The GOP's Immigration Fumble

We did a double-take at reports last week that Dick Gephardt wants to give permanent residency status to millions of illegal immigrants. The House Minority Leader has to know that President Bush backed a similar initiative last spring but ran into a roadblock in the form of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who killed the measure for what he claimed were security reasons.

We don't know whether Mr. Byrd has indicated that he will cooperate this go-round, but we do know that if Mr. Gephardt is successful the Democrats will have politically outmaneuvered the GOP on an issue that could hurt Republicans in November. It should never have come to this.

Immigration is important to President Bush, as one would expect from the former governor of a border state. Back in March, the White House supported an extension of the Section 245(i) program, which expired more than a year ago. The program applied only to immigrants who entered the country legally on a visa that had expired or was about to.

Instead of forcing these foreigners to return home to reapply -- a process that can take up to 10 years -- they were permitted to continue working here during the reapplication process. Under the President's proposal, those who allowed their visas to expire would have to pay a $1,000 penalty before receiving the permanent residency status that they otherwise were eligible for.

The proposal was both humane and economically sensible. Many of those eligible to benefit are married to American citizens and have children here. Deporting them for the duration of the application process would break up families. It also would disrupt businesses that depend on foreign labor for jobs that Americans don't want.

In March the bill to extend Section 245(i) passed the House, 275-137, despite opposition from a minority of restrictionist Republicans (and a sympathetic conservative press) keen on exploiting September 11 to advance an anti-immigration agenda. The Senate also would have passed the extension, but Senator Byrd wouldn't permit a vote. Eventually, the White House backed down.

Fast-forward to last week, where we find Mr. Gephardt in Miami addressing the liberal Hispanic group La Raza, and scoring points with lines like, "President Bush talks about immigration reform but there's not been enough action to match the rhetoric." Needless to say, Mr. Byrd went unmentioned as Mr. Gephardt proceeded to sketch a proposal for legalizing undocumented immigrants.

Mr. Gephardt is mum on the particulars, but the details aren't as important to Democrats as regaining the issue to run on in November. Mr. Gephardt can be faulted for his selective memory and ethnic pandering, but we also blame Mr. Bush and the GOP for giving Democrats this opening. Had the White House stayed the course on 245(i) last spring, Mr. Gephardt's job would be a lot more difficult in the fall.

It's clear that current U.S. policy toward Mexican immigrants -- who comprise most of the illegals -- is inadequate. The practice of late has been to emphasize border security, but according to a recent Public Policy Institute study this has actually made the situation worse.

While the annual budget for border security has tripled since 1995, the number of illegals living in the U.S. is at an all-time high. Making it more difficult to cross the border illegally has given an incentive to those who are already here to stay put, or at least to stay much longer than before. Between 1987 and 1992, 54% of Mexican illegals in the U.S. eventually returned home. Between 1995 and 2000, just 25% did.

The U.S. needs policies in place that recognize the economic realities that come with a long, porous border between an immensely rich country and a poor one. We need programs that will legalize the status of foreigners who are here already and contributing to our economy. We need more legal channels, such as temporary work programs, to handle future arrivals. And we need to speed up family reunifications.

The 245(i) program addressed some of these needs, and Republicans had a chance both to do the right thing by the economy and align themselves with a voting bloc that doesn't usually vote GOP. Instead, come fall, they're likely to get more of the Gephardt treatment.

Updated August 1, 2002