Or What's a Passport For?
If the Democrats' balking on Iraq got people mad, they just barely missed getting people a lot madder over immigration. It's a good thing, all around, that that awful attempt at legislation died quietly in the Senate yesterday. As Lou Dobbs keeps pointing out, what kind of sensible procedure is it to even consider legislation that will have a multi-trillion dollar impact without having hearings on it?! Or to propose "a deal" that has no real enforcement provisions? From what we know of this set of proposals, nothing about them was right and the Democrats should be thoroughly ashamed of bargaining with Bush to get them: because the bottom line was that the proposals only worked in the interests of big businesses that want cheap imported labor.
I'm surprised, frankly, that the Left has not been seen much, if at all, in this debate. As Mickey Kaus of Slate points out, the Left should be worried about what massive illegal immigration and legalized illegals will do to average wages, benefits, etc.
Watching this spectacle of the Democrats attempting to sneak hugely important legislation through Congress before the public has a chance to catch on, I think there are a couple lessons to be learned.
First, it's important to understand that whatever form of amnesty is eventually adopted — and mark my words, some form of amnesty will be adopted — that amnesty will act as a further very significant magnet for even more people to come here illegally. Unless the borders are already secure and penalties for business hiring of illegals are already in place, adopting any form of amnesty would cause more problems than it would solve and surely add to our overwhelming confusion about immigration. In other words, trying to do everything all at once in a "grand deal" is a big mistake. Do the enforcement first. Close the border by all means — though I think the various fence ideas are way over-hyped — but most importantly put in place serious criminal penalties, including extended jail time, for executives with businesses with, say, over 50 employees, who employ illegal labor.
Second, we have to draw a line somewhere in terms of those who are already here. On the one hand it wouldn't be morally above board to claim, as many Republicans do, that all illegals, since they broke the law to be here, should be deported. Quite apart from the practical considerations of trying to deport 12 million people, or more, and the kind of police state on steroids that that would entail, the fact of the matter is that illegals have come to the U.S. under a tacit understanding that they were needed and could have a life. To deny that now is not only harsh, but unjust. On the other hand, there's a difference between a family who've been here for ten years, or even five years, and a young single person who got across the border yesterday. It may not — indeed — be necessary to try to physically deport those who don't meet whatever criteria are adopted, because if the bulk of illegals can be assimilated into the system the remainder can be left to attrition through denial of employment, services, etc. They get the boot. Tough.
Third, throw out the idea of guest worker programs. It's a loophole begging for a never ending supply of cheap and illegal workers.
Fourth, give serious consideration to rescinding the language of the 14th Amendment which provides citizenship to all those born in the U.S. More restrictive language should be found that acknowledges the problem of "transient immigrant babies."
Fifth — and this is a terrible, most unwelcome consequence of the situation we've created for ourselves but I don't see any way around it — we must have some sort of national ID card that's routinely checked for employment. Provision of such cards, however, must not be privatized or that's liable to create a nightmarish loss of privacy.
It's difficult to gauge how the public has reacted to the immigration debate debacle. My guess is that a lot of people are pretty fed up with inaction, much as they are with the phony baloney proposals that just shift the problem down the road. Another reason, perhaps, to think in terms of a third party.
On the bright side, I suppose, without real immigration reform, in a few decades or so if Mexico were to reclaim Texas, southern California, and other border areas that would help free up New England and perhaps the Northwest to secede from the Union...
Posted by George Kenney on June 8, 2007 10:32 AM 
« How To Make Outstanding Pancakes | Main | An Honest Man Is Always In Trouble »
Comments
I agree totally with you George. All of the proposals so far would require a huge new bureaucracy to enforce...no mention of that by most people discussing the issue. I believe we simply need to enforce the laws we have on the books first. Living in a border state, I can attest to the fact that the situation is becoming worse and worse. Recently we had two gang shooting deaths on the main street in our little border town to the south...I used to go down there regularly...no more.
Posted by: Judy | June 8, 2007 12:43 PM
As usual, George is both correct in his intuitions, and rigorously rational in his argument.
As someone consistently left of liberal on almost every other issue, my discussions of the consequences of mass immigrations of poor, socially conservative people into a shaky US economy and a society that already rivals Iran for religious hysteria have left me very discouraged.
Good intentions only go so far in arguing that "we're all immigrants," as if conditions today are no different from those a century ago.
Many of the same Democrats who argue for amnesty today are Clintonistas who never considered the consequences of NAFTA, either. The irony isn't lost on me, even if it is on them.
Posted by: Timber | June 8, 2007 2:27 PM
Having gone through the minefield that is the US immigration system, treated like scum at the US embassy, having my details profiled by the Advance Passenger Information System with information illegally transmitted by the EU, fingerprinted and photographed on entering the US for the first time in my life, having my luggage searched and my letters read for the first time in my life, being isolated and questioned by an armed policeman for the first time in my life, I was legally (and temporarily) admitted into the US.
And now America is talking about amnesty for millions?! I respected the law at a cost of time, sweat and money, and illegals get a free ride?! So if you’re a legal, highly-skilled European, they don’t want you. But if you strolled over the border illegally, are unskilled and held a job (undercutting locals) long enough, they want you big time. What a sick joke. Not that I blame the Mexicans, I'd do the same if I was them considering how they've been economically raped back home.
Any form of legalization will only swell the ranks of future illegals, no matter what barriers are put up.
If you want a decent immigration policy, turn to Canada.
And George, don’t kid yourself about ID cards. Because corrupt officials and greedy corporations have facilitated illegal immigration for decades, should the good American people pay by further restrictions of their dwindling freedoms with ‘Papers please!’?
And don’t kid yourself with “Provision of such cards, however, must not be privatized or that's liable to create a nightmarish loss of privacy.” Look at the SSN. You were assured when it was introduced that it would never be used as a form of ID. Ha!
If you are to believe Chalmers Johnson in your latest (and as usual, terrific) interview, warning us of a police state and financial meltdown, why would you want more power in the hands of the government? Do you really believe ID cards will be THE exception area where responsible policies are adopted?
Just look at the monster that is the soon-to-be-introduced British national ID card (http://www.no2id.net) for a clear foreboding of what the Real ID Act will spawn. Remember: once you accept it, there is no going back. Function creep will take care of insatiably gouging any privacy you have left (which is pretty much the only protection left since all your other civil rights are now mute).
Posted by: A Legal Alien | June 8, 2007 9:49 PM
Excellent post, George, with lots of good ideas for addressing this problem.
Unfortunately, I don't think corporate America will allow any of it to come to pass — they pull the strings on both sides of the aisle.
"A Legal Alien" brings up some good points about ID cards. I see no need for them, and they will be abused by big brother. Perhaps just for aliens.
I am an alien in Japan and have a visa in my passport and an identification card issued by the city in which I live. Japan is much tougher about deporting people who try to stay here illegally.
Posted by: Pandabonium | June 9, 2007 9:24 AM
Hi George,
Don't we already have a national ID card?
Social Security numbers are great for tracking anyone who has a number and of course all citizens are supposed to have a number.
Thanks for EP
Donald
Posted by: Donald | June 9, 2007 12:05 PM
George, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and analysis you regularly bring to issues that are normally displaced by hyperbole and shaped sound-bites being issued by so many commentators. In the current case, it is no different.
One issue that seems forever missing when discussing a National ID card, and I am personally against a NatID, is deeply embedded into the requisite process of vetting, should The-Powers-That-Be squirm through an edict for its creation. The issue is the proof of who you are. While a combination of existing forms of ID may provide adequate vouching and vetting: certified copies of a birth certificate, driving license, passport, social security card, etc., it does nonetheless leave open the possibility of the first to present the minimum combination securing the identity in question, be it theirs or not. And can a superior combination supersede an existing and issued NatID?
This is pet peeve of mine, and I have now "put it out there".
As Ron Paul correctly pointed out in the recent debate, when a subsidy exists for something, you get more of it. Businesses are the direct beneficiaries of the added labor pool through lower wages and increased competition by workers for jobs. While I am not usually in favor of having businesses foot the bill, as those costs of business are passed along in higher prices ultimately, businesses are the source of the problem as I back-track the logic, through their willingness to hire the undocumented or weakly documented. I would propose as an alternative to a NatID, and instead a National Work Permit, with the cost borne by business.
That said, the citizens of the USA can and should foot the bill of securing the border.
Posted by: David | June 10, 2007 2:39 PM
George,
I simply do not trust our current government with any more potential control over our civil liberty such as National ID cards. I also cannot imagine what methods could be employed to shut off the flow of undocumented workers using a supply-side approach.
As you point out, we need to reduce demand by prosecuting employers who hire illegally, but beyond that, we need to reduce demand by building up the economies of Mexico and other Central American nations by encouraging them to protect their industries, resources, and agriculture, and reducing corruption. Repealing NAFTA and admitting defeat in the "drug war" might be good first steps.
We currently allow business to sponsor high-tech workers using H-1 visas and we might be better off to protect those jobs and provide a similar visa program for agricultural and service workers.
All in all, the "compromise" bill seems, like every other Democratic Party leadership move since January, to be a tactic designed to give the appearance of doing something about an important issue while carefully avoiding the likelihood that anything will be accomplished. (The "No Confidence" vote on AG Gonzalez is another prime example.)
Posted by: Charley | June 11, 2007 6:40 PM