The Immigration Debate

The Tribune has a good roundup of opinion today on its commentary page. Both commentators are from California. Ruben Navarette here. Victor Davis Hanson here. Also survey story in the Tribune here.

And the Wall St. Journal:

The breadth of new immigration, legal and illegal, in recent years has literally changed the face of America. Our own view is that this has been mostly for the better -- in revitalized inner cities, a younger workforce to fuel a dynamic economy, and in general helping America avoid the senescent future of other industrial nations.

But there have also been costs, and parts of America have borne more than have others. The border states in particular have experienced more crime and social disruption, as well as the cost to local taxpayers of "free" health care and education for illegal immigrants. To the extent they work and pay rent, illegals do pay for those government services. But we don't dismiss lightly the anxiety that many Americans feel at this rapid pace of demographic change. Well meaning politicians, such as Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who feel obliged to respond to that anxiety in this election year are not part of the nativist brigades.

The issue is the form and message that response takes. For Republicans in the House especially, the approach has been to send the most punitive message possible to both illegals and anyone who assists or hires them, no matter how innocently. They're backed by a small but vocal band of "conservative" media who denounce any rational idea for legalizing the 11 million illegals already in the U.S. as "amnesty."

Never mind that even under the most liberal proposals now in Congress, current illegals would have to pay a fine, learn English, and wait upward of a decade to qualify for citizenship. And no matter that these pseudo-conservatives have no alternative policy, other than to arrest and deport millions in a way that would cause far more social and economic disruption than we have now.

Such a punitive policy would alienate business owners and religious conservatives among the GOP base. But because the policy is aimed largely at Hispanic immigrants, it will also rightly be seen as a specific ethnic rebuke.....

First as Texas Governor and then in the White House, Mr. Bush has wisely tried to change this anti-immigration image of the GOP. Among Hispanics in particular, he has made enormous progress.

We do need to know who is in our country. We do need to be able to deport criminals without being accused of being racist for checking documents. We should have requirements for photo ID from everyone when they vote. Employers do need to be responsible for not hiring people who have come here illegally. We do need to effectively monitor the levels of immigration we allow for skilled and unskilled labor.

We do need to secure our borders. Even Democrat governors of the border states of Arizona and New Mexico have sent their National Guard to protect their borders. Governor Richardson has called for more border guards and a high-tech virtual wall, which the pending Senate bill includes. He also pointed out that there is an emerging labor shortage in some parts of the Mexican countryside.

And perhaps the mere threat of a physical wall has caused Mexican President Vicente Fox to view the issue now as a two-way street, recently offering to extradite accused drug dealers to the US for trial.

Ronald Reagan spoke of America as a "shining city on a hill" where people come in search of freedom and know if they work hard they can achieve the American dream. Let's not forget that.