertly slipping by undetected, temporarily.

While most Democrats seemed united in their effort to legalize currently illegal immigrants from Mexico and Canada, Republicans, thanks in large part to Bush, were split on their party platform. Most of the GOP wanted stringent border security, with some even calling for a prodigious and expensive wall to be built along the Mexican border. And while Bush generally shared the same sentiment regarding border security, he dissented on the issue of legalization, taking a quasi-liberal approach with his proposed guest workers program—essentially, amnesty. GOP leaders in the House and Senate took a more strict approach, advocating a more rigorous citizenship process than the Democrats had proposed—and this, naturally, caused internal strife in the GOP.

When proposing legislation, especially in an election year, policy-makers seeking re-election must be sensitive, or risk losing votes from a certain demographic. This is why GOP leaders in the House and Senate concocted such a lax program that probably doesn’t reflect their true beliefs, for fear of damaging their fragile reputation within the Hispanic community.

A similar concept also applies: guilt by association. Congressmen, whether Republican or Democrat, simply don’t want to be associated with the President. They shudder when they see the President’s deplorable approval ratings and thus they strive to separate themselves from the Commander in Chief. And while Democrats feast on the endless fodder provided to them by the GOP, Republicans scramble to mesh together and form a solid platform to campaign from, thanks, again, to Mr. Bush.

With most Republicans, even hardliners, running away from the foul stench of the Bush administration over the ports deal, there I was, with my black bag stretched to its capacity, picking up defecation of foul intolerance, whose origin is indiscernible, a noxious combination of Republican and Democrat, when, somewhere along the line, I found myself wondering if it was all worth while: whether my supposed loyalty was true and unwavering, or just a pretense of pity, cowering behind a wall of deceit.

Seeking to mitigate a newfound distrust in the President, I found little comfort when the latest energy crisis hit the wires. Akin to security, energy is believed to be one of the GOP’s stronger platforms—the big-oil sympathizers aren’t supposed to lose the energy fight to the anarchical left. But Bush’s failure to elucidate a clear, concise message, other than the obvious expulsion of our “addiction” to foreign oil, has left the rest of the GOP floundering to unite, thus leaving the door wide open for the environmental left to swoop in and steal the show—blaming the Republican led Congress and the Republican President for high gas prices, and our stingingly evil “addiction” to foreign oil.

And that, the administration’s inability to effectively communicate with their constituents, facilitate the flow of information to the people, and illuminate a clear mission statement, is why Bush’s policies, more recently, are a step behind the competition, resulting in a bogged down, hampered GOP, compliments of the Commander in Chief.

But, maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining. The recent shuffling of figure heads in the administration, from Chief of Staff Andrew Card’s resignation, to Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s ousting, a void filled by Fox News anchor Tony Snow, might improve press relations. But again, emphasis on the maybe.

Just a point of clarification: in no way should my opinions be interpreted as anti-conservative—my “crossing over” with John Edwards from the right to the left—my political convictions are as conservative and capitalistic as they’ll ever be. That will never change. Rather, my mere loyalty to America’s leader is what is in question—and don’t think for a second that every Republican supports, or should support, their Republican President, because that notion is simply irrational. The fact of the matter is that Bush is acting way out of character, atypically straddling the line between Democrat and Republican, and that is the infuriating part.

Though my faith in the President endured the Iraq controversy, wiretapping criticism, and the Dubai debacle, it was clearly eroding. And Bush’s mishandling of immigration policy and energy have all but destroyed any hope of undoing the corrosion—my once durable garbage bag finally shattered into a heaping glop of gunk, along with my loyalty.

So here I am, with my torn garbage bag, frayed and tattered from all the controversy, its components splattered across the political landscape, reeking of treachery, corruption and duplicity, permeating the depths of the American mind, leaving a permanent mark of incompetence and ineptitude that will take years to eradicate, I ask myself a simple question: do I bend over and pick up the grime, as I always have, or do I finally remove the mask that has blinded me from reality? The decision is mine, but the outcome matters not, for as long as George W. Bush is in office, and an intellectual conservative mind is not, this great country will continue to tear itself apart, leaving the American people to pick up the trash.