May
26 , 2006
Bush’s
Subtle Approach to Immigration Issue
President Bush’s May 15,
2006, address to the nation on the issue of immigration
that has caused a fissure even in his own conservative
party, reflected a remarkably subtle handling of
a ticklish matter.
Prima facie, the countrywide demonstrations of immigrants
against the Bill proposed by the House appear to
have influenced his views and approach. But, the
same Mr. Bush had remained smug in the face of the
worldwide rallies of unprecedented scales against
the invasion of Iraq. No doubt, he values the views
of his party colleagues and aides but in this instance
his own proclivities might have weighed more heavily
with him.
By and large, the Republicans want harsh measures
against illegal immigrants, including their arrest
and deportation and enforcement of strong, prohibitive
measures at borders, and introduction of an identification
card system for foreign workers that would include
digitized fingerprints, Their Bill passed by the
House makes it a federal crime to live in the US
illegally. Individuals who help illegal immigrants
to enter or stay in the country should also face
criminal penalties. They want employers to participate
in an electronic employment eligibility verification
system.
Mr. Bush’s views, on the other hand, have
evidently been shaped by his roots in Texas, politics
of that border state, and longtime personal views
formed by close association with Hispanics. He holds
that “it is neither wise nor realistic to
round up millions of people, many with deep roots
in the USA and send them across the border.”
Walls and patrols alone will not stop illegal immigration,
he correctly maintains. Instead, the focus should
be on trying to reduce the number of people trying
to sneak across. He has recommended a guest worker
program, so that the illegal immigrants come out
of the shadow and ditch their current pariah status,
hold their heads high as tax-paying individuals
moving on the path to citizenship.
No doubt, illegal immigration poses a major problem
for the country, particularly as the total tally
of such individuals exceeds 11 million - a figure
higher than the total population of many a world
state. People at large feel strongly that some thing
ought to be done to cause a change in the current
pattern. Around 4,800 persons cross surreptitiously
the 2000-mile long border every night! The total
number of these illegal entrants into this country
has swollen to almost three times the number of
legal applicants who are waiting in line for several
years past.
Mr. Bush has recommended that the illegal immigrants,
once they become eligible for change of status,
will have to take their place behind these legal
applicants. He has flatly rejected the possibility
of granting them amnesty. That would have put them
ahead of legal applicants - a clear travesty of
equity and justice.
No doubt, the US is a nation of immigrants. The
Statue of Liberty welcomes the poor and persecuted
of the world. But, it certainly is not open to a
virtual invasion of the populace from across its
southern border. The immigrants having entered this
country illegally now consider it their right to
be granted amnesty and citizenship. The government
cannot abdicate its responsibility to secure its
borders and enforce the rule of law.
Yet, it cannot be ignored that immigrants, legal
or illegal, have invigorated this nation. What is
therefore needed is to find the middle ground between
deporting illegal immigrants and granting them amnesty
and immediate citizenship.
It is also to be remembered that the illegal immigrants
are hardworking and have contributed significantly
to the march of the economy, particularly as bulk
of them take jobs that are unattractive for the
general American people. They would be seen working
on farms, as laborers on construction sites, as
gardeners, sewerage workers, in sweatshops, and
tending to other menial jobs.
Mr. Bush appeared to have three clear objectives
in his speech. First, he wanted to assure the nation
that as leader of the country he was cognizant of
his responsibility to do something about a major
national problem. Secondly, salve and mollify his
Republican base that had taken a harsh stand against
illegal immigrants. Thirdly, he wanted to project
his image as suave leader with the finesse to chalk
out a compromise between competing immigrations
bills in the Senate and the House.
Apart from the split in his own party, he has to
contend with the Democrats who are focused now on
the mid-term elections in November this year. They
would certainly like to exploit the sentiments generated
in the huge, countrywide demonstration by the immigrants.
They would make all sorts of promises to secure
the Hispanic votes. In the last elections, 40 per
cent of them had voted for Bush. If he pursues vigorously
the stance he has taken, the percentage might at
least not go down substantially. Also, Hispanics
remember his ties to the Latinos in Texas, a state
with stronger historical and cultural ties to Mexico
than any other. They may also remember his emphatic
stand as Governor of Texas that the children of
illegal immigrants had the right to go to Texas
schools. This contrasted vividly at that time with
the initiative of California Governor, Pete Wilson
that denied public services to illegal immigrants.
The need for an overhaul of immigration policy has
given rise to passionate debates about national
identity, economic needs, and social strains. One
hopes that in the heat of the arguments, the need
for the maintenance of the nation’s overarching
tradition of openness is not lost sight of. That
tradition does not ignore the fact that this country
is run on the basis of the rule of law. Seen in
this perspective, Mr. Bush’s proposals appear
as carrying considerable merit.
- arifhussaini@hotmail.com
