Both the Washington Post and the Washington Times editorial boards today address the Pence-Hutchison immigration reform compromise proposal. Neither editorial board endorsed the proposal, but both seem to think it could serve as a solid position from which the stalemated debate could be advanced.

The Washington Post:

We are not endorsing Pence-Hutchison; that would be impossible given that no actual legislation has been introduced. We do, though, applaud its authors for seeking to refocus the immigration discussion in a positive way. One plus is that their brand of enforcement-first is not tied to achieving an unrealistic — and unattainable without other reforms — degree of border control. Rather, Pence-Hutchison concentrates on benchmarks tied to resources and capabilities: hiring more agents, increasing detention capacity and making certain that employers poised to hire immigrant workers have a reliable system (secure identification cards, accurate databases) to verify eligibility. Postponing the rest of reform for two years while these goals are met isn’t ideal, but it’s a reasonable compromise.

The Washington Times:

The compromise in the Pence bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, is to have a phased “comprehensive” process whereby a guest-worker program would be instituted only after the border is declared secure. This is an alternative to both the enforcement-first bill the House approved last year, which we endorsed, and the Senate’s disastrous amnesty package. We can accept the idea driving Mr. Pence’s compromise bill because it attempts to assuage concerns that the federal government, and in particular this administration, has no real interest in closing the border. We are persuaded that the security provisions in the Senate amnesty package are merely empty promises to win conservative votes.

Our objection to the Pence proposal is that the “triggers” by which the administration would determine whether the border is secure are unlikely to work. Instead of focusing on the means (i.e., increasing Border Patrol agents, placing sensors and building physical barriers on the border), we believe the compromise should focus on the ends. This would require hard numbers as proof that the illegal-immigrant tide has actually diminished to an acceptable trickle. Compiling such persuasive numbers would likely take longer than the two years the Pence bill envisions.

The Washington Times goes on to note “deep reservations” about the rest of the draft, but sees it as useful nonetheless:

Despite these reservations, we urge Republican members to use the Pence-Hutchison compromise as a starting point. If a consensus can be reached that does not ignore national security or leave the serious problems for a later Congress to solve, Republicans can probably break the stalemate. But they must begin, and at once.

Congress returns in September and will only have five weeks to find some sort of solution on this issue. If no solution is reached, both parties will scramble to blame the other for the results. I hate to say this, but the Washington Post might have a good point:

When they return in September, they ought to ask themselves: If they fail to come up with a realistic solution by election time, won’t voters blame the folks who have been in charge?

I suspect the answer to that is most assuredly yes.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 14th, 2006 at 10:47 am and is filed under immigration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.