Saturday, July 1, 2006
Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute argues in today's Washington Post that the delay on the immigration bill might not be such a bad thing. Although the writer urges that we "get a border deal done," Jacoby does not think that the House proposition to debate the issue further is necessarily a bad thing:
The debate won't, of course, convince the angriest voters -- the ones who want to seal the border and deport or drive out illegal immigrants. That 20 to 25 percent of the public -- and poll after poll shows that's how strong they are, no more, no less -- is probably not open to persuasion. But what the discussion could do is energize some of the other 75 percent: voters who, most surveys show, are more pragmatic -- including being willing to legalize the 12 million -- though generally less intense in their beliefs and less likely to voice or vote on them.
For the full op-ed, click here. Given the state of both bills, it is clear that a moderating influence would be a good thing. I am perhaps less sanguine than Jacoby that moderation is what will come out of the House-led discussion of the immigration issue, but only time will tell.