Workers in the Shadows

The NY Times ^ | 011004 | David Brooks

[Archangelsk]

Workers in the Shadows By DAVID BROOKS

Imagine a person 10 times as determined as you are. Picture a guy who will wade across rivers, brave 120-degree boxcars and face vicious smugglers and murderous vigilantes — all to get a job picking fruit for 10 hours a day. That person is the illegal immigrant. Let's call him Sam. This whole immigration debate is about him, the choices he faces and the way he responds.

One thing we know about Sam: he will get here. Between 1986 and 1998, Congress increased the Border Patrol's budget sixfold. Over that time the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. doubled, to eight million. Getting across that border is Sam's shot at a decent future. Maybe his whole family depends upon him. He will not be herded away like a lamb.

At the moment, Sam lives in the shadows of society. But this week, President Bush proposed an immigration reform plan that would offer him a new set of choices.

Under the Bush plan, Sam could become a visible member of society with legal documentation. He could get a driver's license. He could benefit from worker protection laws, and possibly see his wages rise. He could open a bank account, which would let him ship money back home without having to pay huge fees. As Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute has shown, he would be much more likely to invest in himself through worker training.

More important, he could go home and see his family. He wouldn't have to live with the constant fear of detection. He wouldn't have to drive on back roads to avoid being pulled over and asked for his license by the police.

But Sam would have to think hard about the Bush proposal, because it is not all good news. In the first place, it would tie him to a single employer. He would have to have a job waiting to get in, and he'd have to keep it once he was here. Instead of trying to sell his labor on the open market, or jumping at opportunities, he'd be tied down. If he lost that job, he would have a short but terrifying window of time to find another.

More seriously, his stay in the U.S. would be limited. For up to six years, Sam would be legal, but at the end of that time, he would probably face deportation. Then what would his family do for money?

Sam might decide, all things considered, that it was better not to be in the Bush system, and to remain, as he is now, in the shadows. Or he might decide to enroll in the Bush system for a few years, then return to the shadows.

If Sam is going to cooperate, if the U.S. is going to have the labor force it needs to prosper, if the cloud of gangsterism and exploitation is to be finally removed from the lives of immigrants, then Congress is going to have to take the Bush plan and add a component that addresses the immigrants' long-term dreams.

There are several ways to do this. Some have proposed a point system. Sam could earn a point every time he did something that would make him a better citizen. A point for learning English. A point for a high school equivalency degree. With enough points he could earn a green card. He would be on a rigorous path to citizenship, which would still be longer than the one legal immigrants would take.

The Bush plan also needs that long-term component to have any chance of passage in the House of Representatives. There are about 70 Republicans who will never vote for any immigration reform but prohibition. To get a majority, the administration has to take the rest of the Republicans and win over a big chunk of Democrats.

The Democrats' present position is that Sam has to get full legalization — which is politically impossible — or he gets nothing. This week, most Democrats, led by Howard Dean, dismissed the president's plan contemptuously.

But if Democrats were offered a reasonable way to regularize Sam's life and give him hope for the future, I can't believe that they would really be so hardhearted that they would turn that down.

Bush has moved the Republicans a long way on this issue, and he will probably have to move a little more. The Democrats haven't budged, but if they do, then we will finally be able to see Sam emerge into the sunlight, and we'll be able to take advantage of all the work and drive and creativity that he and millions like him bring to this country.

[Archangelsk]

It starts: the rationalization of the President's program. For all his angst about appeasement during the lead up to the war, Brooks certainly has a way of changing his tune. Once again, Brooks, the effeminate, faux-conservative at the Times, shows his true colors.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
13	Georgia	725.00	24	30.21	439	1.65	220.00	14

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Hardastarboard]

Mr. President, I am asking for amnesty in advance. Since it's clear that you're willing to let felons slide if they're hard working and only trying to feed their families, I'm announcing my intent to turn to bank robbery, and throw myself on your mercy. Please hear me out.

I can no longer make a living in the impoverished technology field in which I labor. My job has been sent overseas, and there is no hope for me. I am too old to be re-trained, and I have to feed my family.

The bank robber voter block is a small, but growing and important constituency that you can't afford to cede to the Democratic party. They only do it to feed their families. In all other ways, they are hard working, honest, decent people who only wish to become white collar criminals.

You can justify any damn thing you want, if you just change the verbiage to make the person sound pitiful. I am NOT anti-immigrant. My daughter is dating a Mexican kid, just back from a trip to Mexico. BUT - he's NOT illegal. Big difference.

These gutless politicians and their vote buying make me want to puke. To all of you out there who say, "You have to vote Republican or a Democrat will win, I say what's the difference in the long run?"

[putupon]

It starts: the rationalization of the President's program.

Yep, they're working on it hard; I give this one a 4 Kool-Aids.

[Caipirabob]

LOL! I think you're on to something here!

"Fill 'er up, Amigos? OH YEAH!"

[Ed_in_NJ]

Excellent!

Sounds like we're in the same boat in more ways than one!

[Ed_in_NJ]

I like the Kool-Aids "rating scheme!"

[putupon]

Thanks.

[Archangelsk]

Perhaps there should be a Kool-Aid ping list.

[snopercod]

We need to start shooting those who are invading us.

They are not invading us, they just want jobs.

Please stop with the armchair vigalante stuff. If you think they should be shot, get your a$$ to the border and do it yourself, tough guy.

P.S. I hit the abuse button on your post. I signed my name to it. I am telling you publicly that posts advocating violence against non-combatants are a violation of the posting guidelines here on FR.

Posts like that just cheapen the forum.

FReegards--

[Ed_in_NJ]

You're so wonderful, tough guy.

[hershey]

What's needed is a reason for Mexicans to stay home. Maybe we should emigrate and generate a viable economy, plus straighten out their govt. and social ills. (In the long run, the uncontrolled flood of unskilled, non-english-speaking peoples is as much a WMD as any I can think of.) Isn't that basically what we're doing in Iraq?

[SolutionsOnly]

Yeah, and all the folks who hav been wainting in line for years, getting gouged by immigration laywers, and dealing with insane INS bureuacracy want a job, too.

[SolutionsOnly]

Yeah, and all the folks who hav been waiting in line for years, getting gouged by immigration laywers, and dealing with insane INS bureuacracy want a job, too.

[snopercod]

No hard feelings. I know you are an OK guy, but please - let's tone down the shoot-from-the-hip stuff.

I'm just as frustrated as you with our current immigration policy. OTOH, I work with some of these "invaders" and they are good people, just like you and me. I'm not afraid of them.

[BillM]

How old are you? Why can't you retrain yourself. I have learned a whold lot of different operating systems and programming languages/environments over the last 30 years. It is hard work but rewarding. I'm going on 60.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Fine - if you'd like to have a "reasonable" discussion of the matter. But let's tone down the use of the Abuse button...kind of hard to discuss items that are Deleted.

First of all, the word 'invade' is absolutely applicable - my Funk & Wagnall's includes "encroach upon, trespass on." If you can't agree that they are 'trespassing,' then there's no point in our discussing further.

They ARE violating our laws -- and that's the MAJOR point; it doesn't matter 'why.'

Secondly, they are a determined 'force" (when en masse) that is creating an economic hardship on the country. A few companies profit, as do the illegals, while the rest of us pay an increasing burden to support both the efforts to chase them down, and to support their (medical, etc.) needs. When caught, WE pay to send them back, so they can just try again, and again, until they 'make' it. There is very little jeopardy in their repeated attempts to profit from breaking our laws.

Terrorists say they will defeat us by breaking our economy. Illegals are helping to drain it, both from the cost of enforcement and the replacing of our workers.

Like others here, I have nothing against those who come here legally and obey our laws. But these lawbreakers should be treated like any other career criminals. By tolerating them we only contribute to/encourage further lawbreaking.

I stand by my original statement -- if they refuse to follow the orders of our law enforcement personnel, they should be dealt with "harshly" (is this a permissible word?).

[primeval patriot]

Picture a guy who will wade across rivers, brave 120-degree boxcars and face vicious smugglers and murderous vigilantes — all to get a job picking fruit for 10 hours a day.

Sam is paying these vicious smugglers. They wouldn't have a job without him.

Notice it's left unsaid just who these "murderous vigilantes" are. You're left to infer U.S. citizens are these phantom vigilantes.

For up to six years, Sam would be legal, but at the end of that time, he would probably face deportation. Then what would his family do for money?

The author answers his own question a few paragraphs above: He could open a bank account, which would let him ship money back home without having to pay huge fees.

But that's already the case so what's the point?

Illegal enablers act like poor Sam is facing genocide or mass starvation in Mexico.

[whipitgood]

"..terrorists say they will defeat us by breaking our economy..."
The illegals are also breaking our ecomnomy, IMHO. I can't see very much difference between what happened in the former USSR (the arms race broke their economy) and what is happening in the USA- the influx of illegals is breaking our economy.

[whipitgood]

Interesting article. Perhaps the most interesting part is "...imagine a person who is 10 times as determined as you..."
I guarantee there is not an illegal alive who is 10 times as determined as I am.
Perhaps this is the REAL key to success in 'these troubled times'.

[freeangel]

Cry me a river! They could have gotten on the list and came in LEGALLY. What most people are upset about is that ILLEGALS have no respect for our laws now and they will NEVER have respect for our laws. For them and their supporters, laws are meant to be broken.

[NMFXSTC]

"He wouldn't have to drive on back roads to avoid being pulled over and asked for his license by the police."

(He is driving illegally, withut insurance?...my, my...I guess if one would illegally enter the country, one would undertake other illegal activity...as that sentence clearly points out!)

[putupon]

That would be a good thing, and (Kool Aid Warnings) with the posts too.

[KantianBurke]

lol! great idea!

[snopercod]

I can't argue with anything you said. I just want to see everyone in this country dealt with according to law, not summarily executed. If they're here illegally, then they should be deported, unless the law changes.

I heard on the news the other day that only five thousand Mexicans are allowed in legally each year. Maybe that's part of the problem.

I'm not adverse to a "guest worker" program. Neither am I adverse to building a wall along the border like Israel is doing. (Maybe we can hire illegals to build it? --just kidding)

[snopercod]

I know some Mexicans who might be "illegal" - I never asked them. I never noticed that they have any less respect for our laws than anybody else (other than the immigration laws).

But I live in the country. Maybe the "city Mexicans" are different, just like the city anglos.

[snopercod]

You know, I think what really has our government worried is that there are now millions of Mexicans living and thriving here in America without government permission.

How long will it be before a lot of anglos notice that there are alternatives to working six months of every year for the government?

[FITZ]

I stand by my original statement -- if they refuse to follow the orders of our law enforcement personnel, they should be dealt with "harshly" (is this a permissible word?).

It's true though that there are different types of illegals. There are murderers and very violent thugs crossing over here (the Railroad serial killer came back and forth through here many times) to commit serious crimes BUT there are also illegals who don't mean any harm at all --- they just want to work and feed their families.

They picked up this 75 year old guy and had him at the INS detention center waiting to be processed for deportation. He was extremely distraught --- in his entire life he had never once been arrested for a single crime and now he finds himself --- at age 75 behind bars --- just for the crime of wanting to work to help out his family. It's tragic what is happening to the people of Mexico --- also to watch that society crumble so fast. Obviously the solution to their problems isn't for them to all come here though.

[B4Ranch]

"amnesty in advance." is only available to those criminals who are willing to buy false ID.

Think ahead if you are going to be a criminal. Get your Matricular card!

[Ed_in_NJ]

As I said before, I don't care 'why' - they are breaking the law. And costing us a lot of money. And not suffering any real penalty when caught (other than getting sent back where they came from, so they can try AGAIN).

This just contributes to our overall malaise when it comes to enforcing laws when it's not easy (a la the Sellout Senate deciding it didn't want to be bothered trying i42) or popular.

We are headed in the wrong direction in this regard, and this could be a major step in that wrong direction if we don't correct it (and that DOESN'T mean changing the law - 'caving in' - it means controlling immigration in a way that is for the good of the 'average' citizen).

[Thisiswhoweare]

Oh, so you noticed the $1500 dollar employer paid fee, huh? Is that to make up for the loss in taxes on what the job would have paid? The government is padding its pockets at the expense of its citizens.

"How long will it be before a lot of anglos notice that there are alternatives to working six months of every year for the government?"

That just needs to be framed...

[FITZ]

I think it would be better to hunt down the employers and start slapping big fines on them --- as it is now --- if they break IRS laws they come after them in a big way, but if they break labor and illegal employment laws --no problem at all.

[Thisiswhoweare]

"By tolerating them we only contribute to/encourage further lawbreaking."

Concur. Any government that selectively enforces laws is on its way to a systemic failure. We are well down that road.

[FITZ]

If every employer found was given a fine of $5000 to $10000 and up for each illegal employee they hired -- first offense --- that alone would discourage a lot of this. Shooting people coming over the border --- and some of them are 14 year old kids coming over to look for a job, isn't the answer. Treat it like tax evasion or OSHA violations.

[SolutionsOnly]

***""By tolerating them we only contribute to/encourage further lawbreaking." ***

Correct! That was EXACTLY the result of Reagan's 1986 amnesty. We had 3 million illegals then - is 8 to 15 million now.

[SolutionsOnly]

Give employers/illegals 30 days then crack down hard. A couple of high profile prosecutions will go a long way towards seeing the situation start to correct itself.

[theFIRMbss]

>It starts: the rationalization of the President's program.

Does anyone know
a source that we can all trust
for raw statistics

on immigration?
I'm having trouble finding
even basic stuff

such as how many
legal, "resident" foreign
workers we have, and

careful estimates
of how many illegal
aliens are here.

It is strange that such
a contentious issue has
so few good web links...

[FITZ]

There has been a big reluctance to crack down. Tyson Chicken was found to have a lot of illegal employees and they pretty much by with it. Walmart will attempt to get off the hook --- likely will. These companies have put many more honest companies who obey the labor and tax laws --- which then put many Americans out of work. There doesn't seem to be any penalty for breaking certain laws --- but break one OSHA regulation --- or make a mistake in the IRS form --- watch out.

[FITZ]

I wouldn't give the employers 30 days --- I think most have broken plenty of laws and could start getting fined now. Maybe go light on some of the fines --- depending on the severity of the problem. A family with an illegal nanny could get a $5000 fine and be made to pay back any hospital expenses if any incurred by their illegal. A construction contractor who failed to pay Social Security, FICA and other taxes in, who broke minimum wage laws should be slapped with much higher fines.

[SolutionsOnly]

I'd recommend Victor David Hanson's book "Mexifornia"

[SolutionsOnly]

The 30 days isn't to be nice - just time that people can get there heads straight and correct the situation without losing thier business (I'm thinking of small business that has had no choice in this matter - landscapers, contractors etc.) Many of them almost are forced to break the law in order to stay competetive.

[Thisiswhoweare]

Congress came to the same conclusion during recent hearings. The whole BLS system of counting workers was designed about 50 years ago, and despite over 18 changes in the last few years is completely inadequate to track significant trends.

Thre are a number of sites that have been tracking the issue from the late nineties on, and you can put together a significantly different picture from them than that which the government statistics provide.

[FITZ]

I suppose a 30 day notice would work too.

[Thisiswhoweare]

"That was EXACTLY the result of Reagan's 1986 amnesty. 3 million illegals then - is 8 to 15 million now."

Which is why so many conservatives are stunned that President Bush would propose such a plan that would repeat, and even enhance the results of the previous mistake. Indeed, because they will become essentially permanent residents without citizenship, doesn't that strike at the very premiss of citizenship?

Like snopercod said "How long will it be before a lot of anglos notice that there are alternatives to working six months of every year for the government?". Why would someone want to bear all the extra taxes, paying into a Social Security and Medicare system bound to collapse, and remain last in line for all the hiring preferences? All this on the heels of a prescription Drug Benefit that will surely speed up the collapse of a fiscally shaky Medicare system.

Doesn't make any sense, does it. Unless, of course your aim was to collapse the system itself and effectively dissolve our sovereignty with a combination of fiscal insolvency, dissolution of any effective borders, and an utter inability to meet or contain any further military contingencies by gross overextension.

Then, it would make perfect sense. The most effective arsonists use accelerants.

[theFIRMbss]

>I'd recommend Victor David Hanson's book "Mexifornia"

Thanks. I just ordered
a copy. (I'm still surprised
the web is so bare...)