If the New York Times is encouraged, then I'm discouraged.

The good news is that in this yearÂ’s debate, triggers and touchback have become potential areas of compromise. It remains true that maliciously devised triggers can be too onerous, but as The Wall Street Journal reported, Democrats are now saying that they are open to well-written trigger provisions, since that could give a bill broader support among Republicans. Reassuring Americans that border security is improving is reasonable, as long as achieving the benchmarks is not the sole and ultimate aim. Republican leaders, to their credit, have backed away from the narrow, enforcement-only approach that disgraced their efforts last year.

Triggers and touchback have already been conceded by the supporters of comprehensive reform; a bill in the House, the Strive Act, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, would require immigrants to leave the country and return within a six-year span. ItÂ’s not ideal, but if a touchback provision is manageable and reassures people that illegal immigrants are indeed going to the back of the line, then it will be defensible.

The possible breaking of the stalemate was only part of the good news in recent days. The other part came in the form of research showing Americans way ahead of the hard right on immigration reform. The USA Today/Gallup poll found that 78 percent favored earned citizenship.

The problem is, though, that the triggers teh Times supports are too easy to meet -- and the touchback provision too soft. And there still remains no real enforcement provision. And of course 78% of Americans -- including me -- support the notion of earned citizenship. The thing is that a great many of us reject the notion that we should be regarding those who have already shown a propensity to violate our nation's law with a preferential spot in the line, which any "comprehensive" immigration bill will do.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.