Last month, lawmakers slapped together a compromise bill that managed to skip the usual political steps. For example, when the Senate considered an immigration measure last year, it held two full committee hearings and one subcommittee hearing. That wasn’t nearly enough discussion, but this year lawmakers have managed to do even worse: They held no hearings and thus heard from no experts about the bill’s possible effects.
That’s because, instead of going through the committee process, this year’s bill was written by a handful of staff members and delivered to the full Senate. Leaders presented the bill on a Saturday and wanted it voted on by the following Thursday. In a body that works through unanimous consent, that’s practically light speed.
But what’s the rush? It’s taking us years to select the next president; while we’re at it we should make immigration reform part of that political process. After all, the very reason to have elections is to give people a chance to choose leaders based on issues and policies.
If voters are going to endure an extended presidential election process that stretches out over several years, voters at least ought to know that the candidates are going to debate issues that matter to them.
Instead of discussing the candidate’s marriages or their stands on abortion, let’s make the big issues, especially immigration policy, a topic in the presidential campaign.
We don’t need the government to protect us from a robust debate on this difficult issue. We need the government to allow a robust debate on this difficult issue, and that’s what a presidential campaign should be about. Otherwise, it’s as pointless as an NHL exhibition game.