Financial Times Editorial Comment: Grandiose failure

Financial Times Editorial Comment: Grandiose failure
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: July 1 2007 21:12 | Last updated: July 1 2007 21:12


The US Senate’s second rejection of the “grand bargain” on immigration finally put a gravely wounded plan out of its misery. Few expect a comparably ambitious proposal to surface again before 2009. It might be better if it never did. The chief flaw in a proposal with many to boast of was that it tried to do too much.

The architects of the grand bargain correctly saw the issue as falling into three main parts. First, tighten security at and behind the border to discourage future illegal immigration. Second, resolve the status of 12m or more illegal immigrants. Third, make entry easier for new foreign workers to live and work in the US. One could quarrel with the bill’s proposals under each heading, but what killed it was the promise to secure the border: nobody believed it. As a result, the second part, which critics call “amnesty” (despite fines and other sanctions), could not be presented as a once-and-for-all expedient.

The failure of the measure was not a case of partisan deadlock. The vote to kill the plan was bipartisan, and fairly reflected American opinion. The political arithmetic, and the underlying sentiment it ex­presses, are unlikely to change when the administration does. In any case, President George W. Bush did all he could to get the measure passed. Waiting for a new Congress may therefore be pointless. Meanwhile, the issue refuses to wait: the short age of skilled workers is pressing down on the economy.

The bill needs to be brought forward in smaller pieces. Tighter border security, and steps to make employers authenticate workers’ status, should be pulled from the grand bargain and reintroduced.

These would likely command bipartisan support in Congress; they would certainly be popular in the country. Easier access for new legal immigrants is also needed, especially for skilled workers.

Though certainly not as popular as stronger enforcement, some loose ning would not meet implacable resistance in its own right. Yet here the grand bargain does need improving. Its points-based system for skilled immigrants was rigid, and bizarrely calibrated. Employers know which skills they seek. This part of the system must be better designed to serve their needs.

Effective policing, together with easier entry for legal immigrants, would gradually press down on illegal immigration. That would make it easier for the public – and hence for Congress – to accept the liberal dispensation for existing illegal immigrants that compassion and good sense dictate.

Comprehensive reform has failed. Try incremental reform instead.