The American Spectator

p> UNCOMPREHENDING br> Re: W. James Antle III’s Comprehensive Confusion : /p>

I haven’t read the Gutierrez-Flake bill, and I should before I pop off, but if I read correctly the following sentence from Mr. Antle’s piece, and the sentence is accurate about the bill, then it is all I need to form an opinion against this piece of legislation. Antle writes: “Gutierrez-Flake would admit another 400,000 new guest workers per year on top of the illegal immigrants seeking to adjust their status.”

If I read correctly, the 400,000 new guest workers per year would be cumulative; i.e., 400,000 one year, an additional 400,000 the following year, and so on. So that in five years there would two million, in ten years four million. That in addition to the estimated twelve million illegals already here, and however many more illegals would slip in even as the “guest workers” were being invited in. So the ranks of no-skill or low-skill, poorly educated, non-assimilating people from Third World countries would continue to grow, with insufficient thought in Washington about the long-term implications, with only short-term fuzziness about current labor needs in a few industries…and with, of course, much machination about partisan political advantage.

Yes, I understand, or at least I think I do, that the term “guest worker” means the worker goes home at the end of a growing season, the end of particular project, or the end of specified time period. Sorry, I don’t believe it. I don’t believe our governmental bureaucracies have the ability or the will to enforce the return home. And why should I believe it? Has this or any other government (The White House and the Congress) going back to the Reagan administration ever done one thing to inspire our confidence that they have the will and the administrative skills to effectively address and handle the immigration problem? Or that they even recognize it?

How do Gutierrez and Flake even know how many “guest workers” may be needed in the years ahead? On what is this projection based? Even if it is a reasonable projection, why the focus on letting in more low-wage workers, thus helping to continue the downward spiral of real wages for most other workers (CEOs and Congressmen exempted, of course)?

Why do so many in Washington persist in trying to make this whole issue more complicated than it need be? Just do what it takes, whatever it takes, to bring illegal immigration as close to zero as possible: figuratively, and if necessary literally, seal the border(s). Then allow in only new immigrants who possess a minimum level of education, who demonstrably possess skills needed for real, full-time jobs which pay a competitive living wage and which demonstrably cannot be filled by native workers; in other words, workers who will be an asset to rather than a net drain on our economy. As for “guest workers,” fine, bring them in, but only as precisely needed to supplement the workforce; and by God have the mechanisms in place to ensure that the guests don’t overstay their welcome.

p>And what about the illegals already here? I’ve never seen the question polled, but I’d bet that if one were to ask — Would you be willing to accept the illegals already here and allow them citizenship with some relatively minor requirements if you could be assured that the government was going to put a dead-end stop to further illegal immigration and also effectively manage the comings and goings of so-called ‘guest workers? — that a large majority would respond in the affirmative, as if to say: yes, please, that would be a small price to pay to have our government finally get its act together and stop playing footloose and fancy-free with the futures of our children and grandchildren! br> — C. Vail /p>