On Thursday, Jeb Bush faced one of his most unwavering critics on the issue of immigration. The questions were sharp, the answers were heartfelt, and the result was … inconclusive.
It happened at the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit in Washington. The conservative magazine has long opposed immigration reform schemes that would amount to an amnesty for those in the United States illegally and an invitation for more to come. When Bush sat down with National Review editor Rich Lowry, the first immigration question had to do with Bush’s rival for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Lowry asked for Bush’s reaction to Walker’s statement that “the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages.”
Walker’s statement has already rocked the 2016 GOP immigration debate. It would probably meet the approval of a huge part of the Republican base. But Bush would not agree.
“I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game,” Bush answered. “I think if we start thinking it’s a zero-sum game, we’re going to play the game that Barack Obama plays oh so well. It’s the wrong approach.”
The problem, Bush argued, is economic growth. There simply won’t be enough growth in the future unless the United States brings in young foreign workers. Bush recommends changing the mix of immigrants allowed into the country, to bring in fewer extended family members of immigrants already here — so-called “chain migration” — in favor of more skilled workers who are likely to contribute to the economy.
“We have three to five million jobs unfilled that require skills in America today,” Bush argued. “Think of, had we fixed our immigration system in the way that I would propose, how much extra job growth and investment would have happened in our country that would have provided opportunities for higher wages for people struggling near or at the bottom, or people that are squeezed in the middle.”
“This is not a zero-sum game,” Bush repeated. “If you want to grow at 4 percent per year instead of 2 percent, you need younger, more dynamic people inside of our economy.”
Lowry pointed out that critics like Walker weren’t necessarily talking about zero-sum games as much as supply and demand. If the U.S. brings in more low-skilled workers, it will drive down the wages of the low-skilled workers already here.
“So who’s suggesting that?” Bush asked. “That’s the false argument.”
Lowry noted that the Senate’s Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill would have done just that — a remark that brought one of Bush’s sharpest responses.
“I’m not a United States senator,” Bush said. “Thank God. Just for the record here, I live in Miami. I’m outside of Washington. I’ve written a book about this. What I was describing was my idea.”
In 2013, Bush urged Congress to pass a bill like the one passed by the Gang of Eight. His words in Washington Thursday sounded like at least an indirect repudiation of the legislation, even though Bush approved much of what was in it. And Bush’s “I’m not a United States senator” remark sharply distinguished him from his protégé-turned-opponent Marco Rubio, one of the authors of the Gang of Eight.
Lowry tried once more. What would Bush think of the following series of reforms?
“Secure the border first,” said Lowry. “Secure at the point of employment through the E-Verify system — ”
“Right,” said Bush.
“Have an exit entry visa system that really works.”
“Yes.”
“You pass this. It gets through all the legal challenges it is going to have, from the ACLU and others. You actually get it in place, and when it works, then you do some form of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants who aren’t going anywhere, because now you know that’s not going to be a magnet for new illegal immigrants — ”
“Right.”
“And you do the amnesty in exchange for changes in the legal immigration system … to emphasize higher skills.”
“Hey, we’re getting there,” Bush said.
An agreement? The system Lowry outlined is one that some of the most conservative immigration analysts would approve. Whether Bush would agree to its particulars is unclear — there were a lot of details packed in Lowry’s summary. The occasional nod or “Right” from Bush did not constitute a full-scale endorsement.
But perhaps the National Review discussion indicates the start of an actual debate among 2016 candidates about the details of immigration reform. Bush certainly seemed open to talk. But not much more.
“Maybe I’m stubborn,” Bush said. “I’m willing to listen to other views on this, and I hope we’ll have a dialogue about this. But I think I’m right about this.”
