If the Associated Press is to be believed, President Obama has signaled that he does not intend to push for so-called immigration reform legislation this year. Presumably, he has decided that it is politically unwise to push for such controversial legislation before a mid-term congressional election. Even if this is true, it does seem that we already are having a national debate in the U.S. over immigration policy thanks to Arizona's newly-enacted immigration enforcement law. However, this is not a post on the Arizona law, as I do not feel I have a clear enough understanding of the issues involved to make an informed judgement. Rather, it is a post on the nature of the debate over immigration policy in the U.S.

   I should first point out that I am something of an anomaly as a self-identified conservative in that I am not altogether convinced that an "enforcement only," or if you prefer, "enforcement first" approach to illegal immigration is the best approach. There is no doubt that illegal immigration has had an adverse effect in various parts of the U.S. is some ways. The criminal activity by some illegal immigrants, as well as the other problems created by a population of individuals without legal status in the country in which they live (such as the tendency of some employers to take advantage of illegal immigrants' legal status to underpay them or even abuse them) are a legitimate concern. It may also be true that illegal immigrants have an adverse effect on the employment of minorities who are U.S. citizens. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that illegal aliens only create an adverse effect on the economy. After all, even they have to buy goods and services provided by U.S. citizens or legal residents while living in the U.S. Moreover, I wonder whether many of those who express concern about illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico are aware that a large percentage of illegal immigrants in the U.S. (perhaps up to one-half) came legally to the U.S. with a visa issued by a U.S. embassy or consulate. They just decided to stay after their visas expired. Fortifying the border with Mexico isn't going to address this problem, and locating all of them and deporting them might not prove so easy.

   Moreover, I am a little wary of some advocates of a tough approach toward illegal immigration because some of the same individuals or groups also want to restrict legal immigration. Legal immigration to the U.S. may have its own problems, but I would argue that legal immigrants to the U.S. have on the whole contributed positively to the vibrancy of the American economy and society. Severely restricting or even placing a moratorium on legal immigration I believe would be a big mistake. Now, admittedly, I may somewhat prejudiced about this issue since I am married to a former legal immigrant (now a naturalized U.S. citizen). Nevertheless, it think it is important that legitimate concerns about illegal immigration not be allowed to lead to an unthinking negative attitude towards all immigration.

   What I would like to discuss briefly is the language used in the debate on immigration. Back in 2007, when the Bush Administration and congressional Democrats (and some Republicans if I remember correctly) were pushing for so-called immigration reform legislation that would have eventually granted legal status to at least some illegal immigrants, there were complaints from opponents to the legislation that they were being labeled as "racists." It would seem that such rhetoric has been revived in the current uproar over Arizona's new law. I find such labeling quite unfair. Charging someone with racism is quite a serious matter, and in my opinion, should never be done without the clearest proof of racial animus. The word "racist" too easily passes from some people's lips, it seems. While I suspect that a few supporters of an "enforcement only" or "enforcement first" policy  are motivated by prejudice, I am convinced that most are motivated by a genuine concern about real problems created by illegal immigration. Thus, it was grossly unfair to throw the charge of "racism" against opponents of the 2007 legislation and is quite unfair to do so now in the case of supporters of Arizona's new immigration law.

   Nevertheless, I find it somewhat ironic that at least some of those who complained about the "racist" label have no compunction in labeling the supporters of "immigration reform" as advocates of "open borders." Again, while it is probably true that some supporters of "immigration reform" genuinely believe there should be a minimal or even no effort to control U.S. borders, I am not convinced that the majority of "immigration reform" advocates don't care about U.S. border security. This is equally a canard. They may disagree with the idea that an approach focused on border security is the only way to address the problem of illegal immigration, but that doesn't necessary mean that they have no concerns about the security of U.S. borders.

   In short, it's a little hard to take seriously complaints about having one's position distorted by opponents when the one making such complaints is distorting the position of his opponents. I would like to think that in the future both sides of the debate on illegal immigration could respond to their opponents without stooping to name-calling, but I am probably unrealistic given the passions generated by this issue.