There’s another huge immigration bill pending in Congress. There shouldn’t be. There should be smaller, single-issue bills that the American people and their representatives can easily understand.
With the advent of social media, the American people have found a new voice. From decades of “write or call your congressional representatives,” it’s now tag them in your X tweet. Those who do not pay premium prices for X can use up to 280 characters to make their point, including the tags and any attachments. That’s about 40 to 70 words.
We are becoming efficiently astute and cleanly brief in our communications. We can make a profound point very quickly and send it on to our elected federal legislators. Senators, congresspeople and their staff, those in the White House, political analysts and pundits, and everyone else can watch to see how many agree with the sentiments expressed (hearts/likes), how many want to emphasize the same point (retweets and quotes), and how many append comments along the same lines.
It’s pretty cool. Those willing to pony up the funds can pen a treatise of up to 25,000 characters, prompting comments and summaries that start with TL:DR (too long, didn’t read). I don’t imagine that last century’s congressional staffers bothered much to read letters that were several pages long either.
We view our participation in our democracy as more than the periodic vote. We have a voice, and we want to be heard. So, when a congresswoman submits a 261-page bill with three divisions, 12 titles, and 95 sections, and containing a multitude of amendments to 35 sections among four chapters of the United States Code, We the people say Whoa, hold your horses! Currently, one such bill is pending in the House.
Image created using ChatGPT.
HR-4393, with the short title of “Dignity for Immigrants while Guarding our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream Act of 2025,” has so far garnered 21 cosponsors and has been referred to 7 committees for review. The text is not up yet at Congress.gov, but is available on Representative Maria Salazar’s (R-FL) website.
We don’t like these big catch-all bills because it is too easy to hide specific agendas in them. They are too complex to address on a topic-by-topic basis. They allow for sloppy legislating. Horse-trading one section for another becomes the norm, as does accepting a bill that is not as good as it can be (not asking for perfection here) because adjusting it to be better is such a chore.
Smaller, single-issue bills are more transparent and much easier to read, especially for busy congressional staffers. Providing feedback to our legislators is far simpler. The give-and-take we desire with our representatives is much more likely to be achieved.
I often address immigration reform on this platform, mostly under the title of Tweaking Immigration as to one specific immigration issue or another. No one wants to read through a book-length essay on immigration reform, whether on American Thinker or at Congress.gov. It would also be much easier for congresspeople to submit a number of bills, or in this case, 12 bills, each addressing one topic. The public would pitch in, especially with checking to make sure all relevant titles and references are included.
I think Rep. Salazar should chop her bill into 12 smaller bills. She’s got some really good stuff in there, but some of it needs adjusting. She’s also got a couple of real stinkers, too. Eliminating them from consideration as whole bills, either in committees or on the floor, is so much easier than trying to amend a massive bill like this.
We want immigration reform; in fact, it has been demanded and promised. We are talking about adjusting the absolutely gargantuan Immigration and Nationality Act, and many other INA-adjacent laws. What about it, 119th Congress? Can we count on you to include our voices and make legislating simpler for all of us, and much more transparent? You did promise us no more business as usual. Please keep that promise.
Anony Mee is the nom de blog of a retired public servant who X-tweets at oh_yeahMee.