[Mb-civic] The Immigration Impasse: A Way Out - Robert J. Samuelson - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

The Immigration Impasse: A Way Out
<>
By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; A23

Our immigration debate is at an impasse. The House has passed a 
mean-spirited and delusional bill that focuses heavily on border 
security and would criminalize some humanitarian acts that aid 
immigrants. As for the 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants 
already here, the supposition is that they should somehow go home. Just 
how is unclear. Meanwhile, the Senate seems ready to authorize up to 
400,000 "guest workers" annually. Guest workers, also endorsed by 
President Bush, would reduce illegal immigration by giving many of the 
same people -- mainly poor and unskilled Mexicans -- work permits. The 
Senate approach also is delusional and undesirable. It would increase 
American poverty under the guise of curing worker "shortages."

We can do better, but chances are we won't. In 2004 immigrants accounted 
for nearly 12 percent of the population, the highest share since the 
1920s. The fact that there are so many immigrants makes discussion 
harder because passions on both sides are so easily aroused. Already, 
hundreds of thousands of Hispanics have marched in Los Angeles, Chicago, 
Washington and elsewhere. But broader public opinion is also 
increasingly agitated. A new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center finds 
that 52 percent of Americans think immigrants "are a burden because they 
take jobs [and] housing." That's up sharply from 38 percent in 2000.

In this climate, the immigration debate has become an exercise in 
political public relations, often disconnected from practical realities. 
Republicans and Democrats are trying in different ways to appease 
middle-class anxieties without alienating present and future Hispanic 
voters. The one saving grace is that we may still have time to fashion a 
more sensible consensus. By the Pew poll, most Americans aren't yet so 
fearful of immigration that they aren't open to reason and evidence. 
Only 21 percent see immigration as a "very big problem" in their 
localities, although responses are higher in areas of greater 
immigration (55 percent in Phoenix, 36 percent in Las Vegas).

Let me outline what I think such a consensus might be. It has three 
elements and borrows from both House and Senate approaches.

· Strengthen border and employer enforcement. Unless it's stopped, the 
present illegal immigration of an estimated 500,000 people annually will 
overwhelm any system. The main lure is jobs. That's why it's essential 
to adopt a mandatory requirement for employers to verify new workers -- 
electronic checking of documents. Companies that hire illegal immigrants 
should be penalized heavily. But it's also essential to dry up the 
supply. In an earlier column, I supported the construction of fences or 
walls, 20 to 30 feet high, along the Mexican border. They would, I 
think, significantly reduce the flow, though some would still come by 
overstaying student and tourist visas.

· Grant amnesty to existing illegal immigrants . President Bush and many 
Republicans oppose this, but it's essential. We can't run an immigration 
system that condones mass illegality. Most illegal immigrants deserve 
legal standing -- and a path to citizenship. Although they "broke the 
law," we (meaning American society) encouraged them by inadequately 
policing the border and employers. Most won't voluntarily return home, 
where typical wages are 80 percent lower. Trying to force them back 
would create a huge backlash. We'd have stories of parents being torn 
from their American-born children. Companies would complain that 
government was destroying their firms by removing longtime, diligent 
workers. Finally, the failure to legalize today's illegal workers would 
weaken companies' incentives to comply with checks of new workers. If 
firms were already breaking the law to stay in business, why not take 
the added risk?

· Forget guest workers . Maybe a few job categories (sheepherders) with 
existing guest worker programs are justified. But businesses' complaints 
of widespread labor "shortages" mainly put a respectable face on their 
thirst for cheap labor. Most guest workers won't go home, even if 
required (see above). They'll become illegal immigrants or citizens. 
Either way, adding poor people is bad social policy. It would bloat the 
demand for government social services. And it would hurt today's poor -- 
including other immigrants and many African Americans -- by keeping 
wages down. Jobs attracting lots of immigrants have low wage increases. 
 From 2002 to 2004, median hourly wages rose only 2 percent for 
construction laborers and 3.6 percent for dishwashers.

On paper, this package has something for everyone. It lifts anxiety for 
today's illegal immigrants and acknowledges their dignity. It lets 
companies keep today's illegal workers. It toughens border and employer 
policing. But it would also disappoint everyone. For business groups, 
immigration advocates and Bush, there would be no new guest workers. The 
president and House Republicans would have to swallow amnesty, though 
maybe they could change the label and debate the details. One Senate 
proposal envisions an 11-year transition period and a requirement to 
learn English.

I don't claim that this approach would succeed. Preventing illegal 
immigration may prove impossible. If so, we'll need to rethink 
immigration policy fundamentally. But I do believe this approach has 
better chances of success than most of the congressional proposals. 
Unless we legalize today's illegal immigrants and reject large-scale 
guest worker programs, we will indefinitely have two tiers of immigrants 
-- legal and illegal -- with the prospect that the stigma of illegality 
will taint the legal. By success, I mean that new immigrants gradually 
think of themselves as Americans and that most slowly disperse all along 
the economic spectrum. And immigration ceases to be a major issue, 
because it is no longer a source of large social and economic conflicts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401302.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060405/e6905f41/attachment.htm