Via the AP: Senate blocks immigration bill

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2024 elections.

The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

I have expected, from the very beginning, that this bill was not going to pass, and it appears now that those suspicions have been confirmed.

No doubt there will be much rejoicing and chest-thumping on conservative talk radio and at blogs like Michelle Malkin’s.

Now, I was never convinced of the merits of this particular bill and I have long taken a somewhat neutral (if not almost disinterested) view towards it, given that I never thought it would pass–so I have considered much of the discussion a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. Still, the one thing I find curious about the outcome, especially from the point of view of the more vociferous critics of the bill, is that with the bill’s defeat, nothing changes: we still have at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, and more will come. And despite all the hand-wringing over “amnesty” the bottom line is that we have de facto amnesty at the moment, and that isn’t going to change. Further, we seem, as a country, farther away from dealing with the economic realities of supply and demand that bring these people here in the first place than before this debate started a few years ago.

Any solution (if that is even the right word) for this situation is to recognize that short of making Mexico a first world economy, there will continue to be a serious influx of immigrants from the south no matter what we do. That is simply reality. From there the only policy solutions will have to be oriented towards managing that flow, not stopping it or even “controlling” it.

Some other suggestions for a sane debate:

• There is no serious reconquista movement–unless the goal is to conquer the right to clean McDonald’s and pick vegetables. yes, there are fringe groups that have talked about retaking the Southwest–but they are kooks.
• This isn’t about al Qaeda: if al Qaeda or other jihadists want to get into the US, there are easier ways to do than going to Mexico and trudging across the Sonoran desert.
• We will never truly “control” the southern border–it is too big and real control (if by control is meant actually dictating all crossings) would take resources so vast as to be ridiculous.
• Ultimately we have to focus on integration of new populations as a policy goal, rather than segmentation.

As I said before, there are a large number of very important issues that need to be debated here, and yes there are negative consequences of illegal immigration–but the balance sheet is not all negative (it certainly isn’t as dire as some would make it out to be).

It would be nice if we could have a serious debate about this issue and if that debate would result in sane policy. However, I shan’t be holding my breath.