President Bush’s newly proposed immigration plan is very
much in line with the two most crucial goals of our era: the
establishment of a healthy economy and the preservation of national
security. Nonetheless, as driven by common sense as it is, the plan
overlooks the larger, more abstract picture of a just and civil
society.
In connection with the first goal, the plan promises to be a
brilliant one. The presence of millions of undocumented workers in
the United States makes sound economic judgments and predictions
nearly impossible. In his speech, the president said, “This
program will offer legal status as temporary workers to the
millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United
States.”
The upshots of this measure will be beneficial. A huge
underground economy will soon be visible and will be subject to the
same open scrutiny and rules of engagement as its competition. And,
as Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute writes, “A legalized
system of migration would allow American producers in important
sectors of our economy to hire the workers they need to
grow.”
In short, the new immigration plan will transform an invisible
economic sector to a visible one. In doing so, it will make
economics a far more transparent and, by extension, fairer
game.
National security stands to profit from Bush’s immigration
plan as well. The 10 million illegal immigrants who reside in this
country are virtually undetectable. In fact, in the computers of
the IRS, the FBI and even the Department of Homeland Security,
these people often don’t exist at all. Bush’s proposal
will give illegal immigrants an incentive to register with
authorities. It will turn a massive segment of our population into
tax-paying, law-bound American residents.
Hence, the benefits of the new immigration plan are substantial
and appealing. Ten million people are in this country illegally,
whether we like it or not. The proposal will give them good reason
not only to join the emerging economy and pay taxes, but also to
abide by the law. Bush’s immigration plan is, by and large, a
plan of common sense.
“But common sense is not enough where theoretical
knowledge is required,” writes philosopher and novelist Ayn
Rand in her book “Philosophy: Who Needs It.” “It
can make simple, concrete-bound connections ““ it cannot
integrate complex issues, or deal with wide abstractions, or
forecast the future,” she writes.
In this case, common sense fails to consider the institution
that is a necessary prerequisite for a good economy and national
security: a nation.
Sovereignty is a central component of national identity. Without
strictly recognized and protected borders there can be no nation.
And though President Bush would disagree, his recent immigration
plan is categorically incompatible with self-government. The
recognition of illegal immigrants is, if only indirectly, a call
for more illegal immigration. And if lawless migrants can enter or
exit the United States without fear of penalty or repercussion,
with no consideration of laws and regulations, then our country is
no longer the self-directed, independent country it became in
1776.
Bush’s immigration proposal also assails the concepts of
law and order and the rule of law. Immigration laws, however just
or unjust, are laws nonetheless. Those who violate it, for good
reasons or for bad, deny the laws of this country, reject our
legislature and disdain the legal process of the United States. In
principle, there is no difference between immigration laws and
robbery laws. They both take root from the same process and, as
such, cannot be enforced and upheld to different degrees.
Finally, Bush’s proposal discards the very vision that
guides all righteous countries: justice. For decades, immigrants
have sought to enter the United States to forge a new life and
pursue the American dream. Some have respected the laws of this
country and applied for citizenship. Others have crossed our
borders in spite of them. Bush’s plan gives at least partial
amnesty to those who have broken the law at the exclusion of those
who have followed it.
President Bush’s immigration policy is all about having a
good economy and preserving national security. But it takes for
granted the fact that we need to have a nation first. The
president’s proposal takes away from the United States the
very virtues that have attracted immigrants for centuries ““
the rule of law, due process, freedom and justice.
Certainly, current immigration laws are marred with shortcomings
and imperfections. Ideally, the United States would be open ““
in spirit and in law ““ to all immigrants who wish to live
within its borders. But Bush’s proposal has not addressed
this more important point at all. It has attempted to solve
immigration problems by creating national problems.
The president’s laughable plan pits immigration policy and
the sanctity of the law against each other, implying that both
cannot exist at the same time.
And it has chosen immigration. This makes it tragic.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.