The View From Here . . .
By Bob Morgan, Jr.

The comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill proposed in Congress and supported by President Bush again puts this complex subject at the front of the national debate.

In broad outline, the bill would allow most illegal immigrants already here to legalize their status through a new "Z" visa, which could be renewed repeatedly. Immigrants seeking permanent legal residence or eventual citizenship would face long waits and have to pay fees and fines. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries.

The deal also proposes changing immigration priorities to one based on the need for particular job skills in the workplace. Spouses and minor children of legal residents and citizens would still be able to get green cards, but more distant relatives would be covered by a point system measuring their job skills, English proficiency, education and related attributes.

Finally, the measure establishes a new guest worker program. Workers could come here to work for two years, would have to leave for a year and then could return for one more period of two years. Significantly, participation in the guest worker program does not speed the road to citizenship or legal residency.

Not surprisingly, the bill is highly controversial, among elements of both the right and the left. Many conservatives complaint that the bill does not stress enforcement first and is an unacceptable disguised amnesty for illegal aliens. Liberals do not like the changes in immigration priorities and the guest worker program.

Where conservatives are right is that the border does need to be sealed, immediately. While the security threat posed by would-be gardeners and busboys from Latin America is minimal, in the post 9/11 world we cannot allow, for example, young men from Middle Eastern countries to enter the country unscreened. If it takes a physical fence to deter unauthorized entry (along with electronic surveillance and a beefed up Border Patrol), then build the fence. The bill, however, cuts back the length of a fence approved in the last Congress.

I do believe, however, that the political right needs to accept certain realities. Something must be done concerning the 12 million or so undocumented aliens who are currently here. They cannot realistically be deported and, moreover, play significant roles in a number of sectors of the economy. Simply labeling as "amnesty" every realistic effort to address the situation does not advance the debate.

The complaints of liberals relating to family preferences seem a bit exaggerated. While family reunification is a legitimate humanitarian goal, there is nothing particularly fair about allowing more distant relative of citizens and legal residents to in effect jump the line ahead of other potential entrants. Moreover, basing the admission criteria on employment skills helps strengthen the quality of the United States workforce.

On the other hand, liberals may be on to something when they complain about the guest worker program. While the bracero program was reasonably successful in the 1950s, the fears of creating a legally marginal underclass are legitimate. A key goal of immigration should be rapid assimilation of newcomers, something the United States does better than European nations, and creating a class of people with only temporary rights and responsibilities seems contrary to that goal.

The outlook for the new bill is cloudy at best, as opponents from all over the ideological spectrum may combine to kill it. In my view that would be unfortunate. While some amendments are in order, the new proposed legislation is a serious effort to address a serious problem.