ARE WE STILL HIGGLING OVER THE SAME THINGS?

Fifteen years ago, I wrote,

There's more action in Congress on an immigration bill, perhaps with more border enforcement, and perhaps without any amnesty. A Time reporter visits Illinois and files a case for amnesty. He sensibly observes that the perceived unfairness of granting immediate amnesty to people who haven't been waiting a long time for legal entry might, just might, be evidence of flaws in the legal procedure.

Oh, there were flaws in the legal procedure then, and there still are.  Ask any director of graduate studies about the joys involved in student visas, or any academic personnel officer about the joys of securing work permits or permanent residency for new faculty.  The flaws, though, are interconnected, whether we're dealing with restrictive border enforcement then, or whatever passes for border enforcement now.

The two procedures cannot be tweaked in isolation. The more onerous the legal admission procedures are, the larger is the pool of potential illegal migrants, and under some circumstances that pool will be more skewed toward people with desirable skills.

That post continued, by developing the technical details of the argument, and if you want more technical details, I've got more.  There's a lengthy Cato Institute policy analysis looking at the effects of changing temporary worker status for Mexican nationals on border apprehensions in the United States, which concludes

This analysis shows that guest worker visas can provide an important avenue for reducing border apprehensions by driving would‐be illegal border crossers into legal temporary visas. The periods during which Bracero and H‑2 visas were issued in higher numbers provide critical lessons for the administration and Congress to understand how best to use guest worker visas to further reduce apprehensions—both for Mexicans and non-Mexicans—at a low cost to taxpayers. Perhaps the most crucial insight is that discretion matters. Top officials must tell lower officials that an important goal of these programs is to reduce illegal immigration, as INS officials did in the 1950s and again in the 1980s.

Much of the current foot traffic at the southern border, the authors argue, is a consequence of labor shortages in some United States labor markets.

Politics, alas, gets in the way of the logic.

On the surface, this is a win for both parties.  The Democrats will have 2 million new voters in the form of DREAMers and new asylum-seekers, who are likely to be future Democrats voters.  The Republicans will have border security, the removal of migrants, and the continuation of COVID-19-based restrictions.

The Democrats are claiming that the lame-duck session is the last opportunity to pass immigration legislation.  They could also claim that 3 out of the 5 points of the deal are in favor of the GOP; hence, the GOP should sign on.

I grow weary of that "importing Democrat voters" talk.  Democrats give the impression, much of the time, that they don't like their country, and it should be straightforward for Republicans to flip some of those DREAMers, who might have earned citizenship in the military or helped establish a family business, thus making such a proposal even more favorable to Republicans.  If you're a polemicist, you engage in polemics.

The WaPo laments that President Donald Trump, his adviser Stephen Miller, and "right-wing media propagandists" such as Tucker Carlson "amplify that toxic message to enrage the base" — i.e., it scares GOP lawmakers from compromising on their principles and giving Democrats easy victories.

Yes, it is ironic that propagandists such as the WaPo have the audacity to attack others as propagandists, but the sanctimonious rarely have any self-awareness.

The WaPo was unknowingly highlighting the importance of the MAGA movement. Trump, Miller, and Carlson are the few standing not only against the Democrats, but also against establishment Republicans, who readily capitulate before the Democrats.

I don't know, a president who defeated an even less appealing opponent, and an amen corner that hasn't fared so well in the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections might want to rethink its message.

Amusingly, deep in that essay comes -- recognition of the flaws in the legal procedure.

The presence of illegal aliens is a burden on the taxpayers and the facilities and infrastructure meant for citizens. If illegal migrants work for less than minimum wage and without benefits, once again, the citizen could see a drop in wage or be rendered unemployed. If the illegal migrants are of the criminal variety, once again the victims of these crimes will be citizens. Usually, it is the working class who suffers from this.

In the end, every country has laws that have to be followed, and immigration laws are not at all different.

The only way to enter or temporarily work in the U.S. is to apply for a visa and undergo a thorough background check and an interview. If the applicant clears all of these phases, he can enter or temporarily work in the U.S. The duration of stay and work also depends upon the visa permits.

The only path to citizenship is by naturalization, by marriage, through your parents, or through the military. Each route has its own set of specific requirements that must be followed.

I have to wonder how many lawful residents and citizens willingly participate in the underground economy that first paragraph suggests.  I also wonder whether the difficulties, whether as a legal or illegal immigrant, in achieving that status are so trivial as to make people go through all that trouble at the border simply to go on welfare.  The third paragraph, though, is the key to my argument, and the Cato analysis appears to bear it out: more expeditious vetting and receipt of work permits reduces the illegal or hope-for-the best entry.  I suspect more expeditious vetting would be welcomed by those graduate studies directors and personnel managers.