Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

U.S. Senate

Dear Senator Hatch,

We, many of your constituents, noticed with concern that Tuesday you voted against allowing the immigration reform bill to move to a final vote. We know this was a procedural vote and very much hope that it is not a signal that you plan to vote against urgently needed immigration reform. We understand that after the vote your phone, fax and e-mail lines finally went silent. With all that quiet in the office, it might be a great time to sit back and contemplate the enormous consequences of your vote on the bill itself.

Objections to immigration reform fall generally into four categories: border control, the rule of law, amnesty and the social and economic costs of illegal immigrants. A thoughtful analysis of each of these issues should move you to vote for immigration reform.

The bill addresses border control as comprehensively as is humanly possible. It also includes billions of dollars of funding for border security. The only objection from the opponents of this reform is that they don't believe the government will actually implement this provision. Unfortunately, reform opponents have set an impossibly high standard for what constitutes border security.

As a veteran of the Cold War, you know that the entire might of the Soviet empire was directed at border security. Its goal was that no one would illegally escape its totalitarian clutches. Even building a wall around the entire city of West Berlin failed to keep everyone in. In our case a hermetically sealed Soviet-style border is not possible without a door that allows some legal status for those who legitimately want to be here. Both the wall and the door are indispensable.

Many oppose this bill because they don't trust the government to apply the law. The rule of law is the heart of our Anglo-American legal system. The genius of our centuries-old common law system is its mechanism for adapting to new or unique changes in circumstances. Yes, there are millions of immigrants here illegally, and they shouldn't have come. But they are here. The rule of law requires that we impose a punishment that fits the crime.

Many millions of people who wrap themselves in the banner of the rule of law break the law on a daily basis. A person is pulled over by a policeman for speeding. He has broken the law. He meets with the prosecutor, goes before a judge, pleads guilty, pays a fine and attends traffic school. No one would call that amnesty. It was the application of the rule of law. This bill provides penalties, some would say very harsh, for being here illegally.