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.

[JackelopeBreeder]

I'm already paying $20/lb for strawberries. The only difference is that $16 of it is hidden in my tax bill.

Since I live on the border I also pay for them in ways you don't want to even begin to imagine.

[hobson]

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?

Sounds like the voters in CA created this problem. Why don't they take away the incentive by repealing 187?

[junta]

This ought to be posted under a special section, "Lettuce shortage catastrophe" or something like that.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Wow!

Was that a typo or do you really know nothing about Prop 187?

Prop 187 tried to bar illegal aliens from any welfare. One ding-a-ling judge ruled against it and Gov. Gray Davis caved and refused to appeal the decision. The same Gray Davis who tried to give driver's licenses to illegals to get enough votes to survive a recall.

[Marak]

[I don't know where you live]
Southern Florida

[there is a major corporation that has hired illegals]
Tyson Foods for one

[Corporate farms, perhaps? Nahh, they use the guest worker program that we already have in place,] Actually there are plenty of illegals on the corporate farms here. They even are organized and give interviews to the newspapers.

[The places you'll really find them is in construction industries] Yes, discovered working on a Federal building in Miami among other places. The jobs were NOT jobs that Americans would refuse either.

[They've got a huge market in landscaping.]
Very huge. In fact, legal landscapers down here can't compete. Many of them are folding up.

The point is, it has to be painful to ignore the law. That is the ONLY way there will be any adherence to it. If subcontractors go out of business for knowingly hiring illegals, great. The legal contractors will have more jobs and require more legal workers.

If the case of Walmart and companies like that that utilize subcontractors to get around the law, I think they should be liable if it can be proved they knew that illegals were being used.

I am not declaring that I know the answer to this problem, but I think by discussing it a better plan can be found than the one the President is proposing.

I see three areas to address:
1) at the border. Make it harder to get in.
2) the employer. Make it harder for him to turn a blind eye to the practice of hiring illegals.
3) the illegal immigrant. Make the punishment for violating our laws hurt him. Whether that includes a fine, jail time, removal from the legal immigration process, etc.

Think about it. Maybe you will come with better ideas, but something needs to be done besides a blanket acceptance of the law breakers.

[HennepinPrisoner]

I am not even going to bother to read what this amnesty-cheerleadering journo has to say. I have read far too many articles here on FR and thus far not one has convinced me that this plan will be anything but an economic disaster for lower and middle income workers in America.

I think this guy has spent way too much time setting up those water stations in the Arizona desert...tends to fry the brain.

[babygene]

"That is the WORST solution"

You don't seem to get it Mr. Fair Opinion...

When a company hires an illegal at substandard wages the taxpayer ends up paying to support them. A family can't live and provide for them self on even minimum wage. He!!, it cost $10000 a year to insure a family of four, and as much as $20000 a year to send two kids to public schools. Who do you thiks pays for this when the worker makes $12000 a year?

When an employer hires these people at these wages, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing his payroll. These people do not contribute to our economy.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Two minutes with a knife turns a water station into a plastic recycling site.

[kingu]

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.

Ghads, wouldn't it be nice if an employer could simply pick up the phone, enter in the social security number, and get back the name assigned to the number as well as the legal status?

Oh, bugger - there's a hole in that. One legal gives out his number to others to use. Yes, Jose is legal to work in this country - he's just working at 12,000 different places. To make something like that actually work, you're almost back to a national ID card.

Ironic that the average bus pass is harder to copy than a social security card.

[Marak]

[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.]

If $20 per pound for strawberries is what it takes to live in a country where the rule of law means something, count me in. If you want cheap strawberries, move south.

If businesses cannot remain solvent without illegal labor, then we have problems other than one of immigration.

If the minimum wage is too high, lower it.

If your product cost is too high with legal workers, get out of the business.

If there are not enough legal workers, increase the quotas for LEGAL workers.

A simplistic statement that we must have illegal workers or our businesses will die isn't working towards a viable solution. I think we can do better than that.

[hobson]

Oops, I read that wrong. Anyway, there must be a way for CA to rectify that problem.

[Marak]

[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.]

Perhaps if some were deported while seeking benefits, the problem might be less than you think. Maybe there will have to be some mass deportations, but I believe that most will not want to live where they can't make a living and have to live under the threat of discovery and deportation.

Maybe California needs to take another shot at 187. I don't know the answer.

[FairOpinion]

You are both making the very points, why Bush's guest worker program is a step in the right direction.

Bush is addressing a serious problem, which existed and has been getting worse for the past 15 years.

As for the cost, I guess you don't mind paying for all the lazy bums collecting welfare, just as long as they are citizens.

As I said, on another thread, the illegal problem is strongly tied to the welfare problem. Many healthy people in the US rather sit and collect welfare, than do menial work -- that's what makes illegal workers attractive for employers.

[AGreatPer]

"I am not even going to bother to read what this amnesty-cheerleadering journo has to say"

I read some of it but just have one word. ILLEGAL

[kingu]

1) at the border. Make it harder to get in.

It is already harder to get in, but not impossible. Seems like the convicted felons that we deport somehow come back to join with their gangs. The borders need to be kept up, but I'll give the border patrol one thing - they're finally doing a better job. But how do you stop someone coming here through the border checkpoint itself? Mexicans are allowed to come into the United States to shop, to be tourists, etc. A reservation at the Disneyland Hotel and they have a foolproof method of entry.

2) the employer. Make it harder for him to turn a blind eye to the practice of hiring illegals.

There's no survey to back it up, but I'd say that the biggest employer of illegals are illegals themselves. You don't need to submit worker papers when you're being hired as a subcontractor, and faking a license is FAR too easy. Nailing those who pick up day laborers would be a great thing, except the courts have basically made it impossible to case those sites and nail the employers.

3) the illegal immigrant. Make the punishment for violating our laws hurt him. Whether that includes a fine, jail time, removal from the legal immigration process, etc.

Jail time? I don't want to pay for them in the first place, and now I have to pay $40,000+ a year per illegal? Fine them? Ok, if you nail the money in their pocket, you've got their nest egg. You've already said it - these people are already underpaid, what makes you think you'll get a successful fine? And as to removing them from the immigration process - they don't want to become citizens in the first place! They're here because they can make more money than in Mexico. They participate in their home elections through the consulate.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Anyway, there must be a way for CA to rectify that problem.

Cali has borrowed a few ideas from Arizona and revived 187. Instead of changing existing law, just make sure it existing law is amended to make it enforcable.

[FairOpinion]

"Perhaps if some were deported while seeking benefits,"

==

I am all for that -- problem is the US courts, stuffed with liberals, who overturn any sensible measures voters try to pass, such as Prop. 187.

Some are trying to resurrect a different version of it.

[Texasforever]

Quietly clapping.

[MattAMiller]

This is complete fiction. The federal tax was supposed to be temporary too!

Let's see what legislation is proposed before we start making these judgements. We shouldn't just rely on promises to reverse beaurocratic inertia, a difficult task even if the Administration wants to take it up. But we can put an end to anchor babies and ban consular IDs and matricula cards. We could also have both employee and employer bond over some amount of cash, that would inspire some self enforcement.

[Marak]

[To make something like that actually work, you're almost back to a national ID card.]

Hardly a national id card. Reporting of the SSN is already required by the government to work. Also known is the age and sex associated with that number. As for 12,000 people using the same id, it sure would be easy for the government to locate and round up the offenders. Oh, some might get by with using someone else's id, but there are easy ways to halt the massive use of a single SSN.

Again, I am not making a proposal here. I am making suggestions. If you find holes in my logic, think about them. Maybe you will find a way to fill them. It certainly is better than throwing our hands into the air and saying it can't be done.