Tackling illegal immigration

There seems little doubt that illegal immigration is the single most divisive issue among conservatives.  There's a sense among border hawks that anyone who doesn't adopt an enforcement-only position on the matter has caved to political correctness and sold out the nation's sovereignty in the name of feel-good policies and rhetoric.  Then, there are those who are uncomfortable with the rhetoric that has been employed by border hawks and resent the feeling that they're being ideologically bullied into accepting a harsh view of Hispanics in general in order to avoid being tarred as a criminal coddling one-worlder.

Over the course of the debate, the thing that stands out is that, generally speaking, the depth of passion with regard to the issue is directly attributable to the individual's proximity to the problem.  People who live in border states naturally feel much more strongly about illegal immigration than those who live in the nation's interior and aren't force to confront the fallout of uncontrolled immigration.  And, so, the problem becomes one of perspective.  You can't expect someone who lives in a rural town in North Dakota to have the same experience as someone who lives in San Antonio or Los Angeles.

That's not to say that people who live in the nation's interior don't feel strongly about the issue.  There are those who live in Wisconsin Dells who will grow positively livid at the mere mention of the subject.  By the same token, there are conservatives (albeit, not many) in Brownsville, Texas who shudder at the thought of a Tancredoesque immigration policy.  Invariably, the most passionate group on either side tends to dictate the terms of debate, and neither side seems interested in discussing anything beyond the deepest principles upon which they base their views, and the best way to see those principles reflected in policy.

Those who hold the most restrictionist view do so based on the idea that the law is the law, and if there is no respect for one portion of the law, then it heralds a breakdown of the entire system and undermines the most basic element of an orderly society.  Those who hold a more relaxed approach tend to do so based on the idea that part of America's unique character is its generally welcoming attitude toward foreigners and the belief that anyone who comes here and is willing to put forth the effort and play by the rules can contribute to the greatest, most successful experiment in human history.

Ah, but there's the sticking point:  "play by the rules".  It is, after all, a crucial part of the equation.  And, whether we like it or not, illegal immigrants are here as a result of a failure to play by the rules.  Consequently, they have bypassed one of the basic elements of the experiment -- often at the expense of those who go to the not-inconsiderable trouble observe all of the elements.  Understandably, many people find this grossly unfair, and it infuriates them.

Still, there is the issue of the rhetoric employed in advocating a more restrictionist posture.  When an issue divides people into camps based on principles that are so basic as law and order versus freedom and opportunity, it is inevitable that passions will become inflamed.  It is made even worse when the two sides are divided by virtue of having to see the direct consequences of uncontrolled immigration as opposed to seeing the benefits of high levels of immigration. 

A lettuce farmer in Arizona sees hardworking people who will work for lower wages than the teenagers who would prefer to work in the service industry rather than spend his days sweating in a field.  Young parents see their children learning Spanish from the little Mexican girl who just moved in down the street, and her parents seem like honest, hardworking people.

Meanwhile, a framing carpenter in Bakersfield, California sees his opportunities diminish because he can't get a decent-paying job as a result of an influx of low-paid Mexicans who are wiling to work for low wages and get by on the bare minimum so that he can send his pay back across the border to his family so that they can eventually come and stay in the U.S.  Or, a struggling middle class family sits in a hospital waiting room for hours hoping for their child to be seen by a doctor at some point in the near future, fearing they'll be given the bum's rush because they don't have insurance.  And, find themselves in a room with people who don't speak English and obviously don't have insurance either getting the same treatment, if not better, and knowing that the government will be picking up their tab.

It is clearly obvious that something needs to be done.  Native born Americans are growing resentful, and not without good reason, at the seeming disregard with which they see themselves being treated by their government.  If this continues unaddressed, the resentments will grow, and all of the nightmare scenarios that pro-immigrant groups point to as looming threats will undoubtedly come to fruition.  And, there is absolutely no reason that this has to be the case.

As conservatives, we all agree that centralized government is bad government.  It is far removed from the people it serves, and it has repeatedly proven itself to be utterly clumsy and oafish with regard to dealing with localized problems.  And, at least in its most extreme cases, illegal immigration is a localized problem.  Why should it be addressed through a centralized bureaucracy like Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Back in the days leading up to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, one of the most compelling arguments that Republicans made was that government should be closer to the people.  As a result, there was as rash of proposals for government reform geared toward that end.  Why can't illegal immigration be a part of that kind of reform?

I would submit that the problem would be best addressed in the way that crime in general was addressed by the Contract with America.  It seems to me, as a conservative, that having the power to enforce our immigration laws centralized and funded through a bloated bureaucracy like ICE, and throwing more money at it every year with minimal results and the inevitable kick-in of the law of diminishing returns, is a terrible idea.

How about turning to federalism?  How about, instead of funding what hasn't worked for so long, returning to what we know works?  Why not, instead of rewarding ICE for years of failure and ineptitude, we take some of the money that is being spent on what hasn't worked, put it into block grants to fund local enforcement agencies to deal with the problem?  The money would then be targeted toward places where the problem is most keenly felt, and it would be used by people who are most familiar with their particular situation, rather than a heavily centralized body that is by nature a victim of inertia?

Some money could be directed toward the facilities that would inevitably be needed to house and process the illegal immigrants that are apprehended if local enforement officials deem it necessary.  Some could be directed toward training local officers in immigration law, or even Spanish language education.  Whatever it is that the local community needs, they're more likely to know it than a bureaucrat it D.C.

And, finally, what makes decentralization work is that it creates an opportunity for ideas to be generated by people closest to the situation.  The more successful ideas could then serve as models for other areas that are hard-hit by the woes that accompany uncontrolled immigration.  They could choose to focus on whatever symptom of the problem has proven to be the most vexing within their own communities, rather than have it dictated and enforced by people with no familiarity to their own unique situations.  And, finally, those communities wherein illegal immigration has not proven to be a real problem wouldn't have reason to fear the prospect of the government swooping down on them and disrupting their lives.

I don't contend that this is the entire solution to the problem.  But, it at least addresses the issue in a way that conservatives can all support in good conscience, and provides relief to those who most desperately need it, and a measure of peace of mind for those who are alarmed whenever they see the looming shadow of the heavy hand of government descending upon their lives and communities.  At the very least, it seems to provide room to breathe for all of us.