Securing, Reforming … …without amnesty.

National Review Online ^ | August 7, 2006 | Kay Bailey Hutchison & Mike Pence

[PDR]

Border security must be the first component of any immigration reform. We concur with the editors of National Review on this point; however, we also recognize that border-security measures alone can’t alleviate the pressure on our border. Only by meeting the demand for labor through a temporary-worker program coupled with enhanced border-security measures can we ensure national and economic security. Without a legal method to enter our country and work, foreigners will continue to slip across our southern border, remain unidentified, and drain the resources of our social infrastructure.

In the years we have served in our respective houses of Congress, there has never been an issue on which our colleagues have been so engaged and yet so far apart, as on illegal immigration and border security. The bills on this issue that passed each House are miles apart.

We have put forth a proposal that we hope can be used as the basis of new discussions. Our plan is tough on border security but it recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program that operates without amnesty, and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy.

Our plan begins with border reinforcement. The millions who come to our country seeking jobs to support their families are not a security threat to our nation, but the weaknesses in the nearly 7,000 miles of international border and 95,000 miles of shoreline have given terrorists, drug dealers, and human traffickers an opening that is being exploited; this is a risk we cannot allow to continue. Part two of our plan is a temporary-worker program grounded in free-market, conservative principles that will fill high-demand jobs in our economy. This program would commence only after the borders are fixed.

Here’s how our plan works.

First: Secure our borders. Before any new temporary-worker program can begin, our plan requires the president to certify that all mandated border security measures are completed. The Hutchison-Pence proposal embraces the tough border-security measures of the House and Senate bills. It would add border-patrol agents, drug-enforcement agents, and port-of-entry inspectors, end catch-and-release, add security fences and other physical barriers at critical points, and employs American technology such as unmanned aerial-surveillance vehicles.

Second: The Good Neighbor SAFE Visa and Ellis Island Centers. When the border has been declared secure, the Good Neighbor SAFE (Secure Authorized Foreign Employee) Visa will begin. This program offers non-citizens opportunities to fill jobs that employers attest to not being able to fill with Americans at market wage.

Under our plan, the estimated 12 million people currently residing illegally in America can come out of the shadows and earn a fair living by returning to their home countries to apply for a Good Neighbor SAFE Visa. This does not give amnesty to those in our country illegally, instead it is the right balance between justice and mercy. America is based on the rule of law, and that law must be enforced. But, our country is also grounded in the belief that we treat others, even those who are aliens, with care and compassion.

Our plan establishes a system of private worker-placement agencies (called "Ellis Island Centers") , licensed by the federal government, to match willing temporary workers with jobs that employers cannot fill with American workers. The private agencies also would perform a health screening, fingerprint the guest workers and provide that information for a federal background check. Successful applicants for the Good Neighbor SAFE Visa could enter America legally provided they meet the visa requirements, including proof of employment.

We call it a “Good Neighbor” SAFE visa because the program would be limited to countries that currently enjoy a positive trade relationship with the United States in our hemisphere. Only residents of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries will be eligible to participate in this program. Good Neighbor SAFE Visas will be issued for two years, with the option to renew in two-year increments for up to 12 years. Participants will be required to maintain employment, consent to background checks every two years, and demonstrate English proficiency.

Good Neighbor SAFE Visa participants are not eligible for welfare, Social Security, nor Medicare. All paycheck deductions will be made as for American citizens. Workers’ Medicare contributions will go into a fund to compensate hospitals for emergency medical expenses incurred treating foreign workers; worker Social Security deductions will be returned when a participant exits the program and returns to his or her home country. Employer Social Security contributions will remain in our country’s system.

At the end of the visa period, visa holders who have been gainfully employed with no violations may return to their country of origin or with an employer sponsor, apply for a new X-Change Visa to continue working in the U.S. under the same conditions, with no further renewals required. After five more years, the X-Change Visa holder would be permitted, but not required, to apply for citizenship under present law. Our guest worker program operates independently of existing methods for earning legal permanent residence, which would remain in place.

Third: Verification and Enforcement. For the system to be effective, it is necessary to implement a nationwide electronic employment-verification system through which employers confirm the legality of each employee.

Those who continue to hire unverifiable employees will be subject to stiff fines.

Two years after the date of enactment, employers will be required to verify the eligibility of all new employees, including temporary workers. After six years, verification will apply to all employees. While this may be unsettling to some, we will never have complete knowledge of everyone who is in our country and their legal status without some capability for verification.

Good Neighbor SAFE Visas will provide businesses seeking to hire foreign workers with a secure method of confirming their legal status. If a temporary worker is fired, convicted of a crime, or just disappears, the card will be cancelled, preventing someone else from hiring the worker.

We have a historic opportunity to repair our immigration system. Our proposal is meant to be one set of ideas; there are many others. But there can be no disagreement on this: Congress owes it to the American people to solve this crisis. We are attempting to protect our national security while providing benefits to our country for generations to come. We urge our colleagues in Congress to come back to the table and produce a workable system. The future of our country depends on it.

— Kay Bailey Hutchison is a U.S. senator from Texas. Mike Pence is a congressman from Indiana. Both are Republicans.

[PDR]

This makes a good deal of sense and answers most of the objections offered up by the WHMCBL folks. But they will rip it apart nonetheless.

[PDR]

ping.

[Moose4]

I don't have a problem with what Hutchison and Pence are saying. My own personal opinion, however, is that any sort of guest-worker program and enforcement should NOT be passed in a "comprehensive" bill. Enforcement should come first, separately, and be as tough as we can possibly make it--and that includes deportations, not just closing the border but doing at least a little bailing out of the boat.

Only then, can we even *think* about implementing guest-worker program. We can plan it out ahead of time, we can have the bills ready to go. I just don't think a "comprehensive" bill is a good idea because when it gets to conference committee, the enforcement will get watered down and the amnesty program will get beefed up--but, they can hide behind the "comprehensive" label and take credit for being "tough on the border."

No. Enforcement only first. We can think about guest-worker programs once the government PROVES that it's serious about enforcement. Not before.

}:-)4

[ClaireSolt]

I worry that the assumptions will keep us from doing things that would put the marginal unemployed to work. In terms of productivity and humanity, I would like to see us stand up some of the people who are not working before we import a lot more foreigners. I think we have about as much diversity as most of us can stand.

[PDR]

i don't think the votes are there on the hill -- particualrly in the senate -- for the approach you advise. i'm not saying your analysis of the end result is wrong; i just don;t think the votes are there for anything other than a comprehensive bill at this point.. early on in the process you might have been able to do what you suggest (under the guise of an anti-terror measue) but the issue is now too ar down the road.

[jeremiah]

A fence from one side to the other, with secure crossing points for legal commerce and traffic, then get back to me. If it costs 20 billion dollars it is worth it.

[PDR]

how much of that 20 billion are you ponying up....

[Aetius]

I don't know what "WHMCBL" stands for, but there are many things rip-worthy in this plan.

First of all, to say that the 'guest' workers will fill jobs Americans won't at 'market' wage is a bit misleading. So long as there is an inexhaustible supply of cheap foreign labor ready and willing, and employers know they will have access to them one way or another, then employers will never have incentive to raise wages/benefits, and/or invest in labor-saving technologies. So the 'market' will always be set for keeping wages as low as possible. And what exactly are the numerical limits on this plan? At least the awful McKennedy bill was amended to permit a maximum of 200,000 'guest workers' per year. I wonder if this bill has any limit?

Second, talk of requiring English proficiency is likely just a bone thrown out to wary conservatives. There is little reason to think it would actually be enforced, as the proficiency requirement for citizenship that exists now isn't. We know Bush wouldn't enforce it, and looking ahead to the 2008 frontrunners, most of them (McCain, Giuliani, any Democrat) would be as bad or worse on immigration than Bush.

The plan would hold back Social Security benefits until the 'guest' returns home, but what if the 'guest' decides to stay (which he almost certainly will, as I'll get to in a moment)? Then obviously he'll get his benefits, right? Well, that's only fair I guess, but don't put this withholding idea out there in the hope of fooling people into thinking the 'guests' will be going home some day, as is most likely one of the major reasons for such a provision.

Finally, this bill continues the use of deceptive and misleading language. It speaks of 'temporary worker programs' and 'guest workers', when in fact, Pence and Hutchison know (as do McCain, Kennedy, Hagel, Martinez, Reid, President Bush, etc) that the vast majority of the 'guests' will decide to stay permanently if given the choice. Therefore, we are not dealing with anything 'temporary', nor are we dealing with 'guests.' And if there is any doubt as to the disingenuousness on display here, the plan also allows (though I don't think they bother to tell us here) the 'guests' to bring their family with them while still technically a guest. Now, if its all about much needed labor, without which our economy and nation would collapse and fall into a black hole (as conservative proponents of mass immigration usually say), then why allow the 'guests' to bring their families with them? This will increase the strain on the public infrastructure. This will almost certainly anchor the 'guest' to the US, as, for example, they'll most likely have children being educated in public schools. If its truly about our labor needs, then why not mandate that employers of 'guest workers' allow their 'guest workers' time off during the year to return home to visit their families? And of course, once the 'guests' and their families become officially permanent, then they'll be able to sponsor their extended families for immigration, thus expanding the seemingly limitless chain migration into the US.

So basically, the Pence plan, like the McKennedy plan before it, is really a multi-step amnesty, plus and more importantly, a gigantic increase (in already large-scale) permanent legal immigration. Why can't people just admit this? Why play this fiction whereby they cynically attempt to dupe the American people into thinking that the millions of guests we'd let in would someday go home? If you think the way to solve the illegal immigration problem is to so massively increase already mass legal immigration so that it satisfies all or most of the foreign demand to come here, then just say so. Be honest about it. Don't let the fact that most Americans oppose increases in legal immigration be a barrier to telling the truth.

[jeremiah]

70 dollars would be my share.

[jeremiah]

How about I kick in a dollar a day, and pay for 3 others? That's right, for $1 a day, we could have a border fence.
That way, when those trespassing are caught, it would be easy to send them back. Just think, they would no longer be able to beat the border agents home.

[tumblindice]

" our plan requires the president to certify that all mandated border security measures are completed."

President Fox?

[Ben Ficklin]

"President Fox?"

President Hillary

[dirtboy]

Secure the borders first. Then and only then do we address how to bring in more immigrants and what to do with the illegals already here. Because any such proposal, from amnesty to downright deportation to a guest worker program, will fail as long as we do not have control of the borders.

And recent European history shows the innate problems of a guest worker program. If we truly need more workers, bring them in as full legal immigrants and make them part of the country instead of a subclass.

[mysterio]

1. The illegals keep the jobs they are currently working.

2. The illegals magically get reclassified as "legal."

3. The employers are not punished for hiring the illegals. Instead, they are rewarded by getting to keep their cheap labor force.

This is 100% amnesty. The main difference between Bush amnesty and Pence amnesty is that with Pence amnesty, the taxpayer gets to pay for a bus ride to a Mexican Border town.

[dennisw]

This makes a good deal of sense and answers most of the objections offered up by the WHMCBL folks. But they will rip it apart nonetheless.

#1 I greatly oppose guest workers being allowed to bring over families. That will strain our social services and schools

#2 I don't truest any president to be truthful when he says the border is secure and that the guest worker program can now kick in

#3 Illegal aliens Asians, Europeans and others are not allowed to become legal guest workers. Only Mexicans and those from other Hispanic nations

[dennisw]

And recent European history shows the innate problems of a guest worker program. If we truly need more workers, bring them in as full legal immigrants and make them part of the country instead of a subclass.

At least the Turks and other European guest workers originally arrived as single men. This Pence-Hutchinson scheme allows guest workers to bring in their family right off the bat. Most guest workers around the world just bring themselves and visit the family back in the home country. Mexico is so close. Visits are not difficult at all. Why on earth would we allow guest workers to bring in families?

[catholicfreeper]

Of course it will be ripped. But people might have to start putting their cards on the table and tell what their true motives are. IN the end this isnt about illegals or making the process easier or making a smoother legal immigration process. The tone has slightly changed in the last few months to prepare us for that. The goal is the goal of these radical Tanton groups to cause a practical standstill to legal immigration to the US for the next couple of decades if not longer till the population of the US becomes 150 million. These people are as radical as Al Gore. Note this Direct mail piece that went out But that issue is rarely discussed. In fact this major policy that could have major implications for the USA is currently held out of public discussion. We only get rare public clues of it at times. Think of the above coupled with one of the latest CIS email news blast in which they said "Experts believe that the H.R. 4437 bill (which the U.S. House passed last winter) would quickly increase the exodus from 200,000 to 500,000—and more every year. It took 20 years to build up this huge illegal population. It may take 10-15 years to get rid of most of it. The important thing is that under H.R. 4437 the problem would be reduced every year and life in American communities would improve every year. In Washington D.C., the name given to this plan for illegal immigration is ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT. It is the true middle-way solution between: (a) massive roundups and deportations of illegal aliens, and; (b) massive amnesties and rewards for illegal aliens. Right now not one of the 535 Members of Congress is proposing massive deportations. The choice is between ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT (H.R. 4437) and MASSIVE AMNESTY (S. 2611). Please tell your Members of Congress that you want ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT" Now this starvation policy that CIS endorses is talking a time frame of perhaps 20 years. Is this the moratoriaum period on immigration? People need to wake up and realize that this in the end has nothing to do really with illegal immigration. If it was we would be hearing far more about streamlining and making the immigration policy more efficent. Instead it is about a policy that could be a disaster. Especially when looking at how Islamic birth rates are skyrocketing and the Western World Birthrates are declining. That includes by the way Mexico and portions of South America as well as Japan and early signs of that in China. Also as to other factions in this debate that are quite active Navarette said it best in a recent columnn "But here's the part that is helpful. After all the nativist pollution in this debate, the Hutchison-Pence plan clears the air. It forces the anti-amnesty crowd to finally come clean about what really bothers them. If it is merely the fact that people are coming here illegally, then they should have no problem with the Hutchison-Pence plan. After all, those who participate in the guest worker program have to do so with a legally issued visa. But for those whose concerns have less to do with words like "legal'' or "illegal'' than with what they see as the erosion of the Anglo-Saxon culture and the English language, then this plan won't offer much comfort."

[mthom]

Pence and Hutchinson would exclude any human who does not live in the Americas. I have a problem with that.