Posted on 02/23/2005 5:15:25 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Douglas, Arizona
LEE MORGAN'S SMALL, spare office has the somber feel of a personal shrine. A Vietnam veteran with 30 years' experience in the immigration and customs services, Morgan does undercover and investigative work on the Arizona border, now the gateway of choice for illegal immigrants entering the United States from the south. Everything in his lair in the dusty frontier town of Douglas speaks to his patriotism and dedication: his Bronze Star, his Purple Heart, the three folded American flags--comrades' commemorative flags--and proud photos of his fondest undercover busts. Like everyone who works on the border, he has had a new assignment since 9/11. The twin fights against illegal immigration and drugs, though not forgotten, have been subordinated to a new preoccupation--terrorism. But, tough and determined though he is, Morgan is far from confident that he can hold the line.
Every day last year, the immigration service apprehended some 1,400 illegal immigrants trying to cross into Arizona. Over 12 months, along the whole southern border, the total number arrested was more than a million. Morgan has seen too much in life to be anything but candid, and although it's his job to help catch these unauthorized migrants, he criticizes the apprehensions as a waste of time and resources. "They're just poor people trying to feed their families," he shrugs. But that doesn't mean he isn't concerned--very concerned. The main issue in his eyes: the distraction the immigrant influx creates. "What if another 9/11 happens and I'm responsible?" he asks. "What if the
Morgan's personal nightmare is one urgent reason why all Americans, no matter what their politics, should support President Bush's plan to retake control of our southern border. The White House proposal, introduced in early 2004 and allowed to drop from sight during the election year, is back on the table. The president laid out his ideas again in the State of the Union and is reportedly planning a major initiative to take the issue to the public later this spring.
Republicans are no less divided this year than last, and the White House has been working overtime to finesse those divisions. In early February it shrewdly avoided a confrontation in the House by backing a package of tough enforcement measures that many had expected would expose a rift between the president and less immigrant-friendly Republicans. Instead, the administration and its allies cast the "REAL ID Act"--the brainchild of powerful Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner--as a first step toward the broader reform they seek, helping the measure pass by a healthy margin. But this will hardly end the discord in Republican ranks, and a major showdown is sure to come, both in Congress and, more broadly, among conservatives across the country.
The Bush plan has two key components: a guest worker program and a transitional measure that would allow illegal immigrants already here and working to earn their way onto the right side of the law and participate legally in the U.S. labor market. Conservative critics lambaste both elements, not just as bad policy, but as inherently un-conservative--out of keeping with core principles and detrimental to Republican interests. The impulse behind the challenge is understandable. Conservative criteria are different: not just security, but the rule of law, traditional values, and national cohesion--not to mention the interests of the GOP. It's also true that the president often touts his proposal in terms designed to appeal across the political spectrum. He talks about "compassion" and a desire to reward "goodhearted" workers, and sometimes this emphasis obscures the hardheaded, conservative case for his approach--a case that begins but does not end with America's economic interests. In reality, though, demonized as it has been on the right, the Bush plan meets every conceivable conservative criterion--with flying colors.THE PRESIDENT'S REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS often put their case as a rhetorical question--"What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?"--and the gibe hits home, not necessarily because of what it says about the Bush solution, but because it so accurately diagnoses what's wrong with the existing system. Our immigration system is indeed based on illegality--on a long-standing and all but deliberate mismatch between the size of our yearly quotas and the actual needs of our labor market, particularly at the lower reaches of the job ladder. This mismatch has often been convenient for employers--it provides a docile, disposable foreign labor force--and it has been the norm in agriculture off and on for nearly a hundred years. But in recent decades, new technologies have spurred demand for low-skilled workers in a wide range of other sectors as well, and the public, quite understandably, is beginning to find the hypocrisy intolerable.
As the president's critics understand, this is a large part of what is driving voters' concerns about immigration. People don't like the idea of 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States but outside the law. They're appalled that entire American industries--not just agriculture, but hospitality, food processing, construction--operate on the wrong side of the rules, relying on the black market to find the labor they need just to keep their businesses open. The very idea of this second, illegal America is an affront, its practical consequences even more troubling: not just criminal syndicates that thrive on lawlessness, but also the haven it
So the critics' diagnosis is not far from the mark. But the question is what to do about this other, illegal America--and the fact is that the president has the best idea, arguably the only idea that can possibly work. Many of his critics believe that the answer is to turn off the immigrant influx. We should, they say, make the necessary economic adjustments and do without the imported labor. It's an option; with enough resources, we probably could stop the flow. But are the American people prepared for the changes that would come with that decision? The likely economic sacrifice is incalculable: not just a few extra pennies on the cost of lettuce, but forfeited growth all across the economy, on a vast scale. In many industries today, growth depends on foreign laborers, who filled one in every two new jobs created in recent years. Then there would be the cost of enforcement--a cost in dollars but also in the way we live. Just ask experienced agents like Lee Morgan: Cutting off illegal immigration would require thousands more men on the border, routine sweeps in every city, roadblocks, roundups, massive deportations, a national ID card, and more.
The president has a better solution. He proposes that we face up to the reality of our growing demand for labor, skilled and unskilled. His outline is still just that--an outline--and he is likely to leave it to Congress to fill in the details: to devise a way to match foreign workers with American employers, to make sure American laborers aren't undercut in the process, to design a method for monitoring employers and punishing those who don't comply, and so on. But the White House has nailed down the all-important central principle: If we raise our quotas to make them more commensurate with the existing flow of foreign workers, we can reap the benefits of immigration without the illegality that currently comes with it.
A new, more realistic policy would be much easier to enforce. The best analogy is Prohibition: Unrealistic law is extremely difficult to make stick. Realistic limits are another thing entirely. We can have robust immigration and the rule of law too--if, instead of wishing away the influx, we acknowledge reality, then find a smarter, more practical way to manage it. And that is exactly what the president proposes we do through his guest worker program. The idea is not to expand the total number of immigrants who enter the country each year, merely to provide those who are coming anyway--and would otherwise come illegally--with a safe, orderly, legal route. Assuming it works--assuming, as the White House does, that once most jobs are filled by authorized immigrants, there will be little incentive for others to come illegally--it's a simple, pragmatic solution, and that in itself should recommend it to conservatives.
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT would be the dividends for national security. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners enter the country each year without benefit of background checks or security controls of any kind. Then, once in the United States, they cluster in transient, underground communities, as often as not beyond the reach of the law. The president understands that we must come to grips with these potential terrorist havens, eliminating not just the illegal arrivals but also the illicit population that has accumulated here in recent decades. That's why he has included a provision that would allow unauthorized migrants to come in out of the shadows and get visas. Though mocked as a spineless, soft-hearted giveaway, this part of the plan too is driven by our needs--our security needs.
Under the Bush plan, foreigners seeking to disguise their identities would no longer find fake ID cards readily available on street corners in every American city. The Department of Homeland Security would have a much better grasp of who is here and what their names are and where to look for them if they turn up on an international watch list. Agents like Lee Morgan would be able to get back to their real jobs: tracking criminals and terrorists, not farmhands and busboys. And all this could be achieved without a draconian crackdown of the kind we would need were we to enforce the quotas we have, let alone close the border. Far simpler to bring the law back into line with market reality, then implement the new rules with modest, commonsense enforcement measures of the sort we rely on in every other realm of American life.
But isn't what the critics say true--isn't the president's plan in fact an amnesty? Not necessarily. It depends how it's done. Illegal immigrants should not be forgiven for breaking the rules; they should be offered an opportunity to earn their way back onto the right side of the law. Think of it as probation--that all-American idea, a second chance. The president is unequivocal: Unauthorized workers will not be permitted to jump the queue ahead of legal applicants waiting patiently for visas back in their home countries. And Congress should add other conditions. Those already in the country illegally should be required to pay a penalty; they should have to wait just as long as other applicants for full legal status. While they're waiting, they should be required to fulfill a variety of additional obligations: hold a job, pay taxes, abide by the law, take English classes, and demonstrate their commitment to American values. Once they've met these terms, it might even make sense to require them to go home to pick up their visas.
The vetting alone is sure to be a huge job, and it will have to be done with the utmost care on the part of law enforcement. But the truth is there's no other realistic way to eliminate the vast illegal world these immigrants inhabit: no other way to clear the ground in order to build for the future with a realistic, legal system of the kind the president envisions. After all, we as a nation aren't going to deport 10 to 12 million foreigners. However much they dislike the idea of illegal immigration, the American people aren't likely to have the stomach for that. Nor would it ultimately be in our interest. Surely it makes more sense to retain these trained, already assimilating workers than it does to send them home and start over with people who know nothing of the United States or its ways.
DOES THIS MEAN it may be possible to bridge the gap between the president and his conservative critics? Well, yes and no. The critics are right about many things. Our current "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" policy is unacceptable. The erosion of the rule of law cannot continue. We must secure our borders against terrorists. The critics are also right to be worried about the costs that even legal immigrants impose on social services--primarily schools and hospitals--in the communities where they settle. Any overhaul of the immigration system must deal with those costs, and it ought to include a set of provisions, both carrots and sticks, to encourage assimilation. About all of that, there can be no doubt. The only catch: Just think a minute about this list of concerns. In fact, what the critics find intolerable is not the president's plan; it's the status quo.
The Bush package acknowledges the critics' concerns and attempts to address them with realistic solutions. It's designed to serve America's economic interest. It's our only hope of ending the hypocrisy that undermines our law enforcement. It's the best way to restore the rule of law in our workplaces and enhance security on the border. Issues of assimilation and local service costs are among the practical matters still to be thought through--on the table for Congress to tackle as it writes the legislation to implement the president's plan. But surely eliminating the barriers that now prevent 10 to 12 million U.S. residents from participating in the body politic and requiring them to pay their full freight in taxes would be a good start on both problems. And this can be accompanied by other, more proactive strategies like mandatory health savings accounts for guest workers and incentives for employers to offer them English classes.
Where the critics are most wrong--where they seem most shrewd but are ultimately the most misguided--is in their view of the politics of immigration. Here, too, they see the symptoms accurately enough. Americans are frustrated and angry. They know the system is broken; they want change. Uncertainty about just how to effect that change is driving a wedge into the Republican party, dividing the president from his conservative base in Congress and at the grassroots. And if the system isn't fixed, it could create a dangerous opening for Democrats: an opportunity for Democratic immigration hawks to outflank Republicans, not just on law and order, but even more devastatingly on security. All of this is true--and scary. But the answer isn't to block reform. The antidote is to deliver a remedy, as the White House proposes.
The president isn't misreading public opinion. If anything, he reads it better than his critics do. Most Americans aren't anti-immigrant. As poll after poll shows, what they want is to regain control--of both the border and the underground economy. The paradox at the heart of the Bush plan makes it a little hard to explain to voters. The president is promising to regain control by means of a more generous and welcoming approach to immigration. But that doesn't change the underlying truth: The Bush plan is the only way to restore the rule of law, either on the border or in our communities. It's the best answer to the critics' complaints, the only answer to the illegality that plagues us. And surely--no matter what the skeptics say--it can't be political suicide to give voters a solution to one of the problems that frightens and disturbs them most.
"If the Bush plan is so "Nuanced" that it takes someone 6 pages to explain it, that means to me it is a bad idea. If something is logical, it is usually explained easily and it is accepted widely. This is not explained easily or widely accepted because it is not logical. Liberals/marxists use this type of convoluted explanation to distract the reader from using the simple logic that proves it to be a bad idea."
"I suppose you give this author the same status as the good book?"
No, but you however did.
The Holy Bible is significantly takes longer than six pages to explain God's plan.
According to you, it must be a Marxist book.
Accepted.
You called me a liar when all I did was posit my opinion, not assert facts.
Whether you intend to mislead or not, saying "The two major partys are, almost, indistinuishable today," is a lie.
One party is for tax cuts, a strong defense, protection of marriage, right to life, ect etc etc.
There are differences between the partys but, IMO, they are differences of degree only.
No where is this lie more evident than the pro-life issue. Republicans want to end abortion, rats want to expand it to children my daughters age.
It's my belief that illegal immigrants should not be given preferential treatment in employment, or in receiving citizenship, JUST because they were here, illegally, first.
I agree. On the other hand, if you have ever employed a worker you know that it is often a crap shoot. You can verify references and past employment but you still may wind up with a drunk, thief, or equally irresponsible fool. An employer who is currently employing illegals, that they have spent money training, would prefer to keep that employee rather than hire a new untested immigrant. You can callously say "too bad...they are illegals," but training costs money and eats away at profit and limits raises and expansion...now multiply this by 15 million illegals and you can see the problem that xenophobes like Tancredo and Buchanan can't see...because they never hire anybody and they hate and don't understand business.
If all people should be weaned off government (and I agree) it is a irrelevent argument against illegals.
An employer who is currently employing illegals, that they have spent money training, would prefer to keep that employee rather than hire a new untested immigrant.
I understand that. If the employer wants to keep the worker that much, when the "guest worker" program takes effect, (if the rules go the way I would like them), the employer would have the employee go outside the border, apply for the job, then the company informs the government that they have a job for such and such.
The worker comes back in to the country, with a job waiting, and all is well.
I know, the question is why make both interested parties go to that trouble.
I just don't see rewarding people for breaking our laws as a good thing. Even if they are a good worker.
I also agree that enforcement of labor laws, now and after, is essential.
Please don't leave me hanging. What about the right to liberty invalidates my comments? Please elaborate. Do you believe the Founding Fathers believe all men are created equal but only American born people deserve a job and freedom? What is you point please?
Are both your home and bedroom "sovereign"? OR has anybody and everybody the "right" to enter without your authorization?
Yes. My bedroom is sovereign and protected by force. However there are exception. I will stay my hand for the fireman or police officer intent of saving my family from danger. I will stay my hand for delivery personnel who bring my purchases. I will stay my hand for friends and family. And I may stay my hand for the needy who seek shelter. Woe to the weary traveler whose car breaks down in your neighborhood. He may expect a bullet in his head. You are not your brothers keeper are you Cain?
Lol, what a Drama Queen! (applauding from the loge seats in the balcony)
That is not an illogical point or opinion. I am more lenient on this point than you, but I can accept the will of the American people if that becomes law. I don't think that illegals returning to their homeland is a deal breaker or unwarranted, just counter productive in some ways. Illegals returning to their homeland has some benefits including proving America is a law driven society. After reading your recent posts I feel I have misjudged your character. Reasonable people can disagree on issues. I appreciate your openness and honesty.
We both have strong opinions. I have withstood your strong comments. I did this without clicking on the abuse button because I believe in free speech. Strong opinions on important issues deserve strong language. Your profanity showed your strong opinion but did not strengthen your argument. We are both human and mistakes come with the territory. I would appreciate the same consideration from you if the situation is ever reversed.
I appreciate you tenacity and while I may never admit it in the heat of battle I often learn more from those who disagree with me than those who agree. This is not to say I have changed my mind but that opposition make me think more cleverly. Thank you for taking the time to challenge me.
The talent agent says there is no such thing as bad publicity. What matter as long as I am center stage. I see you have no rebuttal for my comments nor an explanation for my question even though I have answered yours. And thus I bow and exit stage left...
Isn't it enough that I'm rofl??
That's what's so incredulous. Note the Emperor wears no clothes on BOTH sides of the aisle -- even GOPers are blind. But NOT real conservatives.
Watch Hitlery's blow their minds when she runs on the "strong border enforcement" platform.
That is just the kind of ignorant self serving propaganda I'd expect from the xenophobic anti-capitalist right fringe. My bowel movements regularly achieve lengths of 18 inches and weigh on average 1.5 to 2 pounds on any given day. I eat extreme quantities of meat and fibrous vegetables. In June of 2002 I overflowed 2 toilets at work with minimal wiping paper and an unobstructed basin.
I know you fringers don't understand English well so I assume you mean to say "My dog's poo is bigger than your...dog's poo." But this again is lies on the highest order. My dog is a Chow/German Shepard mix. I have seen my dog poo a tower of over 10 inches in hight with minimal effort. I dare you to compare his bowel movements with dogs of lesser moral character.
The fact is, my dog's poo is American in every way. It is bigger, smellier, and prouder than any poo by competing countries. You don't have to accept my dog as the best canine poo producer in America, but you do yourself a disservice by underrating the quantity and quality of American dog poo. May God have mercy on your anti-American soul!
Yes. It was always enough.
Yes. We are all failible. It is hard to listen to those who denigrate. You have shown yourself to be a bigger man than I.
It is hard to give reasoned voice to those who disagree. It is harder still to remain calm in the face of unreasoned assault. You don't desearve an "A" but unreasonable response in the face of unreasonable attack is human. That makes you my equal. If you continue to be human I will try to be equaly argumentative and stupid. And perhaps we can agree we are less than perfect examples of our better nature.
I look forward to discussions in the future.
LOL. Good post. You finally got where I was going with this. Have a good weekend.
I think you are confused about the difference between debating and race bating.
It's more likely that if all illegal immigrant laborers were deported, the economy would be thrown into a depression and you wouldn't even have a job, much less medical insurance.
Of course our economy would go into the tank if our "illegal" population were deported.(sarcasm)
Rod has given us some rather stupid rhetoric on immigration issues, but this is by and far #1 in the stupid category.
So protecting our borders is now considered racism?
I think you've misread my post there, chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.