Our View - Tuesday

One step back

Immigration bill won’t be ‘dead’ indefinitely

The “comprehensive” immigration reform bill introduced a few weeks ago in the Senate is dead — or at least dormant — having fallen 15 votes short of the 60 needed to close debate and move to a final vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it could return, perhaps in just a few weeks, after some tinkering. We hope it will. But for now, President Bush’s effort to work with Democrats to garner one legislative success in his lame-duck term has hit a wall, stalled by the polarizing nature of the debate.

Like most compromises, this one was imperfect. The “guest worker” program was reduced to 200,000 a year from 400,000 — about half of the 400,000-500,000 illegal immigrants the U.S. economy has been absorbing per year. Its labyrinthine provisions — work here for two years maximum, return to the home country for at least one year, work here for another two years — plus the fact that an amendment would “sunset” the program in five years, made it likely that a significant number of workers would choose simply to ignore it.

Critics are eager to brand as “amnesty” any program that leads to possible citizenship for those already here illegally — even one that involves a fine, learning English and 13 years of uncertainty. But realistic alternatives are in short supply. Nobody seriously advocates hunting down 12 to 20 million people and deporting them, which would be enormously disruptive, expensive and require police state tactics.

A strategy of “attrition,” using workplace raids, more rigorous identity requirements for everyone, the monitoring of landlords and those who use medical services, with the idea of making staying here so unattractive that most illegals would simply get up and leave, is also fraught with practical problems.

One of the most interesting features of the bill was a proposal to set up a “point” system to give preference to future immigrants who have skills the government determines are “needed” in the economy, like college degrees, facility in English, specialized skills and work experience, which would replace the current system of giving preference to family members of those who are already here legally. But this assumes government can accurately predict the future job market and what skills will be needed. This would increase government control over the economy by privileging certain industries or professions, possibly to the detriment of others.

If any immigrants are to be given preference, it should be those “sponsored” by U.S. businesses because they want to hire them. The numbers should be determined not by any government agency but by the constantly changing requirements of a dynamic economy.

Even with all its imperfections, the Senate bill would have been better than nothing. It wouldn’t completely solve the problem, and would undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences requiring another “fix” in 12 or 20 years. But what legislation is perfect? And by then, perhaps, support will have increased for a simpler approach: significantly raising or even eliminating quotas, so the marketplace, rather than government bureaucrats, decide how many immigrants arrive; screening for infectious diseases and membership in terrorist organizations; and a signed agreement not to apply for welfare or other government benefits until one has worked here long enough to pay for them.

This immigration compromise is in trouble but, let’s face it, the issue isn’t going away. That’s why we aren’t giving up hope for a revival, with the bill returning in a more refined and politically acceptable form.

Mining the taxpayers

The Kool-aid served up for public consumption is “energy independence,” with the required bow to anxiety over climate change. But as congressional leaders prepare energy bills they hope to pass by mid-July, the coal industry is quietly lobbying for billions of dollars in subsidies, price guarantees and long-term contracts for their industry.

The hook is that coal can be converted into a liquid fuel that can be used in diesel cars and trucks, as well as jet engines, boats and ships. While coal-to-liquid fuels produce more greenhouse gases than ordinary diesel, industry promoters say they can capture the gas produced in the process and store it underground.

Although these “sequestration” technologies haven’t been tried on an large scale, coal companies and coal state politicians claim coal-based fuels can be “greener” than ethanol and other biofeuls. That’s possible. And coal is an abundant, reliable, “home-grown” energy source. But for those of us who oppose subsidies for the energy sector, whether “clean” or “dirty,” it’s beside the point.

Among the inducements being considered by House and Senate committees are loan guarantees for up to 10 major coalto-liquid plants at $3 billion each; a tax credit of 51 cents a gallon (about what ethanol now gets) for coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and a mandate for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for a billion gallons of coal-based jet fuel.

Coal industry spokespeople whine that they need the taxpayers’ help because it’s a cold, harsh world out there. Join the chorus. A better option would be eliminating direct and indirect subsidies for all energy producers and allowing markets, prices, private sector innovation and consumer demand dictate winners and losers. Government meddling in the energy sector will result in waste, redundancy, playing favorites and wild goose chases.

Climate change can best be addressed through the flexibility and nimbleness of the free market, rather than through the lumbering, expensive and inflexible processes of mandates, corporate welfare giveaways and government-run programs.