12,000 days have passed in the modern age of immigration ‘reform.’ The US government has nothing to show for it but millions of wasted words and millions of illegal immigrants.

If we agree with anyone on this issue, it’s probably Charles Krauthammer, who apparently takes the Hippocratic oath seriously in matters other than medicine, since he first wants to do no harm, which is the way we see the wall (or similarly effective means of actually controlling the border). The wall and its equivalents are the number one priority, as we also have written, and then human matters can be dealt with humanely. We don’t expect miracles from a wall, but certainly talk and good wishes accomplish nothing at all. Here is the decade an a half of debate preceding Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986, via the NYT:

– Sept. 12, 1972: The House of Representatives, by voice vote, passes a bill to impose penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. The bill is offered by Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, as a way to prevent exploitation of illegal aliens by employers. The Senate takes no action.
– May 3, 1973: The House, by a vote of 297 to 63, again approves a bill forbidding employment of illegal aliens. Again, the Senate takes no action. Aug. 4, 1977: President Carter asks Congress to prohibit the hiring of illegal aliens and to give legal status to illegal aliens living here since 1970.
– October 1978: Congress establishes the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, which includes eight members of Congress and four members of President Carter’s Cabinet.
– April 1980: Cuba allows the first of 125,000 ”boat people” to sail for Florida, heightening concern in the United States about illegal immigration.
– Feb. 26, 1981: The Select Commission, headed by the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, recommends a one-time amnesty for most illegal aliens, penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens and a ”modest increase” in legal immigration.
– July 30, 1981: The Reagan Administration announces its immigration proposals, which resemble the Hesburgh commission’s.
– March 17, 1982: Senator Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, and Representative Romano L. Mazzoli, Democrat of Kentucky, introduce a comprehensive immigration bill incorporating many proposals of the Hesburgh commission, including one-time amnesty for illegal aliens.
– Aug. 17, 1982: The Senate approves the bill, 80 to 19.
– Dec. 18, 1982: The immigration bill dies on the floor of the House as time runs out with nearly 300 amendments pending. Hispanic groups, blacks, labor unions, business organizations and farm groups all objected to parts of the bill.
– May 5, 1983: Starting over in a new Congress, the House Judiciary Committee approves the immigration bill, 20 to 9.
– May 18, 1983: The Senate, by a vote of 76 to 18, approves the Simpson-Mazzoli bill again.
– Oct. 4, 1983: Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., Speaker of the House, blocks action on the immigration bill for the rest of 1983, saying he can find ”no constituency” for the bill. His action is, in part, a response to Hispanic lawmakers who fear that employer sanctions would encourage job discrimination against Hispanic Americans.
– Oct. 19, 1983: President Reagan, at a news conference, reaffirms support for immigration legislation.
– Nov. 22, 1983: Speaker O’Neill says that he will bring the bill to the floor soon after Congress reconvenes in January and that he has received assurances Mr. Reagan will not veto it.
– Jan. 13, 1984: David A. Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, expresses concern about the cost of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
– May 2, 1984: At the request of the Presidential contender Walter F. Mondale, Speaker O’Neill postpones action on the Simpson-Mazzoli bill until after the California Democratic primary June 5.
– June 20, 1984: The House passes comprehensive immigration bill, 216 to 211, after seven days of debate.
– Oct. 9, 1984: A House-Senate conference committee breaks down in disagreement after 10 days of negotiations on a compromise immigration bill. The key unresolved issue is Federal reimbursement for cost of providing social services to illegal aliens who gain legal status.
– Sept. 19, 1985: The Senate, 69 to 30, passes a comprehensive immigration bill for the third time. It includes an amendment admitting up to 350,000 aliens as temporary farm workers. Labor unions and many liberal legislators had said this provision was unacceptable.
– Sept. 26, 1986: After the House votes, 202 to 180, not to take it up, Rep-resentative Rodino says the immigration bill is dead.
– Oct. 9, 1986: The House approves the bill, 230 to 166. A special program designed by Representative Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of Brooklyn, offers legal status to illegal aliens working in agriculture. The program appears to meet farmers’ needs while protecting workers’ rights.
– Oct. 14, 1986: A Congressional conference committee agrees on a compromise immigration bill reconciling differences between the House and the Senate.
– Oct. 15, 1986: The House approves the compromise immigration bill, 238 to 173.
– Oct. 17, 1986: The Senate approves the immigration bill, 63 to 24, clearing it for action by President Reagan.

And after all that debate, all those parliamentary moves, all that posturing, and all that hard work, nothing changed, except that matters got even worse. But hope sprang (and apparently still springs) eternal. The first NYT editorial on the bill dates from March 1982, and also illustrates the pride of place that blather has over action. It begins with one of the favorite words of liberals to show they are a kinder, gentler sort of mean-spirited guy: the Simpson-Mazzsoli measure is ‘tough’:

First, tough. The United States cannot conceivably let in all the worldwide millions who want in. That means controlling our own borders and that, in turn, means something called employer sanctions. Federal law must forbid hiring illegal immigrants and also provide employers with a way to identify who they are. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill would do both. Without being specific, it calls for the gradual development of a limited, reasonable process of identification.

Second, fair. There is growing sentiment in Congress for a harsh ceiling on immigration. The Simpson-Mazzoli proposal accepts the principle, calling for a limit of 425,000 people a year (apart from refugees, whose entry is regulated by a 1980 act). The 425,000 figure is low and subject to bargaining. But it is neither arbitrary nor regressive: it approximates present immigration, which the country knows it can handle comfortably.

Third, humane. A large number of foreign migrants - maybe half a million, maybe two and a half million - have lived in this country for years, but under a cloud: they entered illegally. Fearful of detection, they are vulnerable to exploitation. Previous proposals for amnesty have failed as too harsh or too soft-headed. The new bill strikes a reasonable compromise, providing legal status to aliens if they have lived here since 1978.

Sadly, the NYT no longer uses the word ‘tough’ in its immigration editorials, like a recent one on the current bill, and seems more amnesty-friendly than it was when the problem was a fraction of its current size. The Times says of the current legislation: “It combines, sensibly, tighter borders with a path to citizenship for people here illegally.”

We’re not writing this to pick on the NYT. Rather to point out in each of the the 12,000 or so days since Peter Rodino spoke on the issue in the House, millions of words have been spoken by politicians, and millions of gallons of press ink have been spilled to no effect whatsoever, while an average of 1000-2000 illegal immigrants stole across the border every day. It should be obvious that the only way to control the border is to control the border; talking about controlling the border is worse than a waste of time, and it allows matters to get worse every single day.

UPDATE

We always laugh when we hear President Bush say that nonsense about the illegal immigrants doing the jobs that Americans will not do. (1) we suppose that is true, if he is stating that Americans will not fix airplanes, work in nuclear plants, or clean up in Wal-Mart; (2) do Bush’s comments imply that once these illegals get their anmesty, they will suddenly stop doing these jobs, and we will need even more illegals?

This entry was posted on Friday, April 7th, 2006 at 8:42 am and is filed under Democrats, General, Law, MSM, Republicans, art, culture, business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.