Comprehensive Legislation: Just Say No - Part II

Across the political spectrum, this mantra is often repeated: “Real immigration reform must be comprehensive…”

It’s the word “comprehensive” that really bothers me when used in connection with any big government program. Stimulus, healthcare reform, Cap and trade, Energy policy and the former, failed initiative for immigration reform — all are comprehensive. And bloody-well scary.

Here, I deal with immigration reform because the content of that legislative proposal is less unclear than, say, healthcare reform. The only kind of comprehensive reform I can imagine endorsing is one that addresses dysfunctional law-making (Part I).

Government regularly shows itself to be inept and incompetent even when writing simple, targeted law (such as the “wildly successful” Cash for Clunkers), how much worse will be legislation that addresses an issue as complicated as immigration reform?

Any comprehensive law will typically be embodied in hundreds or thousands of pages that are virtually incomprehensible — sections filled with arcane legalisms and referencing equally incomprehensible prior legislation. Perfect vehicles for the deliberate obfuscation of all manner of pernicious agendas. Perfect vehicles for engendering unintended consequences that will themselves eventually require more comprehensive laws.

Rather than comprehensive, reform (any) law ought to be incremental, carefully prioritized, narrow in scope and clearly written. That would permit quicker implementation and allow for empirical evaluation and adjustment, as needed. The sum of incremental legislation would, over time, become, effectively, comprehensive.

Over time? one might object. But we haven’t got time; this is urgent (another scary word in government)! I would reply by noting that healthcare reform under the Clintons was the most urgent problem facing that administration; what might have we accomplished by now if we had approached that issue incrementally?

If, in the case instant, the elements of reform (many complex, but not complicated) were properly prioritized, many parts of “big bang” style reform might become moot. For example, if we began with aggressive law enforcement (requiring a robust form of state ID) — employer sanctions, penalizing “sanctuary” violations etc., it is likely (in fact, already proven) that illegal immigrants would return to their native homes of their own volition. In itself, serious enforcement would eliminate the need for a complicated and almost-impossible-to-administer legalization program — the major and most controversial element of reform. Likewise, if would simplify and reduce the cost of healthcare burdens (simplifying reform in that area), presumably reduce the cost of policing in major metropolitan areas (addressing crime associated with illegals), and soften the pressures on the prison system. The list goes on.

Aside from ad hoc efficacy, there are other benefits to the incremental approach. They are best illustrated by looking at the destructive effects of comprehensive bills. They cause confusion, social and political tensions, frustration, resignation, apathy and contempt among American voters. Worse, the public’s sense of confidence in their representatives and government itself is eroded, inviting a pervasive cynicism that effectively discourages citizen participation at all levels of government. High prices to pay.

I conclude by saying that comprehensive legislation (read sweeping changes) in any form is a bad idea. One would hope for a time when legislation was written in a way that voters — let alone congressmen — could not only understand, but explain to others. The simple, clear and broad language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should stand as a model. On that point I entertain some hope but no optimism.