Why The push For Immigration?????

COLD OPEN


Why are our elected leaders trying to force immigration reform on an ungrateful nation right now? Answering that question goes a long way toward understanding the merits of the current Gang of Eight bill.

Immigration has been a fixture in America since the Founding. It's ebbed and flowed, and to get a good picture of it, take a gander at this chart. You'll note that from 1900 to 1960, the number of immigrants was basically flat. It wasn't until the 1970s that immigration began to pick up steam. That's when illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, moved to an industrial scale. Because of increasing legal and illegal immigration, the last 40 years have seen the biggest immigration boom in our nation’s history. And although immigrants are not at their historical high-water mark as a percentage of the population, they’re in the neighborhood.

All of which is why, if we were talking about reforming the immigration system in 1990—or 1995, or 2000—the conversation would make a lot of sense. Immigration was on the rise and something new and different was happening in the system.

But at this particular moment, that's not the case. Once the Great Recession hit, it combined with declining fertility rates south of our border to drive down illegal immigration. Believe it or not, for the last five years our net immigration from Mexico has been zero.

What's more, unlike in the 1990s and early 2000s, when unemployment was low and labor markets were tight, we are in a prolonged period of extremely high unemployment with a great deal of slack in the labor market. At some point America may need an influx of new workers to help power economic growth. But that time most certainly isn't now.

In other words, we're being strong-armed into "reforming" the immigration system at the exact moment when the urgency for reform is at the lowest point in two generations. There simply are no practical reasons for having this discussion right now.

Oh, but there are political reasons. For President Obama and the Democrats, the political reasons are obvious. They see the Gang of Eight package as a chance to add a group of 11 million voters to the rolls (in the form of amnestied illegal immigrants) who could swing between 60 percent and 70 percent Democratic. For Big Labor, it means adding more dues-paying members. (Even if it means lower wages for current union members; remember, unions care more about their institutional well-being than their members.) For Big Business the current bill means increasing the labor supply—which really means lowering wages. And increasing profits. It's not hard to see why the parties to this bill are pushing it so hard.

What's a mystery is why some Republicans are on board, too. Sure, lots of Democrats and liberal pundits keep saying that the only way the Republican party can avoid extinction is by passing the current bill. It's not clear why these partisans are suddenly so concerned about the GOP's welfare. But the numbers suggest that they are, as a factual matter, almost certainly incorrect.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that passing the amnesty bill would dramatically improve Republicans' showing among Hispanic voters. Well, then, here’s a question: In 2012, would Mitt Romney have been better off winning 72 percent of the Hispanic vote —instead of the 27 percent he actually got? Or would he have done better by merely improving his share of the white vote by 4 points, from 60 percent to 64 percent?

I’m not going to spoil it for you, but the answer itself isn’t nearly as shocking as the fact that many Republicans in the Senate seem not to have considered the question in the first place. It's enough to make you doubt the entire small-r republican system. After all, if you can't trust politicians to vote in their own partisan self-interest, what can you trust them with?

(If you want even more detail on the numbers see this piece from Real Clear Politics’s Sean Trende.)

So the timing and motivations behind immigration reform are suspect. But how about the legislation itself? Let's just say that it’s about what you'd expect for a bill cobbled together by people who are on the make. This anecdote from Greg Sargent last week is telling:

The key items, according to reports and sources, are: A doubling of the size of the border patrol, to 40,000 agents. Seven hundred miles of border fence. A requirement that the security plan submitted by the Department of Homeland Security include provisions — such as those above — mandated by Congress. All of these would be "triggers" that would have to be achieved before the path to citizenship can start.

But — and this is big — the provision sought by conservatives such as John Cornyn, that 90 percent apprehension be achieved as a "hard trigger," is no longer in the deal as a precondition for citizenship. As the Times puts it: "Republicans agreed to make the 90 percent figure a goal rather than a requirement." The key is that additional Republicans beyond the gang of eight — such as Bob Corker and John Hoeven — appear prepared to accept this.

Leading immigration advocate Frank Sharry, who was briefed on the emerging deal, tells me Dems successfully beat back Republican demands for inclusion of the 90 percent "hard trigger." And so Sharry’s group, America’s Voice, can support the deal, albeit reluctantly.

"The deal is ridiculous from a policy point of view — it's excessive and wasteful," Sharry tells me. "But from a political point of view, if it brings 10 or 11 Senate Republican votes, we'll probably will be able to live with it."

As I keep saying, the people putting this mess together aren't even pretending to operate in good faith.

And as a wise man put it last week, "The Republican House was put on this earth to save us from huge pieces of comprehensive legislation like this."

Let's hope they come through.