Hayworth Says Only American People Can Halt Bush's Guest-Worker Plan

HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | Feb 7, 2006 | Robert B. Bluey

[boryeulb]

With the Senate about to finally address immigration reform and President Bush renewing his call for a guest-worker program in last week’s State of the Union, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R.-Ariz.) tells HUMAN EVENTS he foresees a troubling scenario that will result in an amnesty plan being “shoved down the throats” of the American people.

Buy Now
Save 29%

Hayworth, author of the new book Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, and the War on Terror, said Senate Republicans are poised to tinker with an already weak House immigration reform bill and bow to Bush’s demands to include a guest-worker plan.

In an exclusive interview with HUMAN EVENTS, Hayworth said, “I have every belief that the Senate will take the vehicle the House sends them, will end up passing a guest-worker/amnesty plan, and that will be sent back to the House and shoved down the throats of the American people—unless the people wake up right now and say ‘no.’”

Hayworth’s book outlines the problems facing the United States as a result of its porous border with Mexico (including the threat of another terrorist attack). He also offers solutions, some of which he discussed with HUMAN EVENTS.

---

What makes immigration reform so important for you personally?

One thing we understand about the nature of this problem is that is that is transcends all others—our national security, our economic security, the future of Social Security—all of these issues—healthcare, education—all tie into this issue. The book, in a sense, holds a mirror up to America.

---

What inspired you to put this on paper and to write a book about illegal immigration?

I think there are two primary reasons: First, and most importantly, to win the political argument against a guest-worker program, that I think would reward law-breaking and lead to more illegal immigration; and secondly, this book is a wake-up call. It is to sound the alarm to the American people that unless they coalesce and make their voices heard in Washington, a lot of politicians and a lot of special interests will shove a guest-worker plan right down their throats.

Make no mistake about it, this guest-worker program is driven by the most craven and cynical special interests. Big Business believes it gets an almost endless supply of cheap labor. The left believes it gets a source of cheap votes. And the American people get a huge bill to pay in terms of entitlements that people, quite frankly, are not entitled to. We’ve just got to stop this because guest worker equals amnesty equals surrender. It is a rip-off that must be prevented at all costs.

---

How do things stand now in Congress on immigration reform and what do you expect the Senate to do in terms of acting on the House bill that was passed in December?

There’s no way to sugarcoat it—the House bill was just so much holiday window dressing. The fundamental problem is this: When it comes to illegal immigration, Washington views this as a political problem to be managed, instead of an invasion to be stopped. That’s the fundamental problem.

Because they look at it as a political problem to be managed instead of an invasion to be stopped, you got a bill that, essentially, was nibbling around the edges—and, yes, there was that celebrated amendment about the fence, but that was exception and not the rule. By and large, you got a lot of nibbling around the edges. And instead of enforcement first, basically the House bill is: enforcement, maybe, if we can get the Senate to go along, and perhaps we will acquiesce to the President’s priorities.

You don’t have to parse the words with this President. He’s made it very clear where he stands on this issue. He visited Tucson in the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas, and I’m paraphrasing him, he said to those gathered there that proponents of stronger enforcement must understand that it can only come with a guest-worker program. That type of equation is just the wrong way to go.

I have every belief that the Senate will take the vehicle the House sends them, will end up passing a guest-worker/amnesty plan, and that will be sent back to the House and shoved down the throats of the American people—unless the people wake up right now and say “no.”

---

In terms of some of the ideas you outline in the book—you talk about employers and the problems that are posed there and some of the issues involved with that, and as you mentioned, you have this whole idea of the fence. What do you think are the most realistic ideas that can get through the Congress and would be acceptable to President Bush?

Again, quite candidly, I don’t know, given the current mindset of the White House and certain key members of the Senate, any notion of enforcement-first—other than poll-driven comments that appear to be verbal tranquilizers really translate into action. I just have to be candid about it.

I have a great deal of respect for our President, a great deal of admiration for him. In fact, it’s been said, on nine out of 10 issues he has no stronger ally in the Congress than J.D. Hayworth. But on this issue, there is a profound disagreement. So I don’t know if in good faith I can say to you what would be acceptable to the President. With due respect to the presidency, I think the question ought to be: What is acceptable to the American people? And operating from that template, we need to have enforcement first.

What do I mean by that? I mean literally a one-two punch: stronger border enforcement, including a military presence, on our border; and the advent and the usage of the high-tech abilities we have for continuous surveillance of our vast borders. But simultaneously, interior enforcement—holding businesses accountable and holding illegals accountable for breaking the law.

Because what is being propagated by the so-called cheap labor crowd is this notion that everyone who crosses our border is only here to look for a job. Nothing could be further from the truth. And there is an effort underfoot to excuse illegal behavior. The question is often posed to me: If these people are just here working hard, what’s wrong?

Here’s the problem: Chances are they have used false documents. We know that fraudulent use of a Social Security number is a felony. And we have to get tough on illegals and those who knowingly hire illegals. And we have to put in place mechanisms, as I outlined in my enforcement-first bill, that ends the bureaucratic stove piping, that ends the absurdity of the Social Security Administration writing employers to say these numbers don’t match up, but don’t you take any action, you could open yourself up to an immigration lawsuit.

Instead of the Social Security Administration playing a store-front lawyer, the Social Security Administration should do the job it is supposed to do. The fraudulent numbers, and those utilizing them, that information should be shared with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. But instead of utilizing information literally at Uncle Sam’s fingertips, Uncle Sam has had his hands tied and that information stove piped and taken away.

We need to end the gaming of the system. We need to return to the original intent of the 14th Amendment, what Sen. Howard advanced when he spoke about that amendment when he proposed it on the floor of the Senate, that sadly has been changed drastically through court interpretations in the 20th century. And we have to understand that by turning off the magnet and by putting stricter controls on benefits, we will offer a powerful disincentive to those who come here illegally.

---

You outline all of this in detail in the book, and you go through point-by-point information that people probably wouldn’t necessarily know about or have at their fingertips. You say the American people need to wake up. Is your book the vehicle that you think will be able to do that?

I think this book serves as the wake-up call. I think it could be a rallying point. When readers pick this book up, and after they read Sean Hannity’s introduction, they read chapter one, “Overrun,” and in one place there is a litany of real-time experiences with the abuses of our system by illegals; with the abuses of our system by business interests; with the abuses of our system by left-wing grievance-mongers, all too eager to pander in the name of political correctness.

I believe it outlines the problem and the dimensions of the problem. But we don’t leave it there. We offer tangible solutions that were in my enforcement-first bill that sadly were watered down into an enforcement-maybe bill in the House of Representatives—a bill I, in good conscience, could not case a vote in favor of.

---

You come from a border state and your two senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, are on different sides of the debate, at least it seems. Each has a separate bill in the Senate. Give me a rundown of both of those, and if those aren’t good enough, what the problem is with each.

With both of those bills, and rather than go through a litany of my criticisms of the bills, let me step back and say it this way. Unless and until you enforce existing laws, there is no incentive for any new approach to work. Because if people do not obey existing laws, and if the government refuses to enforce existing laws, what makes us think any new laws are going to be either enforced or obeyed?

I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in the Senate, but in the final analysis, that fundamental question fails to be addressed. That is the first and primary fault line. Now I could go through a litany, and goodness knows if either of those plans advances in the Senate I’ll be happy to do that, but in the final analysis, the first question remains the last question remains the constant question: If people are not obeying existing laws, if the government fails to enforce existing laws, what on earth makes us think any new laws would either be enforced or observed?

---

Do you think since 9/11 the situation has improved or worsened? Obviously, in that time we’ve seen a lot more attention paid to the issue, but has any impact really been made?

The most disappointing, and in a sense the most troubling aspect of this entire question, is the pronouncement by the secretary of Homeland Security that we could have operational control of the borders within five years.

Now, just stop and think about that for a second. He made that announcement in late 2005 that it was his goal and his belief that the American nation could have operational control of its borders within five years. That means 2011—10 years after the brutal attack on our homeland in 2001.

And I think each American, as we pause for reflection on that, I don’t believe anyone in their wildest nightmare, could believe that the bureaucrat-laden language of long-term goals would include security our border 10 years after we were attacked. That is inexcusable, it is unconscionable, and it is the wrong approach for the wrong reasons at the wrong time in our history.

It brings me pleasure to say that, but one of my jobs is not simply rally around the administration, but as a member of the United States Congress, regardless of partisan label, if something’s wrong—if we’re mired in what political scientists call bureaucratic inertia, what we just have to call inaction—it is highly inappropriate and it is very dangerous.

Accordingly, I don’t believe the progress has been made that should have been made—both reflective of a nation on a war footing and realistically addressing the nature of the threats we confront here in the United States.

---

How much of an impact does Big Business have on the Bush Administration and have on this debate because of their desire to have cheap labor?

I think you see interests that I would consider traditional allies. The United States Chamber of Commerce, the agri-jobs group, the service industries are just bound and determined that they want to have what is in effect corporate welfare—a permanent subsidy to absorb their costs of doing business by bringing people in and creating a new status of worker that essentially would be paid for by the taxpayers of the United States to facilitate a new American caste system or a permanent underclass.

That is what I believe, quite frankly, is a major part of the problem in Washington and why so many of my congressional colleagues view this as a political problem to be managed or finessed rather than a threat to be confronted or an invasion to be stopped. And there’s been no secret about this. The White House went to work, it was first reported in the Los Angeles Times, that a coalition of border security and economic security hired Dick Armey, the former Republican leader, and Cal Dooley, a former Democrat member of Congress from the agricultural areas of central California, and they’re out pushing the notion of a guest worker.

The battle has been joined, and the President, to his credit, does not engage in parsing of words, but he has decided that a guest-worker program is the prescription he wants to follow. And I politely but profoundly disagree.

[Tammy8]

There are laws now in place to keep illegals from working, I would have to see them enforced before I get fired up about new laws.

If a fence is a pipe dream, then solving the border issues will not be possible. A fence will slow illegal traffic to a manageable number, then enforcement is possible. The border is now in reality undefined in most areas. Enforcement is spread out willy nilly in hope of catching what they can. A fence would allow enforcement to concentrate on the actual border, so for that reason would be more effective.

I have lived on the border over 30 years and am living with the results of many failed plans. If the government is so sure they can close the border without a fence, and make it impossible for illegals to work here without documents, then they need to prove that part of the plan works before they move foreward with any plan to allow more in. For years I thought the problems could be solved without a fence, I am now convinced otherwise.

[Mulch]

Ah yes. When you cant argue the points, just call the person a Democrat or DU'er and run into the bushes.

[MadCharity]

I agree with you Tammy. We need to build that damn wall or the immigration policies will not ever change.

I also agree that more should be done to enforce the laws currently in place.

[ravingnutter]

You are being disingenious.

No I am not. If an illegal crosses the border, they are on US soil. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from performing law enforcement duties on US soil, therefore they have no authority to arrest them. This whole discussion has nothing to do with my sentiments towards Bush, I disagree with some of his plans as much as you do...I definitely do not agree with his immigration plan. Here is a summary of my argument...

FACT: Hayworth KNOWS Bush's plan was DOA.

FACT: Hayworth is spewing that crap to sell his book.

FACT: I don't appreciate that at all.

If he wants to push his own damn plan, fine. However, for Hayworth to state that Bush's plan is somehow inevitable unless the people rise up against Bush is what is truly disengenuous. The rest, such as your "international border" comment are just semantics. Y'all can go on ranting all you want, but the facts don't change...Bush submitted his plan twice, Congress rejected it, therefore it is up to Congress work out a plan of their own and get it passed.

[savedbygrace]

I can hardly wait for MNJohnnie to finish up with that Rush Limbaugh thread he's been so busy with today, and comment on Rep. Hayworth's legislation, the legislation Johnnie claims doesn't exist.

[ravingnutter]

Ah yes. When you cant argue the points, just call the person a Democrat or DU'er and run into the bushes.

First of all, your points are wrong, you don't have a clue. Bush is President, not king...there are limitations to his power that apparently you cannot grasp. Secondly, speaking of calling names...I distinctly remember someone accusing me of sympathetic to illegals (that would be you). And finally, I am still here...I haven't run anywhere, I've been here on this forum a heck of alot longer than you and am well known for the research that goes into my posts that are backed up by facts, so don't play that game. You can't seem to carry on a rational conversation, it is like talking to a drunk. What's the point in discussing this with you further if you refuse to face the facts presented? I have more pleasant things to do, like going to get my teeth pulled, (literally, I have a dental appointment at 3:30). I will be back, however, I just won't be engaging with...how did you put it...oh yeah, "the likes of you". Goodbye.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

And I told you - any plan that comes out of Congress is going to get watered down by RINOs who got their arms twisted by the administration. Hayworth & Tancredo aren't stupid, that is why they're keeping the heat on the President so that it doesn't turn into another fraudulent amnesty scheme.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

IT'S A DEAD HORSE, PEOPLE, YOU CAN STOP BEATING IT NOW!

Tell that to Bush. He's just proposed $247 million dollars in the budget for a new massive guest worker/amnesty program so apparently he's anticipating something you believe is a dead horse.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The rest, such as your "international border" comment are just semantics.

Sorry, borders are international territories.

Therefore, the President is obligated to send in the military.

Border Patrol agents have been shot at repeatedly by Mexican military personell and violent drug/coyote smugglers. State and local law enforcement are hopelessly outmatched.

[Howlin]

Are you really that uneducated? The Posse Comitatus Act applies only within the US. Good grief...

Amazing, isn't it? Evidently some people think if you say it enough times, it will be true.

[junta]

Hayworth for senator.

[WatchingInAmazement]

FACT: Hayworth KNOWS Bush's plan was DOA.

Oh, please, tell that to Bush. He's pushing it like it's gospel. And the money is behind him. If that's the best you can come up with for a "Lie" by Hayworth, you're parsing just like Bush.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The "fence" is a pipe dream.

Tell that to the Israelis.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You have to concede Howlin that the Posse Comitatus Act has a huge loophole. Obviously, I'm not in favor of military incursions into states too. But where does it end or begin? A boundary with another foreign country cannot solely be a state's responsibility. All I'm saying is that there has to be a defined zone of area where the military are allowed to patrol - and it should only be as a stop-gap measure anyway, until more Border Patrol agents are trained and technicalities related to the PCA are worked out among the states and feds.

[MNJohnnie]

Even beyond that, why do we even have a Congress? Guess the whole idea of being a Constitutional Republic just did not work out and we should just convert over to the Presidential Dictatorship some Americans apparently seem to think we all ready have.

[Mulch]

Well, first good luck at the dentist. Secondly, you started the name calling by unfairly labeling Hayworth as a "fear-monger". The president's powers are limited, agreed, however when he uses the SOTU speech to degrade the American working man and insults people who are trying to protect their land by labeling them as "vigilantes", then he is making his intentions clear. Bush is on the side of the illegals and not on the side of Americans.

[savedbygrace]

Even beyond that, why do we even have a Congress? Guess the whole idea of being a Constitutional Republic just did not work out and we should just convert over to the Presidential Dictatorship some Americans apparently seem to think we all ready have.

Huh? "Even beyond" what?

[Cboldt]

Durable Link to H.R. 3938

[Wonder Warthog]

"Tell that to the Israelis."

The US-Mexican border is "just a tad" longer than the sum of the various Israeli borders. Without strong laws and ACTIONS to discourage the things that encourage aliens to come here illegally, a fence will prove 1) expensive and 2) useless.

Key among these is strong enforcement actions on businesses who hire them (knowlingly OR unknowingly). The owners of said businesses should face stiff fines AND prison time.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If the government is so sure they can close the border without a fence, and make it impossible for illegals to work here without documents, then they need to prove that part of the plan works before they move foreward with any plan to allow more in."

Well, I certainly agree with the above--but a fence by itself will help nothing. The traffic will simply move to other areas of the border.