Donald Trump officially, if belatedly, rolled out Mike Pence as his vice presidential choice Saturday. While many Republicans who have otherwise been skeptical of Trump were happy, some of the New York businessman’s biggest fans are not.
The biggest reason is immigration. Ten years ago, while still a member of Congress, Pence floated what he described as a “middle ground on immigration.” He argued in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “[M]y bill does not include a so-called path to citizenship, i.e., an amnesty, for the some 12 million illegal aliens in this country.”
Immigration restrictionists weren’t so sure. The Indiana Republican did not offer the straightforward path to citizenship favored by then President George W. Bush and key Senate Republicans like John McCain in partnership with Ted Kennedy.
What Pence did propose was that illegal immigrants could apply for legal status by leaving the United States and touching back in their home country. They could then come back in as guest workers if they could be matched with a wiling U.S. employer.
The matching would be done by private worker placement agencies Pence called “Ellis Island Centers.” There would “initially” be no cap on the number of visas the federal government would issue under the program. The “market and the needs of U.S. employers will set the limit on the number of guest workers.”
At first, this seemed to address some problems with some of the amnesty proposals floating around Congress at the time. Only employed illegal immigrants would be eligible for legalization. Private agencies would vet them rather than government bureaucrats. People would have to leave and wouldn’t necessarily be guaranteed amnesty.
Then questions arose. The first concerned timing. Pence made his proposal when anti-amnesty, enforcement-first Republicans in the House appeared to have succeeded in blocking the comprehensive immigration reform bill advanced by the Senate. Why would a conservative offer some middle ground at that moment?
Next came the practical considerations. Wouldn’t the Ellis Island Centers have a conflict of interest when it came to ruling illegal immigrants a company wanted to hire couldn’t re-enter the United States? Werern’t “the needs of U.S. employers” already driving illegal immigration and some of the most abused guest-worker programs already in existence?
Ultimately, many comprehensive immigration reformers thought Pence’s plan was too complicated. Hardliners thought it was too close to amnesty. It went nowhere.
Why is this decade-old idea worth mentioning now? First, it was a precursor to his handling of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, Common Core, the religious freedom bill and even the Ted Cruz endorsement before the Indiana primary. Pence has a tendency to try to stake out compromises that please neither side of a contentious public debate.
Moreover, Pence’s “touchback amnesty” is especially compatible with some things Trump has said about immigration himself — the things immigration hawks find least palatable.
After telling MSNBC that illegal immigrants in the United States had to go, Trump elaborated “the good people are going to be able to come back, but they’re going to come back legally.” He added, “We go out, and we’re going to try and bring them back rapidly, the good ones. Rapidly. You know the word ‘expedited’?”
One way perhaps to do that? A “touchback amnesty.” The possibility has people who support Trump because they think he will control immigration perplexed.
Writing at the Trump-friendly Breitbart, Ken Klukowksi describes the 2006 Pence plan as “surprisingly similar to Trump’s own proposal. Secure the border, then build a ‘big, beautiful door’ in the security wall so that the federal government can lawfully admit however many immigrants the country needs, at whatever level serves the national interest.”
Some conservatives support Trump because they think his immigration stance is closer to Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions’. These conservatives are by and large not happy with Pence’s record on this issue.
