The Democrats' immigration blunder

In a last-ditch effort to generate bipartisan support for a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2010, top Senate Democrats have been circulating a 26-page "compromise" proposal (pdf) intended to woo Republican moderates to their cause. On its face, the draft proposal, first released on 28 April , is shocking. Most notably, it wholeheartedly embraces the "enforcement-first" argument identified with the GOP that most Democrats have rejected in the past. While the Democrats' proposal still calls for a sweeping legalisation programme for the nation's estimated 10-12 million undocumented immigrants, it now states that any legalisation programme should be delayed for at least eight years, and should not be carried out "until the border is secure." And, as if to underscore that goal, the proposal says that a series of "clear and concrete benchmarks" for enforcement must first be reached before undocumented immigrants can even apply for green cards. Which means that even if Congress agrees to a legalisation programme, its implementation could still be a long way off – if it comes at all. Also shocking is the Democrats' plan to introduce a compulsory national work authorisation card similar to the controversial programme that was recently abolished in Great Britain . The new card – using a biometric identifier such a thumbprint – would require all US residents to prove their legal residency and eligibility to work in the US. In the past, civil libertarians and privacy groups have blocked the card idea. But its supporters, including the two key architects of comprehensive reform, Democratic senator Charles Schumer and Republican senator Lindsey Graham, argue that it's a more permanent and durable solution than current workplace verification systems like " E-Verify " that rely on incomplete and inaccurate data. The logistics alone are daunting. The Schumer-Graham plan envisions a phased implementation of five years or more, and would only apply to new hires or to people who change jobs. It's not clear how much the card will actually improve workplace verification and how many aliens might escape the net while the system's being phased in. And the plan is prohibitively expensive. Ironically, some of the biggest sceptics are likely to be GOP conservatives. They'll back a big border fence and even require employers to help verify legal status. But the idea that 200 million law-abiding Americans should be required to re-authenticate their identity – to solve a problem caused by less than 5% of the population – rubs many the wrong way. Conservatives, in fact, have strongly backed E-Verify to the hilt, warts and all. In the end, an unholy alliance of liberals opposed to enforcement in general, and conservatives opposed to a national ID card specifically, could well doom the Schumer-Graham plan. Expect fierce debate as well over a second controversial element in the new Democratic plan – how to create new legal channels for immigrants. Historically Democrats have focused on unskilled workers, mostly Mexicans, who also comprise the bulk of the illegal alien population. But in another ideological concession, the new Democratic proposal places much greater emphasis on skilled workers, especially scientists and engineers, who typically come to the US as students or on temporary work visas. Business groups have long felt that the current visa "cap" for skilled workers should be raised or abolished and that foreign-born students with exceptional technical abilities should be "captured" for the US economy, rather than be sent home to help foreign economies better compete with America. On both counts, the Democratic proposal contains good news: the skilled visa cap is gone and so are most obstacles to hiring foreign-born students. That's likely to spur a dramatic shift in the composition of the immigrant worker pool over time and could easily push immigration levels to record levels. Which won't sit well with GOP nativists who want to see overall US immigration numbers – legal as well as illegal – reduced. But on the issue of legalisation, expect no such GOP division. Instead, the real question is how the Democrats plan to explain their proposal to their base. In a recent Gallup poll Obama's favourability rating with Latinos has fallen precipitously since his state of the union address last January, while his rating among black and white voters has held steady. His refusal to make a serious push for immigration reform – especially on legalisation – is widely viewed as the reason. So in fact, the Democrats have blundered – and badly. They conceded tactically on their central immigration policy plank in the hopes of pulling off an election-year legislative victory. But after November, a delayed legalisation is likely to be only the starting point for a new, more conservative GOP-led policy debate on immigration that champions enforcement, and puts legalisation on the back burner for good. Try explaining that to Latinos, Mr President.