The death of immigration reform, and some brand new bad ideas.

Yesterday, the NY Times editorial page took a swipe at Congress’ failure to pass an immigration reform bill.  In an editorial titled “Immigration’s Lost Year” the Times opined:

The latest proposals are the product of a Republicans-only “forum” last week that distilled the bilge water of a summer’s worth of immigration “hearings,” which were actually badly disguised campaign events. The hearings — with titles like “How Does Illegal Immigration Impact American Taxpayers and Will the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty Worsen the Blow?” — were show trials put on to destroy comprehensive reform by any means necessary. “What I wanted was witnesses who agree with me, not disagree with me,” said Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia, putting it perfectly.

The full op-ed is here.  The Times didn’t even mention my personal favorite “hearing.”  A hearing held on July 27 was actually entitled “Whether the Attempted Implementation of Reid-Kennedy Will Result in an Administrative and National Security Nightmare.”  Hearing, or propagada?  Hmmm…that’s a tough call….who can say, really?  I guess at least it is phrased in the form of a question.

In the meantime, since it’s clear that no meaningful immigration reform bill will be passed, the House has decided to crank out a series of bills that at first appear to me to have been inspired by the bad idea bears of Avenue Q fame.  After a little research, I determined that the bears probably did not have much to do with it (not directly, anyway).  These bills are based on the brief and sketchy GOP’s Border Security Now agenda– attached here: Download GOPbordersecurity.pdf .

Border security sounds good, and since my parents live a few of miles from the border, I’m all for it, but let’s be very clear that a lot of these “border security” proposals are about neither the border nor security.  The proposed bills arising out of this initiative include provisions authorizing the indefinite detention of noncitizens, further expanding the already overbroad category of noncitizens (and we’re talking legally present noncitizens) who will be subject to removal, and authorizing removal for anyone “designated” a member of a “gang” — even if they haven’t ever commited a crime.

It’s good to read the fine print when it comes to “hearings” and legislation where the hot-button topic of immigration is concerned.  Let’s not lose our heads, people.

-jmc