Many people are justifiably confused about the contradictory immigration policies of our government that became most pronounced under GW Bush and continue under Obama. We encounter a systematic lack of enforcement, followed by a brief, but harsh wave of immigration raids. I am convinced that the only explanation of these contradictory policies are:
Politicians are seeking to achieve the minimum enforcement level necessary to avoid the complete alienation of the majority (about 60%) of Americans who are troubled by the erosion of the rule of law. Since this is not the core issue for the majority of this demographic group, their discontent on immigration policy is rarely translated into the abandonment or previously supported candidates or political parties. They are willing to "swallow the bitter pill" because their candidate is (for example) pro-choice or pro-life.
And politicians also seek to maintain enforcement levels at a level low enough to not completely alienate the perceived sentiments of Latino voters and businesses that are addicted to cheap labor.
This may be a good strategy for winning votes, but it translates into contradictory policies that will neither re-establish the rule of law nor systematically normalize the status of millions of undocumented immigrants. And paradoxically, the longer we avoid resolving this issue, the less likely we be to achieve amnesty or enforcement.
No comments:
Post a Comment