In early January, George W. Bush laid out the framework for a
major reform of the nations’ immigration policy. Unfortunately,
this issue got swept aside when former Treasury Secretary Paul
O’Neill made his case to be included in the cocktail party circuit
frequented by Wesley Clark. But now that the press has gotten
through that, and the Democrats seem to have decided which of their
incoherent Bush-haters is most electable, we can refocus some
attention back on the immigration thing.
The criticism that immediately followed Bush’s announcement from
both the Right (“rewarding people who broke our laws”) and Left
(“the plan amounts to gradual deportation”) was predictable. It was
a bit more vociferous on the Right, however, as, for some reason,
many conservatives reflexively saw any immigration reform policy
that didn’t include the words “mass deportation” as somehow a
“betrayal” — a betrayal horrible enough that more than a few
readers of this and other conservative publications have written in
that they won’t vote for Bush because of it, even if the
consequence is to put John Kerry in charge of our immigration
policy (as well as our foreign policy, tax policy, appointing
federal judges, etc.). This sentiment, however, is not
warranted.
The argument, for instance, that Bush’s proposal would encourage
a flood of new illegal immigration — as did Reagan’s 1986
disastrous amnesty plan — is far from compelling. The guest worker
program as outlined by Bush would allow illegals who have regular
jobs to be eligible for temporary (the proposal is 3 years,
renewable) legal status, and would be available to people living
outside of the United States who could show that they have a job
offer (first offered to existing legal U.S. residents, with no
takers).
Certainly, those who are already here and have a job would be
guaranteed legal status. But the free market, as efficient as it
is, would quickly produce an industry dedicated to matching
potential foreign workers with American jobs going wanting — which
would probably be a preferable route for most would-be immigrants
than paying high fees to untrustworthy smugglers or risking a trek
through the desert, with uncertain results. Seasonal workers (such
as in agriculture) could conceivably return to their home countries
to live with their families during the off months (instead of
trying to smuggle their families into the United States) without
the fear that they would have to risk another clandestine border
crossing when their work is to resume.
If the real problem in the minds of the opponents of this
proposal is that it “rewards” people for having broken the law,
that can be at least partially remedied by adopting Senator
McCain’s suggestion to impose a $1,500 fine on working illegals
desiring to trade their illegal status for the security of a legal
one. Such a fine would also serve as additional incentive for
would-be border crossers to find a job while still in their own
country, utilizing the services of a search company or of friends
or relatives living in the U.S.
WOULD ALLOWING WORKING illegals legal status harm U.S. workers? It
certainly wouldn’t hurt U.S. consumers, and with low-skilled labor
already priced artificially high due to federal and state minimum
wage laws (not to mention various goofy municipal “living wage”
ordinances) there is zero possibility of immigrant workers “driving
down” wage rates at the bottom end of the labor market.
Furthermore, I do not see a problem with Wal-Mart’s janitorial
provider hiring foreign workers for $6 or $8 an hour, instead of
trying to coax American’s to take the jobs at $10 or $12 an hour.
The argument that most jobs taken by the current crop of illegal
immigrants are ones that American’s just won’t take is a valid
one.
After all, there are 8 to 12 million illegals in the country
right now, and perhaps 6 to 9 million of these are working regular
jobs (or roughly the same number of Americans that are unemployed).
Therefore, to believe that these illegals are taking away jobs from
willing Americans, you would have to believe that the deportation
of these illegal workers would result in the U.S. unemployment rate
falling to essentially zero.
The fact is, most Americans taking unemployment benefits aren’t
unemployed because they are waiting for that $8/hour janitorial job
or that $6/hour job picking strawberries to come open. In America,
after all, grocery clerks earning $15 to $20 an hour, plus
benefits, go on strike at the prospect of having to contribute $5 a
week to their comprehensive health insurance coverage.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS a problem for a few other reasons. First, as
those on the Right have correctly pointed out, not having control
of our borders is a national security threat, and having people in
this country whose first act coming here was to break the law is
odious and unhealthy. But those who argue that the mass round-up
and deportation of 10 million people is physically, let alone
politically, possible are in for a big disappointment. Throwing out
millions of productive workers (it is, after all, productive
workers who would receive the legal protections under this program)
would also be an act of questionable utility.
Allowing the working illegals already in the country to register
for legal status (again, preferably with a modest fine) may be
somewhat distasteful, but it would “document” those who are
currently a mystery, eliminate a lot of the political sentiment for
lax enforcement of our immigration laws (with a reasonable legal
mechanism available, there would be a lot less sympathy for law
breakers, and industries that rely on low-skilled, low-wage labor
would have little reason to continue lobbying for lax enforcement),
and would free up resources to enhance border security and to
identify and deport the remaining illegals who either do not
qualify for the guest worker program, or who choose to ignore
it.
As most people who live in the American southwest know,
enforcement of our immigration laws is scandalous. As a result,
many conservatives argue that we wouldn’t have a problem with
illegal immigration if only we strictly enforced our current laws.
Perhaps. And perhaps the Titanic may never have sunk if
the crew had done a better job at bailing water. In any case, it is
immaterial. Even if militarizing our 1,500-mile border with Mexico
would interdict most illegal border crossers (at a hefty price),
the fact that we have not been able to get the judicial bureaucracy
to deal seriously with illegal immigration issues for more than a
generation should be potent evidence that the prospect of
successfully demanding “better enforcement,” divorced of any
greater reform, is unrealistic. The guest worker program could
change this dynamic by taking industry groups that depend on the
availability of cheap labor (agriculture, hospitality, janitorial,
landscaping, etc.), and whose specific interests are protected by
the program, out of the mix of interests opposed to general strong
enforcement.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ALSO a problem because of our Welfare State.
Bush’s guest worker program won’t do much to solve that (except to
the extent that it encourages potential immigrants to stay in their
home countries while waiting for jobs to open up). But we should
remember that illegal immigrants cost us a lot of money because
Democrats in places like the California State Legislature fall all
over themselves giving illegal immigrants all sorts of goodies. In
border areas, school districts have turned a blind eye to Mexican
residents (not immigrants, legal or illegal) crossing the border
every day to be taught at U.S. taxpayer expense in U.S. public
schools. And when citizens revolt, as they did in California with
Proposition 187, Democrat appointed judges rule that immigrants,
regardless of their legal status, have constitutional
rights to all sorts of state (taxpayer) provided benefits. We
certainly need to address these problems, but also recognize that
they are entirely separate from the guest worker issue.
Few difficult problems have perfect solutions, and any guest
worker program is bound to have failings. But instead of running
from Bush’s proposal, conservative lawmakers should be rolling up
their sleeves to work on the all-important details. Surely, there
are likely to be pitfalls, but conservatives who are advocating
writing off Bush for his program to “throw open our borders” have
not given this proposal a fair hearing. It is one of the best
practicable suggestions for getting better control of our borders
to come along in years.
