Say there are four finalists in the Republican presidential campaign: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie. The first, Trump, has the most controversial and far-reaching immigration proposal in the race. The second and third candidates, Cruz and Rubio, have sparred at length over the issue. But what about the fourth candidate, Chris Christie?
The most intense immigration moments of the campaign have mostly passed the New Jersey governor by. So in a recent talk, before a town hall meeting in Fort Dodge, Iowa, I asked Christie about a few immigration basics.
This is a poll question that’s been asked for years and years. Do you think the level of immigration into this country should be increased, decreased, or stay the same?
I think the level of immigration should stay the same. I don’t think we should be looking to increase it until we get under control both our border situation and our visa situation. And I think that could be done relatively quickly, but I don’t think it’s there now, and I don’t think people want to see us increase the levels of immigration into this country until we get that under control.
You don’t see decreasing it?
No, I wouldn’t be an advocate of decreasing it at this point, no.
You didn’t take a position on the Gang of Eight in 2013. Why did you stay out of it?
I was in the middle of running for re-election and just didn’t need to be bothered with it. I had enough things I was dealing with at the time, and so the position I took at the time was, I’m running for re-election. I’m dealing with New Jersey issues, not Washington issues.
The thing that killed immigration reform among Republicans in Washington was immediate legalization, that the Gang of Eight contemplated virtually immediate legalization at the same time it was supposedly going to ramp up security. And Republicans said whoa, we’ve seen this before, we’ll get the legalization but we won’t get the security. Where are you on legalization?
I don’t think anything in the law can change until we have a moment when we can certify to the American people that we’ve got the borders in reasonable control and a new biometric visa system that’s working. And until that time, I don’t think we do anything on the people who are in the country now. Because I just don’t think people will tolerate it. They just won’t. It doesn’t matter where you are — it doesn’t matter if you’re in rural Iowa or you’re in Manchester, New Hampshire. People do not want to hear about legalization at all, because they feel the government has failed them. And what you just posited from 2013, I think is still the feeling today, but even more strongly, because they see the government failing to enforce the law.
You mentioned visas, but you didn’t mention E-verify.
I’m a total advocate of E-verify. That’s one of the five points that I talk about on immigration.
But if you don’t legalize people, and you do institute E-verify, E-verify will work. You will find people who are here illegally. Do they get deported? How does that work?
You can’t do what Trump is talking about, which is a mass deportation of 11 million people in two years. As both a practical matter and, I think, a matter of common sense, that’s just not going to work. But I do think that E-verify over time will encourage some people to leave on their own. If they can’t get a job here, they can’t get work here, a number of them will leave. And that’s part of the whole enforce-the-law process that I was talking about before — biometric system at the border on visas, E-verify on employment inside the country, and secure our border at the southern border. When people start to see that working, then we can have a conversation as a country about what you do with those who remain. But until that time, people are not going to tolerate that conversation. They just won’t. The political capital and will is not there to have that conversation, so you’re just wasting your time having it.
So you would envision something like what Ted Cruz has called attrition through enforcement?
I think that would be the practical effect of it, yes.
