Good ethics are based on values and principles, and remaining true to them even when the consequences may be personally unpleasant or involve sacrifice. But there are many ethical principles, and few major decisions involve only a stark black and white choice between sticking to one of them and abandoning it for non-ethical considerations. The defeat of immigration reform in the U. S. Senate serves as an excellent and unhappy example of what happens when some individuals fixate on one ethical principle to the exclusion of all others. It also shows why a measure of Utilitarianism is essential to tempering the excesses of Absolutism.

The McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill, in all of its forms, was a mess, as compromise measures on complex national issues always are. In such situations, the perfect is the enemy of the good, for the "best" bill will always be politically unachievable; the choice is between a less-than-perfect policy approach, or no policy approach at all. It is a situation made for Utilitarian ethics: accept some injustice to achieve a greater good. But the self-righteous absolutists rejected this reasonable approach on the illegal immigration issue, a group that included outspoken Congressmen like Tom Tancredo, commentators like cable TV's Lou Dobbs, poll-driven presidential candidates like Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney, and perhaps most influential of all, every conservative talk-radio host. Their rallying cry was "No amnesty!" Their ethical argument simple but plain. It was and is this: Illegal immigrants in this country broke the law and jumped in line in front of others. They can not be trusted and should not be rewarded for flaunting the rule of law. No bill is acceptable if it allows this past law-breaking to result in U.S. citizenship. Amnesty for illegal immigrants was tried in the 1980s and failed; any bill's first priority must be the implementation of effective measures to prevent future law-breakers from entering the country.

There isn't much wrong with this position, in theory; in fact, it is supremely logical, with one little problem: it's impossible. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country now, and that figure doesn't even count their children who were born here, and who are therefore citizens. The United States of America cannot round up and deport anything close to that many residents, legal or not. Even if it could be handled administratively, which it almost certainly could not, the image of the U.S. splitting families apart and exiling long-time residents would be devastating to the nation's image, the public morale, and the social fabric of the nation. This is beyond argument.

And, to their disgrace, most of the politicians decrying "amnesty" know it. They just do not have the courage or the integrity to anger voters and hard-line opinion-makers by saying so. Instead, they hide their abdication of the duties of leadership and cowardice behind rhetoric about the importance of following the "will of the people." As the Founding Fathers well understood, the general public does not have the time, focus, education or skill necessary to study and solve complex problems. Much of the time, the "will of the people" is based in inadequate information, misinformation, and the published or broadcast opinions of others who are popular or well-respected. This is why America has a representative democracy: the Founders rejected mob rule for (supposedly) the superior judgement, courage and expertise of elected professionals. The performance of the Senate, particularly the Republicans, on the immigration issue must have had Thomas, John, Ben and James kicking themselves for not installing a king.

The United States government and both political parties have irresponsibly and recklessly neglected illegal immigration for decades. This has been engineered by an unholy alliance of employers willing to exploit illegal workers for financial gain and deluded social activists who would be delighted to open the borders on humanitarian grounds and have half of Mexico walk into the country, regardless of the consequences. It is that willful neglect that created the current crisis. When neglect goes on so long that a problem becomes entrenched and overwhelming, perfect solutions no longer exist. The leaders responsible for allowing the problem to get to such a state then have an obligation to be accountable, accept responsibility, and do the best they can in full knowledge that the results will be unsatisfactory to all, and that they will probably suffer as a result of that dissatisfaction. Condemning every proposed measure because it has flaws when every other measure will necessarily have flaws as well is both intellectually dishonest and craven.

When Congress talks about ethics reform on Capital Hill, it always means the easy stuff: preventing pay-offs, conflicts of interest, corruption and theft. But the ethical conduct of our leaders that makes the biggest difference in their effectiveness involves taking responsibility, being honest and candid, diligence, and having the courage to do what's right and necessary even when there will be more boos than applause from the gallery. That conduct can't be manufactured by a new set of ethics rules. The best way for the public to influence national policy the right way is to elect leaders who are serious, dedicated, logical and principled, independent and brave.

Based on the fate of immigration reform, it hasn't done that for quite a while.