Bush Offers Migrant Plan Conservatives Can Support

Arizona Republic ^ | January 18, 2004 | Jeff Flake

[Reaganwuzthebest]

President Bush's immigration initiative has sparked a great deal of discussion across the country. Perhaps the most interesting debate centers on whether the president, in announcing the initiative, has embraced conservative principles or abandoned them. I believe a temporary worker program is consistent with conservative principles, and here's why.

First, conservatives value national security, and the status quo encourages anything but national security. The presence of 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens within the confines of our borders should prompt the type of reform the president has suggested.

President Bush's proposal will ensure smarter border enforcement by redirecting resources for border security and the war on terrorism away from the dishwashers and landscapers who are trying to cross the border illegally and toward the smugglers and terrorists who are attempting to cross the border for purposes far more nefarious than filling jobs that American workers are not taking.

We can try to tighten up border enforcement even more than we already have (we've already increased spending on border enforcement six-fold over the past 20 years), but as long as the United States offers foreign workers more opportunity for work than their home countries do, people will risk their lives to cross the border.

According to Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, "A real effort to control the border with Mexico would require perhaps 20,000 agents and the development of a system of formidable fences and other barriers along those parts of the border used for illegal crossings."

It should also be noted that some 40 percent of those illegally in the United States first entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas. Even if we did manage to seal the border from illegal crossings, the problem would still be with us. Clearly, we can't solve this problem through border enforcement alone.

A temporary worker program, coupled with serious workplace enforcement, would bring those who are in the shadows out into the open. Temporary workers would be registered. We would finally know who they are, how long they've been here, and when they must return to their home country or change their status.

Again, the "carrot" of a temporary worker program must be coupled with the "stick" of workplace enforcement. With a reasonable legal avenue available, workers should have no excuse for not utilizing it and employers should have no excuse for hiring those who do not.

The latter point is important. Conservatives respect the law. Our current immigration laws, everyone will agree, are so convoluted and out of touch with how people actually organize their lives that it does not foster respect for the law. If we want the law to be enforced, we need to have a law that can realistically be enforced given our labor needs. Which brings me to another point.

Conservatives recognize that America has a need for labor that Americans are unable or unwilling to fill. This is the case today, and will increasingly be the case in years to come as our workforce becomes older and better educated. Now, some will dispute this, noting that "there are some 10 million unemployed in this country, and some 10 million illegal aliens - do the math!"

This math adds up only if you accept that it is the federal government's role, for example, to persuade an unemployed fisherman in Maine to take a job as a landscaper in Phoenix. Or to move an unemployed schoolteacher in Indiana to the lettuce fields in Yuma. The former Soviet Union tried and failed with this type of economic planning for decades. Cuba is still trying. Neither are examples that conservatives should seek to emulate.

Third, conservatives are compassionate, despite what liberals will tell you. The fact that hundreds of illegal aliens, many of whom are women and children, die in the desert each year should compel us to action. Because a temporary worker program would allow workers to enter and exit the country through border checkpoints, the incentive to risk one's life in the desert would be diminished considerably. Under the current situation, those illegally crossing the border in search of work must make the calculation of whether to endure long periods, even years, without seeing their families, or to attempt to bring their families with them. The latter choice often leads to deadly consequences.

Finally, we conservatives are called conservatives because we want to "conserve" practices and principles that have withstood the test of time. There is little about the status quo in immigration policy that is worth conserving. Bush recognizes this. We conservatives, whether we agree with every detail of his plan or not, should applaud him for it.

[Marak]

I believe the suggested fee is $ 1000. Paying the fee would be cheaper than a roundtrip smuggle fee for most. I think for any plan to succeed, there has to be a way to severally punish those who are illegal. Make it mandatory for them to return before applying, or make those who are here illegally ineligible. This is the point that most people gripe about. He is proposing to reward those who have broken the law. It can only result in less regard for the laws of this nation.

[quack]

I believe the suggested fee is $ 1000.

I don't about where you live,but here the illegal immigrants have that much as "walking around money".Since they get paid in cash and have no bank account,they keep it rolled up in their front pocket.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

President Bush's proposal will ensure smarter border enforcement by redirecting resources for border security and the war on terrorism away from the dishwashers and landscapers who are trying to cross the border illegally and toward the smugglers and terrorists who are attempting to cross the border for purposes far more nefarious than filling jobs that American workers are not taking.

Lets see ,,,,, Make a law break a law rewrite the law to break it easier or just ignore the law for 50 years or so and when it comes up again rewrite the law and then break the law so it can be broken more easily then rewrite the law one more time to find certain law breakers but let the not so bad law breakers get away with breaking the law

What was the reason we have laws again ?

[MissAmericanPie]

He's a Flake, he must think conservatives are also.

[Texasforever]

What was the reason we have laws again ?

We pass and repeal laws all the time.

[JustPiper]

Not me, this is the same old joke

[Marak]

"I don't about where you live,but here the illegal immigrants have that much as "walking around money".Since they get paid in cash and have no bank account,they keep it rolled up in their front pocket."

That was kind of my point. The $1000 fee is neither a deterent nor a punishment. It was probably added to the speech so they could say 'gee, look at all this money we will make'.

I truly believe going after the companies that hire illegals is the best approach. Dry up the labor market and make it more expensive to hire an illegal. Hit these employers with a fine of $100,000 for each illegal they hire.

[JustPiper]

One of the 3 stooges, yes I'm sure I believe any guest worker program he sponsors

[Happy2BMe]

A FReeper's Guide To Immigration Reform

"What remains to be seen is if this country has the capacity to accommodate, and assimilate, an unending wave of mass immigration ¯ because failure to do so will result in a balkanized, fragmented, strife-torn and dysfunctional America."

Federation for American Immigration Reform - FAIR

President Bush - stand up and tell us the truth

~ Take the FReeper Immigration Reform Poll ~

[Zipporah]

"There is nothing conservative about this plan.".. my thought exactly.

[Spiff]

He's a Flake, he must think conservatives are also.

Flake is one of the most conservative members of Congress. However, on this issue, he's lost his frikkin' mind. Either that or Kolbe & McCain have some sort of blackmail material on him. I can't figure it out - Flake is a good guy. How could he let himself get mixed up with the likes of Kolbe and McCain!?

[FairOpinion]

"Simple suggestion: why not prosecute the employers?"

"That's the best solution I can think of. Put a few employers in jail and see how fast they stop hiring illegals."

==

That is the WORST solution. You can't expect employers to be the cops for the INS. You are expecting for employers hiring minimum wage help to do a background investigation on these people, which would have a prohibitive cost.

Businesses are over regulated as is, add this additional requirement and try to enforce it with criminal prosecurtion and you will see a great many businesses closing.

[JackelopeBreeder]

The Granola Gang -- a nut, a fruit, and a flake.

[kingu]

I truly believe going after the companies that hire illegals is the best approach. Dry up the labor market and make it more expensive to hire an illegal. Hit these employers with a fine of $100,000 for each illegal they hire.

I don't know where you live, but such a thing would be a joke in California. Ahh, yes, I could see the headlines now.. 'Mom and Pop restaurant shut down by heavy fine' I am sure, somewhere, there is a major corporation that has hired illegals, but such things would be rare. Sure, you might nail Taco Bell, but with so many companies now running credit checks on all their hires, they tend to catch illegals. When Jose Gonazalas' report comes back saying that Mrs. Marple has fair credit, the company declines to hire them.

Corporate farms, perhaps? Nahh, they use the guest worker program that we already have in place, even sending teams of people down into El Salvador and other dirt pits to sign up and hire people.

The places you'll really find them is in construction industries, independent contractor cleaning firms (like Wallyworld found out), clothing subcontractors (though their workers tend to be locked up) and the most likely place - employed by another illegal. They've got a huge market in landscaping.

I doubt that there would be much success in fining Walmart for having a subcontractor that hires illegals - the company that committed the crime isolates them. Hitting up the housing developer for the illegals hired by subcontractors again isolates the people with money.

So, anyway, I wish I could agree with you, because I really want there to be a simple solution. But the problem is twenty years old with a lack of enforcement coupled with courts that have given repeated rights to the criminals. In any case, I want SOMETHING done - I do not want the status quo to continue.

[FairOpinion]

"I truly believe going after the companies that hire illegals is the best approach. Dry up the labor market and make it more expensive to hire an illegal. Hit these employers with a fine of $100,000 for each illegal they hire."

===

In other words: make businesses close down or move to Mexico, because they couldn't stay in business.


I guess you want to pay $20/lb for strawberries too.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You can't expect employers to be the cops for the INS.

Criminal prosecution would apply only to those businesses who knowingly hire illegals. There's plenty of them openly doing it today with no penalties.

Congress is also going to have to get serious about mandating employee checks during the hiring process. Right now it's voluntary where businesses can call in and verify a SSN. Once a reliable system is set up employers will have no excuses for hiring those who shouldn't be here.

[FairOpinion]

"I don't know where you live, but such a thing would be a joke in California. Ahh, yes, I could see the headlines now.. 'Mom and Pop restaurant shut down by heavy fine' "

==

Not to mention a bunch of small homeowners being fined and lose their homes, because they hired an illegal to mow their lawn or clear the brush from their backyard, babysit their kid, or take care of their elderly parent, while they are working.

Yeah, fine the "employers" of illegal aliens!

(/sarcasm)

[Marak]

[That is the WORST solution. You can't expect employers to be the cops for the INS. You are expecting for employers hiring minimum wage help to do a background investigation on these people, which would have a prohibitive cost.

Businesses are over regulated as is, add this additional requirement and try to enforce it with criminal prosecurtion and you will see a great many businesses closing.]

Actually, it is a great solution. All the companies have to do is verify the legal right to work in this country. They can use the SSN listed on the W4 filled out by the employee. Verify that the SSN is valid for the name given. This should not require a massive background check. If there are not systems in place today to handle this trivial detail, we should create it. It is a far better solution than ignoring the problem or trying to forciblly deport 12 million people.

[Triple Word Score]

Right. Also, this is not a good time to hit American business with another huge government-imposed expense, singly or en masse. You want to see jackboots? Let the feds shut down a Denny's because one employee had a convincing social security card or someone managed to get his illegal cousin on the payroll. We saw what happened to our economy when the feds went after Microsoft during the Clinton regime. It wasn't a pretty thing. I doubt there's a large corporation anywhere in America that doesn't have illegals on the payroll in some way. The question is whether they know it--and whether they could afford to hire a legal, unionized employee to do the same job.

The economy won't grow if the government starts seizing businesses and locking up business owners left and right. And we know what a reversal of the upward trends means politically.

[FairOpinion]

"It is a far better solution than ignoring the problem or trying to forciblly deport 12 million people."

===

So if the illegal immigrants couldn't work, because nobody would hire them, but by law (CA courts ruled Prop 187 illegal) you can't deny them benefits, such as welfare and medical, instead of working, they would all be on welfare.

So how would that improve the illegal immigrant problem?