Coming Soon! (Im)migration Reform, The Sequel

One time Arizona governor and now Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has opined that the time has finally come for wholesale reform of American immigration (or as the governments south of the Big River term it, "migration") reform. She modestly allowed as she had been involved in the (im)migration game since 1993 so, she is perfectly positioned to know when times had changed and when the time was ripe for change.

The Secretary is also well aware of the pressure coming from governments from Mexico on south for the US to make the gate open widely. Assorted Central American governments have already communicated this desire in a robust and open way to the Obama administration and members of Congress. Now these have been joined by Ecuador, one of the three countries of the "Bolivarian Revolution." Apparently being a participant in "Socialism for the 21st Century" in no way prevents the government of Ewo Morales from demanding the US alter its (im)migration policies to the advantage of those seeking entrance into the Land of the Big PX.

As an issue in Mexico the (im)migration reform drive continues as a high profile way to gain political credit while not doing a darned thing to improve the lot of the average, long-suffering Mexican in the land of his birth and home. The same is true in Guatemala where trends in crime, murder, narco-trafficking, and general economic conditions decline without an effective governmental response following the path pioneered by Mexico.

At the same time the assorted Central American governments who want the US to open its doors wide to all comers are complaining mightily about the "smuggling" of Chinese, Africans, and others into their countries. Of course, these illegals are only in transit to the same Land of the Humongous PX as their own nationals, but that is a small detail. In short, all of our problems, the governments and assorted advocates allege, is the fault of the US, specifically its "inhumane" (im)migration policies.

Secretary Napolitano and worthies in Congress including Illinois Congressman, Luis Gutierrez (D), and New York Senator, Chuck Schumer (D), are stepping up to remedy the situation. The remedy will be a path to citizenship which will be "tough," including paying a fine, paying taxes, passing a criminal background check, and (horrors! say it ain't so!) learning English.

This proposal will be coupled with the usual whistles and bells of enhanced border control measures and (vaguely defined, and vaguely possible) increased sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegals. Ms Napolitano downplayed the add-ons by saying that the porous border had been leakproofed by the addition of twenty thousand border guards and that high tech miracle, the not-yet-finished Great Fence of the Southwest.

In an amazing flight of rhetorical double think, the Secretary also sought to calm fears (if there were any in her left-leaning audience) by invoking the effect of the current Great Recession on the employment of illegals and thus the number of these aliens currently residing in the US. Her contention makes sense only if the Obama administration intends that unemployment will continue in double digits as far into the future as anyone cares to peer. Otherwise, her attempt to assuage the anxieties of others (including organized labor) regarding the impact of (im)migration reform on the job market is as wrong as a mountain lion chirping.

The Obama administration is, according to its point person on (im)migration reform, J.N. herself, committed to reform during 2010. It will support any initiative arising in Congress to this effect, but will not, apparently, seize the lead itself. Recognizing that (im)migration reform is not a popular topic for action within the majority of We the People, the courageous Obama and his equally heroic people will do what they did during the contention over health care overhaul--hide behind the Wall of Congress.

Letting the Congress Wallahs take the heat may be a popular course for the White House, but is not likely to appeal to all those who must seek re-election in 2010. Given what happened to the bipartisan reform bill two years ago, it is not probable that many will be eager to take on the problem of twelve million illegals and those who will come after them.

The (im)migration reform issue has always been one which has been characterized by strong emotions, expressions of the deep-rooted American identity crisis, and strong fears as to the nature of that identity both now and into the future. It is a matter tinged with racial and nativist colors. It has always been an issue in which epithets and curses have flown fast and far as the record of public discussion of (im)migration reform efforts not only two years ago but recurrently over the past century and more shows clearly.

Matters of national and cultural identity have never been without a very heavy emotional component because identity both personal and national is one of emotions not reason. As a purely artificial nation, the US has always been particularly susceptible to emotionalism in this area. This tendency is stronger now because of the prevalence within the American elite of a devotion to the totems of multi-culturalism, diversity, and cultural relativism which are not shared by the majority of the hoi polloi.

Since the emergence of the new media gives a voice to the hoi polloi, their views can no longer be ignored or silenced by the simple expedient of giving over the media solely to the approved voices. Now it is necessary to out-shout, out-insult, over power the disagreeable voices by sheer volume and repetition.

That course, the path of marginalizing and demonizing the opposition was blazed during the controversy over (im)migration reform two years ago. The person who was not in favor of opening citizenship to all comers was characterized as a racist, a xenophobe, a narrow minded bigot who was red of neck and possessed of an itchy trigger finger. The person who was not a full bore supporter of easy citizenship was painted in the darkest hues of hatred, fear, and reaction.

It is not that the opponents of (im)migration reform are free of the sins of tergiversatious, self-serving mis-characterization of those supporting reform but rather that the supporters were far more free of any inhibitions of civility. If the same trajectory is followed with the next round, the adherents of "E-Z In" will use the same approach--only more so.

The fight over reform will be nasty, brutal, and, unfortunately, not short. The deepest emotions are engaged. The most pervasive fears are fully present. Both sides will show themselves clinging to one semi-mythical past or its opposite even as they argue that it is the future with which they are concerned.

Let's hear it one more time for the old Chinese toast (and curse,) "May you live in interesting times."

Sure enough, bucko, we are doing just that.