Professor Bainbridge, whose blog is even worse than the one Dowingba considers to be the worst weblog ever, has some interesting thoughts on President Bush’s proposal to extend some form of non-amnesty amnesty to illegal aliens. The good professor makes some interesting points, but they are overshadowed by frequent references to “undocumented” aliens, and by repeated name-calling toward those who disagree with the proposal. The article contains one reference to the Gestapo, two to “nativists” and one to “reflexive Bush-haters,” and refers to opponents “foaming at the mouth” and giving birth to not one, but two cows. With the exception of an update to address of Kevin Drum’s objections, the article contains almost no references to the possibility that any rational human being might also have a problem with the proposal.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one to argue against name-calling as such. In fact, I’m all for name-calling, if it is done judiciously. If someone is an idiotarian, call him that. If someone really does exhibit nativist tendencies, then by all means, call him a nativist. On the other, if someone really is a reflexive Bush-hater, then go ahead and call him that. But when such terms are over-used, the reader will be left with the impression that only nativists want stepped up enforcement of U.S. borders, and only knee-jerk Bush-bashers could argue for broader amnesty. Both impressions are, of course, false.

Personally, I’m still on the fence as to this proposal. On the one hand, I clearly do not want to reward illegal behavior, especially in a manner that smacks of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). IRCA was supposed to solve the illegal alien problem once and for all, by amnestying those who were already here and trying really, really hard to stop anyone else from coming after that. That didn’t happen, so it is for good reason that the idea of an “IRCA II” is about as popular as (I hope) Dude, Where’s My Car II would be.

On the other hand, I do recognize that something needs to be done about the situation of existing illegals, and am pragmatic enough to recognize that, in all likelihood, this “something” will fall short of the wholesale deportations that would result if existing law were enforced to the hilt. So perhaps some sort of trade-off between enforcement and amnesty is in order. I could favor one that legalizes the “best” illegals, without giving them any advantages toward permanent residency that they would not enjoy had they stayed out of the country up until this point, while also stepping up efforts to deport those who do not qualify for amnesty, or who do not apply at all. Proving that they had a job would not be enough; they’d also have to show a clean police record, or one tainted only by the immigration laws that are the subject of the amnesty. Also, stepped up enforcement at the border and at inland checkpoints would also need to be part of the deal; else this “one-time” amnesty is doomed to fail just as miserably^* as the IRCA did before. In other words, I could accept President Bush’s proposal as part of a larger package; I cannot accept it on its own.

Poliblogger Steven Taylor, whom the professor quotes favorably, effectively argues that we should throw in the towel. His argument, which I find hopelessly unpersuasive, seems to be that if we can’t stop all illegal immigration, we shouldn’t try to stop any of it. Here’s what Taylor has to say, in his own words:

As long as people are willing to die to get to the United States, you aren’t going to stop it. Plus, despite the rantings of Bill O’Reilly and Pat Buchanan, the idea of actually militarily sealing the 2000 mile US-Mexican border is a practical impossibility. Indeed, a working guest-worker program would help alleviate the problem of illegal border-crossing. If potential workers knew that there was a better way than paying a Coyote [sic] to smuggle them across the Arizona dessert [sic] sans water, they would likely take it. Still, regardess, they are coming.

[Emphasis in original.]

By that logic, there’s a really easy way to get rid of all illegal immigration: legalize all forms of immigration. Voilà, no more “illegal” immigration. While we’re at it, maybe we can get rid of all other crimes, too, simply by repealing all the laws that make them crimes. Why didn’t anyone think of this before?

Obviously today’s illegals would prefer to enter the country cheaply, safely and legally, rather than pay great gobs of money to coyotes for an expensive, dangerous, and potentially futile trip through the Arizona desert. That group is coming, regardless, though fewer of them may come if that trip becomes longer, more expensive and more dangerous still. But does anyone seriously doubt that more still might come if we made it even easier? To argue otherwise defies common sense.

^*Note that such a “miserable failure” would likely invite more Googlebombs from those who have not, as yet, described the President as a “miserable failure.” This time around, such “bombs” would actually be justified.

UPDATE: Kevin Murphy and Citizen Smash have more. Misha, on the other hand, should open up a bit, and tell us how he really feels.