The Lousy Immigration Bill
Jeff Alworth
Based on the steady (if tenuous) bipartisan coalition and broad popular support, it looks like Bush is going to get his immigration bill. It is a huge piece of legislation that will have a large effect on America in the next decade and it represents a substantial shift in the way we regard the role of immigrants in this country. Unfortunately, what has emerged is a terrible compromise that will create far more problems than it solves.
Everyone recognizes the need to fix the immigration system. The problem is, competing interests hold nearly opposite ideas about what "fix" means. "Nativists" (a delicate word for an indelicate position) want to deport everyone. Business owners want cheap labor, so they like the idea of legalizing currently-illegal workers. Some people see it as a human rights issue, but others as a national security problem. And amid all of this is the political consideration about how these decisions will play in '08 and beyond.
From these diverse impulses emerged is a plan that will: tighten border security, including the construction of a 370-mile fence; create a torturous 13-year road to legality involving a number of phases and thousands of dollars in fees; and create a "guest worker" program that will bring 400,000 people a year to the US who have no hope of becoming citizens.
The compromise creates a system wherein the incentives and goals are exactly backward. Good immigration policies encourage people to come to the US as citizens, to build lives here and contribute to the nation. It's a long-term payoff, reaping rewards in the second and third generation. In the short term, you accept the difficulties to low-paid workers that come when you flood an economy with hard-working immigrants.
It's pretty evident that the blood of democracy grows tired and weak without new infusions of immigrants. Countries who welcome new arrivals have vibrant and healthy political discourse; those who put up borders spend their time trying to protect the old ways and slide into stultification. But this bill discourages integration. Those immigrants already here have as much incentive to stay hidden under the proposed system as they do now. And guest workers, who have absolutely zero stake in the country, will be here as human resources, not humans. That will not encourage a sense of vibrancy, but one of cultural exploitation. The net result is a cultural balkanization.
It's also a bad deal for workers. By bringing in 400,000 "guest workers," you flood the workplace with people who can't organize or join together with US workers. It divides workers and makes it far more difficult for them to organize on their own behalf. In today's column, Paul Krugman expands on this:
That dilution of democracy helped prevent any effective response to the excesses and injustices of the Gilded Age, because those who might have demanded ... labor rights, progressive taxation and a basic social safety net didn’t have the right to vote. Conversely, the restrictions on immigration imposed in the 1920s had the unintended effect of paving the way for the New Deal ... by creating a fully enfranchised working class.
But now we’re living in the second Gilded Age. And as before, one of the things making antiworker, unequalizing policies politically possible is the fact that millions of the worst-paid workers ... can’t vote. What progressives should care about, above all, is that immigration reform stop our drift into a new system of de facto apartheid.
Immigration is good for America, and I would like to see more of it--even at the risk that it might make things worse in the short-term for some current US workers. The advantages to a society with robust immigration seem clear. But this is the kind of bill that will remove these advantages while still wreaking harm on low-paid workers.
I hope the Dems come to recognize that this isn't one of those "better than nothing" bills. It's worse than nothing--by a long shot. It harms workers, doesn't help immigrants, doesn't create a merit-based system that rewards hard work, and won't result in a new, vibrant generation of the children of immigrants.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 25, '07
It is a huge piece of legislation that will have a large effect on America in the next decade and it represents a substantial shift in the way we regard the role of immigrants in this country.
You mean like until they used up all their amnesty and gravy parts for their illegal aliens and have a new bill to carny sell us?
If the past is any indication they will have never gotten to the enforcement parts of any of the old or new laws by then.
May 25, '07
From the NY Times article you link to: “The nationwide telephone poll did not ask respondents about the immigration bill itself, but there were questions about its most significant provisions...”
In other words this was a push poll designed to elicit responses sympathetic to the authors pro-illegal immigrant position. It always pays to read beyond the headline and use some critical thinking skills on anything presented in the mainstream media.
I agree the Senate bill as written is a disaster for the United States. It rewards lawbreakers who entered the US illegally and will create a permanent underclass with no reason to culturally assimilate while depressing wages for US citizens and documented workers.
A truly progressive immigration reform bill would have eliminated the two main incentives to those who break the law to enter the US illegally:
Crack down on businesses that hire and exploit illegal aliens. If there are no jobs available self-deportation will result with a large percentage of illegals heading back to their home countries voluntarily.
Eliminate “citizenship by birth” to children when either parent is illegally in the US. It is foolish to give the reward of US citizenship with all its privileges to the children of illegals who then use their children as tools to avoid deportation.
Unfortunately I too see this piece of garbage legislation passing. Between this and the Iraq war funding bill it is indeed a dark period in American history.
May 25, '07
Re: The Lousy Immigration Bill
There are a lot of ways to call an immigration deal lousy. Harvard professor and labor economist George Borjas (a Cuban immigrant) tackles the job in a memorable way in National Review:
"The economics are relatively simple. Low-skilled immigrants are admitted in huge numbers driving down the wages of blue-collar workers…Meanwhile, the social costs associated with education, health care and welfare expenditures will explode and be largely socialized."
"The primary beneficiaries will be social, economic, and political elites who manage to reap the benefits of mass immigration while insulating themselves and their families from the consequences…(They) don't have their livelihoods, not to mention their children's education, threatened by mass immigration, but they will acquire the cheapest pool cleaners, house-keepers, and roofers in the Western world." ("Lemon in the Senate: The immigration deal is a travesty of a mockery of a sham," by George Borjas, National Review, May 17, 2007)*
May 25, '07
There have been many comments in the media that essentially see law enforcement as the way to resolve the problem of illegal immigration. If only it were that simple. Instead, we need to go beyond what appear to be quick solutions that are more likely to become failed and expensive policies.
Aristotle made an observation that nearly 2,500 years of history have proved valid: Poverty is the parent of crime and revolution. He might very well have added migration as a third disruptive stepchild. That is why we should be looking at the factors causing people to leave their homelands for what they hope to be another that will give them a chance to live in decent conditions.
The governments of the United States and other wealthy nations have implemented agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT and sponsored institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the World Bank to boost the corporations that own them. Although they allege that these instruments were intended to eliminate poverty, the sordid fact is that Mexico and other nations throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia have become more impoverished while multi-national corporations have prospered.
Continuing to convert the United States into more of a police state with penitentiary-like borders is not the answer to illegal immigration. For a fraction of what these draconian tactics would cost and with the intelligence that is absent from current proposals, we would be more effective promoting programs that would help people make a decent living in their own nations and allow them to stay there with their families, which is most likely what they would prefer to do instead of moving to a foreign country.
2:04 a.m.
May 26, '07
I agree with Jeff, this bill is not the solution. In less then 20 years time, we will again do the same type of thing by giving illegal immigrants a way out of the crime they committed.
I have no problem with legal immigration, but we as a nation can't be responsible for millions of people from other countries. Not unless we want to see social programs and education systems as we know it collapse from being over burdened by those who came here illegally.
My wife is currently in the process of immigrating to the United States. We have taken great care to go through the immigration process and understand what our responsiblities are in terms of completing paperwork. Why the hell can't those who cross our borders do the same?
Get in line for god's sake!
May 26, '07
Jeff,
Although I agree with a lot of what you've said here, I'll just take a moment to nitpick. Suggesting that those who have broken our laws to come here be placed back in line isn't nativism, it's fairness and equality. A good friend of mine from Russia was unable to secure a visa and had to return to his homeland, DESPITE finishing a 4 year degree here in the states.
It pains me to think about how unfair the entire situation is to those very people who would make great citizens but instead are replaced by illegals. Nobody seems to care about them.
May 26, '07
After reading these 15 flaws not a single elected official should support this bill. If they do they should be done, period.
http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=5393
Here are Grassley’s Top 15 amnesty flaws.
· Probationary benefits not subject to the trigger – Probationary benefits, including work authorization, protection from removal, and a social security number are granted to illegal aliens immediately, even if the alien’s background check is not complete.
Many criminal provisions may be waived – Numerous criminal provisions are waived for eligibility purposes. For example, an alien who falsely claims U.S. citizenship would be considered eligible for amnesty even though it’s a crime.
· Background checks taken too lightly – An illegal alien can apply for probationary status and a Z visa without thorough background checks. Immediately after the bill passes, the alien can apply for probationary legal status and receive a card even if the alien’s background check is not complete.
· Illegal aliens protected from removal – If an alien is in removal proceedings, or being detained, at the time of enactment, the alien can still apply for amnesty. Aliens who apply for amnesty cannot be detained or deported while their application is being processed, essentially giving them immunity from justice.
· Terrorists and criminals can apply for amnesty – The Secretary of Homeland Security is allowed to waive the grounds of ineligibility for those who have an outstanding administrative final order of removal, deportation or exclusion. Currently there are more than 637,000 alien absconders in the United States that have defied orders to leave.
· Taxes – Illegal aliens are required to provide the IRS information about tax payments only when applying for legal permanent residence, if that avenue is pursued. Illegal aliens can skirt the federal, state and local tax laws because its not a requirement to prove one has paid outstanding tax liabilities to get probationary or Z status.
Limits eligibility to illegal aliens – Creates a Z nonimmigrant visa program for illegal aliens and illegal aliens only. No one else is eligible for this program, particularly those waiting their turn in line. Also, there’s no cap on the number of eligible participants.
· Indefinite renewal for Z nonimmigrant visas – Z nonimmigrant visas are valid for four years and may be renewed indefinitely. This is a disincentive for illegal aliens to pay the $4,000 penalty, touch-back to their home country, prove they’ve paid their taxes, or receive a medical exam.
· Health standards ignored – No medical exam or immunizations are needed to get a Z visa.
No incentive to learn English – There is no English requirement to get a Z visa. Each Z nonimmigrant must only demonstrate "an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language" upon the first renewal of a Z visa. There are waivers for this requirement.
Green card applicants not required to return to home country – Green card applications (only for heads of household, not dependents) must be filed in person outside the but not necessarily in the alien's country of origin. The alien can then reenter (same day) under a Z nonimmigrant visa because it serves as a valid travel document. There are exceptions for this requirement.
· Fines are False and Misleading – Not everyone is required to pay the $5,000 penalty. To get a Z visa, a principal alien (Z-1 or head of household) must pay a $1,000 penalty, a $500 penalty for each dependent, a processing fee, and a $500 state impact fee. Dependents must also pay a processing fee. To renew a Z nonimmigrant visa, each Z visa holder must pay a processing fee no greater than $1,500. To get a greencard, if the alien intends to pursue this route, a Z-1 nonimmigrant must pay a $4,000 penalty. Z-2 (parents and spouse) and Z-3 (children) aliens are only required to pay application fees.
· Fines won’t adequately pay for cost of amnesty – The bulk of the monetary fines are required at the end of the program. All fines may be paid in installments and waivers are available in extraordinary circumstances.
· Impact on state and local government – State impact money will be granted to states to provide services for non-citizens only, instead of providing services to all citizens impacted by the large number of illegal immigrants (school systems, health care services).
· Revocation of terrorist visas – Visas revoked on terrorism grounds would allow Z visa holders to remain in the United States and use the U.S. court system to appeal terrorism charges. The bill, including the amnesty program, does not address visa revocation for any visa holder.
9:56 a.m.
May 26, '07
Luke, I have no problem prioritizing those already in the legal queue first. But there is a core group who oppose immigration for unsavory reasons, and they try to gussy up this by conflating it with the respectable positions you identify. They are the folks I was referring to.
12:32 p.m.
May 26, '07
A push poll is not actually a poll at all. Since this was an actual poll, it cannot also be a push poll.
Why is it foolish to say that people born on US soil are US citizens? And good luck eviscerating the Constitution on that one.
May 26, '07
Sorry, Jeff! I can't agree...
This Country has got to do something about the whole issue. This compromise bill, while not perfect, is, I believe, the best we are going to get! To downplay the fact that it addresses, as best possible, all of the major concerns that the Public has voiced, is naive, and I believe irresponsible on the part of folks who refuse to look at "each sides" argument. None of the Stakeholders in this issue will ever be happy with what the "other side" wants. A compromise bill is the ONLY way we are going to get anything accomplished. To insist that NOTHING be passed until "your side" gets all they want is counter-productive to the whole Country! We are made up of a Society that has chosen to respect "all sides" of the political spectrum, including the responsibility to protect the minority. What "Plan" have you got that would address all sides, and make everyone happy? I'm guessing, in the long run, if you take all sides into consideration, "your plan" would end up looking very similar to this plan. It's always easiest to complain about the other guy's plan, but not so easy to come up with your own that addresses all the isses fairly. If you've got a better plan, have you submitted it to your Senator or Congressman for them to Sponsor? I'm guessing not...
May 26, '07
It's pretty evident that the blood of democracy grows tired and weak without new infusions of immigrants.
That's utter garbage, easily falsified by the historical record. Nothing but empty, fact-free rhetoric.
I have a question for you open border, "bring 'em all over" types. Do you ever think about what an optimum population size here in the US might be? Is half a billion too many? A billion? Three billion? What exactly is your cutoff point before you begin to question the cancer-cell ideology of endless growth? Does the environmental impact of all this exponential growth ever cross your mind? Or are you completely blinded by your multi-cult ideology?
Jeff, do you work in an industry that has suffered stagnant/declining wages because of the massive influx of illegals in recent years? I'm just wondering how you can be so cavalier about other people losing their livelihoods. I thought "progressives" were supposed to care about working people, yada yada yada.
The Canadian government just did a study of the effects of immigration on the labor market in both the US and Canada. Surprise, surprise, surprise, mass immigration depresses wages in both countries. Who'd a thunk it? But isn't that really the whole point? It's just a nice little bonus that Democrats also gain new constituents to help keep their corrupt party in power.
This "immigration compromise" garbage (i.e., mass amnesty and big business as usual) just goes to show how willing, nay EAGER, most liberals are to sell out both the environment and the American blue collar worker.
May 26, '07
Oh, as for your NYT push poll, it's junk. Given the option (besides the false binary of mass deportation vs. mass amnesty), the American public are much more likely to choose stringent employer sanctions so that illegals deport themselves (i.e., the attrition strategy).
You don't actually believe the crap the NYT publishes, do you? Did you also fall for Judith Miller's fairy tales about those big bad aluminum tubes?
8:20 p.m.
May 26, '07
I'm just wondering how you can be so cavalier about other people losing their livelihoods.
Orygunner, read my post again. If you have an ax to grind, it ain't with me.
[On the value of immigrants.] That's utter garbage, easily falsified by the historical record. Nothing but empty, fact-free rhetoric.
Look at Europe. Ireland is having a rennaisance; meanwhile, France is getting burned to the ground for the way it treats its immigrants.
As to the polling--as far as I know (and I follow the polls pretty closely at Pollster.com and Pew), these numbers reflect a number of other polls. Americans aren't anywhere near as heated as a lot of people in the debate.
May 27, '07
The amnesty bill is a piece of junk - just like the fact that Portland is a scantuary city. Illegals are given complete refuge here, along with drivers licenses and healthcare. I don't see much changing here with regards to whatever happens at the Federal level.
May 27, '07
Want to beat Senator Gordon Smith so bad your can taste it?
Gordon Smith is seriously estranged from the base of his party, mostly over immigration, and, yes, throw in Iraq too.
Illegal immigration hurts working class folks, and hollows out the bottom half of the middle class. Why do Democrats turn their backs on a large segment of their base?
Back to beating Smith: Send a message to Senator Ron Wyden, this week at his town hall meetings that the immigration bill is bad, but also, nominate a Democratic State Senator that can promise to appose amnesty without double crossing, or lying like Smith has done to the Oregon people on this issue.
Smith ran in 2002 against amnesty. Smith was unequivacal in his oppostion to amnesty.
Senator John Vitter pointed out the 1986 amnesty law and the same section in the current bill are in substance identicle.
So if Democrats put up an immigration enforcement candidate to run against Smith, expect to have help from independents and disaffected Republicans.
After all, Oregon Democrats would be helping blue collar workers, and beating Smith in the Fall of '08.
Not a bad two for one bargain.
May 27, '07
You can pretty much forget the blue collar and lower middle class, they're screwed. They'll get this one in the neck because it can be done to them and the winners don't give a rat's patoot. There's no big campaign money to be had from the bottom and a fortune to be made off the backs of illegal immigration. Another amnesty, sure this will work out differently this time, I've got a bridge...
Welcome to another 20yr of wages going into the toilet.
Jun 1, '07
The blatant double-standard of illegal immigration just kills me! If I were to live in a different country, I would expect to conform to their ways, their language, their laws, etc. I wouldn't expect any government assistance. If I were there illegally, I would expect to be jailed or deported. If I were an illegal alien, I would keep a quiet profile -- I wouldn't protest because I felt I deserved special rights. No other country in the world would tolerate this... so why do we?
I can see allowing people who contribute value to our society to stay; however, if they commit a crime (in addition to the one of being here illegally), then they should be punished and/or sent back to their country of origin. It is not our taxpayers' job to support them or provide them with legal representation. Why do our schools have to hold fundraisers to make ends meet while criminals are getting a free ride?! And all of these government-sponsored "goodies" are propagating the problem... the more freebies for immigrants, the more they are going to come here. Our system can only handle so much before it collapses.
I feel for the people of Mexico and don't blame them for trying to get a better life. I also feel for the citizens of this country and think we need to take care of our own first. Then, if we have leftover resources, we could share. Legitimate citizens of our country should not have to go without healthcare and other valuable resources so that people here illegally can have them. If our country was a family, it would be like starving your own children so that your neighbors could eat.
<hr/>