E nforcement of current immigration laws is a political prerequisite for immigration reform, whatever direction that reform is supposed to go. This is one of the points made by Peter Schuck in a dispassionate, informative piece on immigration in The American Interest . He cites the work of David Martin, whom he describes as “probably the country’s leading immigration scholar and a liberal immigration reform advocate with high-level agency experience.”
Martin points to “this crucial but often-ignored political link between a more expansive immigration policy and public perception of enforcement effectiveness. . . . Martin shows how weak enforcement almost always leads the public to demand harsh, often ill-advised restrictions that actually magnify enforcement failures, stymie useful reforms, and make expanding legal impossible.”
Martin offers a number of specific proposals: “Correctly noting that interior enforcement is the ‘weakest part' of our system, he urges shifting some resources from the Border Patrol to identifying and apprehending overstays and those who enter without inspection, emphasizing that collecting biometric information for exit verification is insufficient without other enforcement changes.”
If immigration restrictionists want enforcement, and enforcement is also necessary for expanding immigration, you'd think we'd be able to come to a consensus. One of the strengths of Schuck's article is to explain the barriers to solving hot-button policy issues like immigration. Hard policy issues are “usually national in scope or importance,” and therefore not resolvable at the state or local level; they “are highly salient to the public,” “historically inflected,” and “turn partly on complex empirical disputes that current knowledge cannot authoritatively resolve”; besides, “they engender deep normative debates” and “are severely constrained by a legacy of politically entrenched interests, poorly performing programs, and political commitments.”
All this makes it difficult to resolve the immigration issue, even on those points where everyone's interests converge.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Immigration
Continue reading related articles
Deportation?
Robert Heimburger's God and the Illegal Alien is a careful, theologically-informed treatment of American immigration law. He provides detailed overviews of the development of immigration law, including the origins of the concept of a legal "alien," sketches a theology of politics with the help of "Barth's biblical theology of the…
Is Immigration “Decimating” Us?
David Goldman (Spengler) acknowledges that “illegal immigration is a bad thing, and the social costs of a mass influx of poor and uneducated migrants from Mexico and Central America are significant.” Yet he doesn't think it is “one of America’s bigger problems.” That is partly because migration has been declining:…
Assimilated To What?
Leave aside the question of illegal immigrants for a moment. Legal immigration is itself a political and cultural challenge. And one of the central questions is whether or not the newest immigrants - coming from Latin America, Africa, and Asia rather than from Europe - can assimilate to American life.…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.