A lot arguments about the presidential race have centered on John McCain's support of amnesty. And while it is troubling that McCain supported amnesty and made many of the comments he did, let's look at this objectively and ask how much difference it could make if we elected an anti-amnesty president.

Actually, we know how little difference it could make. George Bush was no opponent of amnesty, yet amnesty was still defeated. It was not a president's veto, or even the threat of the same, which stopped amnesty this time, it was the outpouring of constituent calls and letters and emails which caused congress to stop pushing the amnesty bill.

So, an anti-amnesty president would have eliminated the need for that uprising every time congress proposes amnesty, but that's about it. And were we to elect a pro-amnesty president, the effect would be even less. A president can't create a law, and who cares what he is willing to sign if we can cut off a bill in congress? Bush didn't oppose amnesty either, yet we don't have amnesty.

The only other area where a president has control is over the border. And there we have seen the drawback of a pro-immigrant president, in the actions of George Bush. While congress voted to increase border patrol funding, Bush has been reluctant to spend even the money they approve, much less ask for more. He has had less control over the fence, and what congress has approved has, slowly and inconsistently, been built. So, in the case of the border patrol and the fence, the president can have some impact.

Beyond that, the president's power, as well as that of congress, is limited. They can put up a border fence and enact tougher policing measures, but that is about it. As far as immigrants already here are concerned, the locals have a lot more control, and the federal government has little say over what local governments do.

Allow me give a personal example. Back in the early days of the Contract With America, I still worked for social services. One of the numerous reforms that came down from Washington was a requirement that we determine immigration status. It had always been a law that immigrants could receive only select types of benefits, but the new laws farther reduced that list, so it was important to determine immigration status. However, my local department's top brass, in a fit of political correctness, decided that was an "insulting" question. So we would not ask about immigration status, and just assume they were citizens unless they voluntarily told us otherwise. Oh, Washington would be happy, as we would check the right boxes on the forms, saying we had determined immigration status, but the intent of the law would be completely subverted.

And that is but a mild example of how the actions in Washington have little impact. If a city says police and social services can't ask about immigration status, or if they issue IDs to illegals, there is little Washington can do. Washington can threaten to cut funding, but then they can comply on paper, and still issue unofficial directives to do the same thing, and at that point Washington runs out of options. Without the cooperation of the locals, federal immigration authorities can't do much. They simply rely too much on the help of local officials.

So, in the end, no matter what laws we pass, the president's powers will be limited to vetoing bad laws, hiring border enforcement agents, and overseeing the border fence's construction. Any other efforts will be subject to so much local interpretation that the national figures are secondary when compared to the local politicians.

So, what would be the benefits of electing a president strongly opposed to illegal immigration?

Not many. As laws originate in congress, the president's powers would be entirely dependent on getting a sympathetic congress. Without that, the only thing he could do to help oppose illegal immigration would be to veto bad laws form congress. With a sympathetic congress, he would be able to use the money congress provides to strengthen the border patrol and build the fence quickly, but that's it.

And what happens if we get a president sympathetic to illegal aliens?

Again, congress is the key factor here, not the president. With a congress strongly in favor of illegal immigrants, there is little a president can do. He can veto bad laws, but with a large enough congressional majority, even that won't work. And beyond that the president's powers are very limited.

The only harm a pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigrant president can do is if we have a congress which opposes illegal immigration and a president who supports it. And even then, the limits of the presidential power are pretty minimal. He can refuse to hire new border patrol agents and he can refuse to build the fence, but even there congress can overcome this by setting time tables. So his powers are pretty limited.

Other than that, a pro-illegal president can only show his feelings by vetoing enforcement measures, and, as I said, any enforcement measures are largely futile, as, excepting the border, they depend on locals, who in many strongly illegal areas are not inclined to enforce the law anyway.

None of this is intended to say that a president's views on immigration are irrelevant. He can have an effect, that is clear, but compared to the president's control over defense, court nominations, or event he federal reserve, his personal impact on immigration is minimal. Congress, and even more local government, is where the immigration battle must be fought. We need to vote in congressmen who will support fences, stronger border patrols, and oppose amnesty, and we need local officials who will not declare "sanctuary cities" and will allow police and other government workers to report illegals.

And for all those who argue that Obama and McCain are identical, I would say, on immigration, and that alone, they may be close, but that is not the only issue. And, if we look at the potential for harm, the role of a president in immigration issues is small. We have had pro-amnesty Bush for eight years and yet we have no amnesty. In fact, we have a slightly increased border patrol and the start of a fence. All that despite Bush's beliefs.

So, if Bush's beliefs can have so little impact, why would McCain's have any more? And if the president can do so little to drive amnesty, why should that be our sole test of a candidate? Why should we not look at other issues, and see if McCain and Obama may not be a bit more different on them. Perhaps we should decide not just on amnesty but on a whole host of issues.

If we do, I think most will find McCain is a more than little better than Obama.

POSTSCRIPT

Before anyone thinks they have discovered a clever argument, I am well aware that by the same logic, Obama's position on immigration is not of major concern either. And I agree with that position. Of course, with so many other bad positions, I don't need Obama's immigration stand to oppose him. But,f or what it is worth, neither McCain nor Obama can do all that much harm, or good for that matter, in the area of immigration.

CLARIFICATION

I just noticed I said something misleading.

When I say in the update that "I agree with that position", I mean I agree with the position that Obama's stand on immigration doesn't matter much, not that I agree with Obama's position on immigration.

I will write about my views on immigration in the near future, but, for the moment, let us say that I probably don't agree with any candidate, or most people for that matter. My view is too liberal for conservatives, and will require too many conservative changes for liberals.

But I will explain all that later, when I have the time to go into it in detail.