Immigration Reform Put in the Best Light by Both Parties
Immigration reform, to welcome more skilled-workers, is always endorsed by reasonable leaders. Such leaders exist in both parties. Our office dedicate this article to briefly present a case for immigration reform in each party, one by Governor Jeb Bush and another by President Clinton.
Mr. Bush is the former Republican Governor of Florida. He made his case as early as June 30, 2014, on Wall Street Journal, for the failed effort in 2013. He observed that the current system heavily prefers family-based immigration. Such cases takes away resources from retaining needed talents for the U.S. economy.
Mr. Bush endorsed the measures for correcting preference to family-based cases. High-skilled immigrants, according to Mr. Bush, would contribute $4 trillion dollars worth of activities in the 10th year once limits will be expanded.
Above all, Mr. Bush had taken a traditionally republican stance– it is more important to design a functional system fit to facilitate property and enterprise owners advance the economy. His case appears to be a fresh interpretation of American republican tradition, which Abraham Lincoln had invented. In addition, immigrants’ pursuit of recognition through hard work is akin to republican emphasis of individual responsibility as the moral foundation of citizenship. His case is simple– demographic factors, republican traditions, and the demand of enterprise owners require a more functional system.
Politico reported on November 15 2014 that President Clinton alluded to preferring strong pro-immigration actions. In the aftermath of 2014 midterm election, he made a similar argument– circumstances made a clear stance on immigration reform indispensable to election success. President Obama obviously toned down in the public media by delaying the use of executive action because of the uneasy atmosphere set against Democrats. As far as the common voters were concerned, while economic performance had not improved much, immigrants may still be considered job-thieves. Such sentiments is especially strong in districts with stronger rural, conservative sentiments.
President Clinton acknowledged that the President was making a hard call. However, he deduced from the exit poll results, that the lack of a clear stance on immigration reform makes the Democratic message in this election weaker than wanted. Weaker than what was necessary to attract votes and strong enough to solicit votes against Democratic stance. In the aftermath, a clearer stance may not have hurt in this election, and especially not in 2016. Democrats still need Hispanic votes, more than Republicans do.
Therefore, objectively, both parties have compelling cases to support sensible reforms focusing on retaining high-skilled immigrants. Amnesty is unnecessary and unwanted– but the aging American population needs immigrants to replenish its ranks, as it always had. Therefore, much depends on the leaders of both parties to engineer effective appeals to the constituents that will allow a compromise to take place, prior to 2016.