If you have been wondering how a 1,200-page bill so full of contradictions, waivers, exemptions and loopholes garnered unanimous support from 54 Senate Democrats and 14 open-borders Senate Republicans, the answer is so obvious that even the smartest pundits have missed it. The bill’s stupidities are not an accident: It is designed to fail, and moreover, designed to fail twice.
The Senate amnesty bill is designed to fail first as a piece of legislation: It has zero chance of being adopted by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But if by some dark miracle its main features were enacted into law, it would also fail to “fix our broken immigration system.”
Why would Barack Obama, all Senate Democrats and some Republicans rally behind a proposal that is aimed at failure? That answer: politics.
We may not want to admit it, but it’s true: In politics, failure has a large constituency. If a politician actually solves a problem, it goes away. But if the problem is good for the politician politically, he doesn’t want to solve it, he wants to keep it alive – and maybe even exacerbate it to help anger and energize a constituency.
That is obviously the case with immigration reform. What other explanation is there for a monstrous bill that not only does not “fix” any of the actual problems in our “broken immigration system,” but actually makes them worse? The transparent motivation behind the amnesty bill is to make the problem worse. Why? Because keeping the amnesty issue at a political boiling point serves the political ambitions of the Democratic Party.
Actually solving the problem would be rather simple if politicians wanted to do that. First, secure the border by building the 700-mile double fence as mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act and beefing up both the manpower and the technology of the Border Patrol. Then adopt serious measures on interior enforcement, streamline the many existing guest-worker programs and adopt the E-Verify program for employer verification of work eligibility.
Those measures, once in place, would demonstrate to a wary public that Congress has abandoned the charades of the past and gotten serious about fixing a broken immigration system. Contrary to the rhetoric of the amnesty lobby, the current system is not “broken” because it does not guarantee a visa to every person on the planet who wants to live in the United States. It is broken because we lack the means to actually enforce and implement tomorrow the immigration laws we adopt today. When enforcement is meaningless, the goals of the program are also meaningless.
If genuine border security and serious interior enforcement were ever actually achieved to a satisfactory, credible degree, the American public would be open to reasonable measures to accommodate a large segment of the 11 to 20 million illegal aliens already here. What the American public is not open to is to continue playing games with border security so that the problem is perpetuated, not solved.
The evidence is now overwhelming that President Obama and the Democratic Party do not want to the problem solved and do not want the broken immigration system fixed. They want open borders in perpetuity. That they have this goal is no mystery. But why do they want that?
The answer has been revealed many times in the rhetoric of the amnesty debate for anyone paying attention. In the middle of the 2007 debate on the Senate’s McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a New York Times editorial gave away the secret. In utter exasperation over the obstacles the amnesty bill was encountering, the editors moaned that without a continuing replenishment of the pool of “victims of discrimination and exploitation,” progressives would face electoral defeat.
The left believes, seriously, that since our own society is not producing a sufficient supply of “victims,” we need to import them. And if they do not think of themselves as victims upon arrival, the left has an army of “community organizers” to educate and then mobilize them.
The dirty little secret of the progressive left is that its leaders realize our nation’s free-market economy actually works – it lifts the incomes and well-being of working-class Americans, so they gradually become less and less amenable to big government “solutions.”
For the left, the answer to this problem is open borders, which means in practice, an open invitation and facilitation for a never-ending flow of low-skilled laborers from countries with no free-market culture or traditions. A continual flow of such “migrants” every year will guarantee the replenishment of the pool of “social victims” who will want and need government subsidies of all kinds.
Oh, and it just so happens that new immigrants over the past 50 years have registered and voted Democratic by a more than two-to-one margin. Imagine that.
If the New York Times editorial board is not a sufficient authority to persuade you of the reality of this agenda, consider the remarks of Eliseo Medina at a 2009 conference of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He complained that without another amnesty program, the progressive agenda was doomed.
There is no mystery why Democrats and avowed socialist organizations like the SEIU demand a new amnesty program without guaranteed border security. The only mystery is why Marco Rubio and so many other Republicans have joined Saul Alinsky’s parade to nowhere.