Monday, May 21, 2007

1-2-3-4 What Are We Asking For?

Immigration hawk bloggers and broadcasters have been pounding at the Senate immigration deal from the minute it was announced. It was Mickey Kaus who first noticed that illegals will no longer be expected to pay back taxes. The immigration amnesty is now also a tax amnesty.

Hugh Hewitt deciphered the bill's arcane and often deeply misleading structure to discover that it grants immediate legal status to almost all illegals. All the tough talk about enforcement is a cover: It's amnesty first, enforcement later or never.

The plan anticipates millions of probationary cards being issued in the immediate aftermath of the law’s passage subject to background checks which will at best be conducted months or years down the road, and possibly never.

Given time, we will learn much much more. But time is the thing that the bill's proponents are determined to deny. Here is the most important domestic legislation since - what? welfare reform? the Kemp-Roth tax cut? Medicare? - and the country has been given a weekend to think it over. The Senate wants to impose cloture this coming week.

By contrast, welfare reform was studied over almost two years. The Clinton administration introduced its welfare reform bill in June 1994. Several committees of Congress held hearings over the summer. An election supervened, and a new Republican majority was elected - in large part because of public unhappiness with the Democratic approach to welfare. The new Congress continued hearings through 1995; the law was finally enacted and signed in August 1996. Congress did the job slow - but it did the job right.

So as the protests gather, let's adopt a clear and reasonable demand: Can we ask the Senators please to understand it before they pass it? 1-2-3-4 what are we asking for? Hearings!

OK, as slogans go, it ain't "Remember the Maine." But look at the other side. The bill's proponents are saying:

"Buy now. Read the contract later." That's not exactly a winning argument either, is it?

Here's an interesting comparison. Suppose instead of totally revising the immigration system of the United States we were considering ... buying a donut franchise. How much notice would the seller have to give us?

Under federal law, all documents would have to be delivered into our hands a minimum of 10 days before the seller could legally accept any cash. Ten days notice for a donut franchise vs. 6 days notice for the most important domestic legislation in a generation!

As the Federal Trade Commission warns:

"A seller with a good offer doesn't use high-pressure tactics."

The tactics this week will be ultra-high-pressure. Americans should understand: that fact alone proves - this deal stinks.

05/21 01:57 AM