Walz’s Testimony Cost a Lot More than $430,000

Gov. Tim Walz created a kerfuffle with the $430,000 fee he incurred to have an international law firm prepare him for last month’s appearance before a congressional oversight committee. No doubt Republicans already are converting the issue into an attack ad should Walz decide to seek a third term next year.

Certainly, $430,000 in tax dollars is worth paying attention to in this time of tight state and local budgets. There is another cost, though, that shouldn’t be overlooked. Lost at the hearing purportedly to analyze the “sanctuary” status of Minnesota, New York and Illinois was the opportunity to start defining a better immigration policy for the country.

The hearing never was going to be about the nuances of immigration law or the appropriate constitutional roles of federal and state governments on enforcement. Walz and his team knew this hearing would be a political sideshow. Walz’s spokesperson said committee Chair James Comer “planned a political stunt on the taxpayers’ dime. They were too busy performing for the cameras to even feign interest in hearing from Gov. Walz about Minnesota’s balanced approach to immigration.”

That is an accurate assessment. If the Walz team reached this conclusion only AFTER the hearing, shame on them. The hearing as political theater was entirely predictable BEFORE the hearing.

By all means, taxpayers should hold hold Reps. Comer, Tom Emmer and Pete Stauber accountable for wasting tax dollars with a sham hearing. But given the platform, Walz should have used it to hold Congress and the Trump Administration accountable for a short-sighted and inhumane approach to immigration.

A politically-charged congressional hearing isn’t likely to be long on policy. But it was an opportunity to define the Republican approach to immigration and set up Walz to deliver more in-depth policies through the media and in speeches after the hearing. Unfortunately, Gov. Walz wasn’t prepared to effectively and forcefully deliver an effective message at the hearing. That he spent $430,000 for the preparation only makes the lost opportunity more expensive.

What should Walz have done? Well, when Emmer attacked the governor for comparing ICE enforcement to Gestapo tactics, Walz should have responded in kind:

“Rep. Emmer, you have transitioned from a person who once said Donald Trump was unfit to serve as president to a person who now believes anyone who criticizes this Administration is unfit to be an American. You parrot Stephen Miller when he says America is only for Americans. That is appalling. We in Minnesota are enforcing the law. We are securing our northern border. But we also know we are a stronger state if we have a hard-working labor base and a growing population. Our goal as a nation should be not just to get rid of those who have abused their stay, but to make sure the best people from around the world are welcome.”

If Walz had to interrupt, repeat and shout to get that message across that’s what he should have done.

Trump’s immigration policies and ICE’s enforcement tactics rightly should be criticized for their abuse of the rule of law and the fear they are creating fear not just among immigrants in the U.S. illegally but among many who have a legal right to be in the country.

Even more important, though, is that for all the turmoil and human tragedy Trump is imposing on people, his policies are certain to fail. And Trump already knows this. His backtracking on deporting immigrants working in agriculture and hospitality recognizes what many economists, farmers and business people long have known: the American economy benefits enormously from the millions of immigrants – many of them in the country without authorization – for the work they perform, the taxes they pay and the contributions they make to build stronger neighborhoods and communities.

The relevant data is incontrovertible: unauthorized immigrants commit far fewer crimes than the general population, they receive far fewer public benefits than the value of the taxes they pay, they are critical workers in many key industries and many have been in the U.S. for years as productive residents.

President Trump is not going to deport the 11 to 13 million people who are in this country without documentation. What he will do is deport many of those who are contributing because they are the easiest to find. He will discourage others from coming to the U.S., including the bright, talented foreign students who are unlikely to come to a U.S. university in this environment. Yet, without these students, colleges and universities lose revenue and intellectual excellence. The country loses some of the smartest, most entrepreneurial people the economy needs.

Gov. Walz had the opportunity to redefine the immigration message by offering a platform built on three points:

Secure the borders. A wall might be effective in some areas, but technology is even more important. Illegal drugs aren’t entering in volume by way of backpacks across the Rio Grande. They are coming in large quantities through legal ports of entry. Technology is needed to stop that flow.

Deport those who have committed serious crimes. Those who abuse America’s hospitality should not be allowed to stay. No exceptions.

Make Ronald Reagan the role model for immigration reform. How can Republicans argue with that? In 1986, President Reagan signed the last comprehensive immigration reform bill this country has seen. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but there are principles that could be applied today:

• Hold employers accountable for verifying the legal status of their workers. That will require a better and simpler system of government documentation and validation than exists now. Requiring employers to be diligent in assuring the status of their workers is not unreasonable if government provides the means to do so.
• Require those unauthorized immigrants who want to stay in the country to pay all taxes owed, including back taxes. Living in the U.S., as legal residents or citizens, requires a financial contribution from everyone.
• Create a pathway to legal residency. While granting citizenship to immigrants who came here illegally might be a step too far for some Republican, giving people who have not committed serious crimes, who are current on their taxes and who are contributing to the economy is just good sense, as President Reagan determined.

In the heat of a political congressional hearing, it would have been hard for Gov. Walz to thoughtfully make these points and even harder to provide the supporting evidence, starting with the importance of all workers to a country with stagnant population growth. Without the labor and taxes coming from immigrants, products are more expensive and retirements – with the imminent Social Security shortfall – are less secure.

But congressional hearings are platforms for communication, sometimes substantive, other times political sound bites. Walz should have had his pointed rejoinders ready for the predictable political attacks. After the hearing, he could have made the media circuit not to talk about the tactics of ICE, but the cost to all Americans of an immigration policy invested in punishing the past instead of building the future. His message is the need for Reaganesque reforms. That he failed to achieve any of that agenda is an expensive failure for Minnesota and the country far beyond a $430,000 price tag.