The Immigration Debates

It certainly is amazing what 500,000 people in the streets of America's second-largest city can do. When I saw the picture while I was away, my first thought was "Wow, when was any of this planned?" Obviously I wasn't here, but it seemed somewhat spontaneous. Obviously the immigrant community saw how harmful Rep. Sensenbrenner's punitive bill had the potential of being, and they affected the Senate debate in numerous ways. Here's what the bill out of the Judiciary Committee essentially proposes:

* Allows illegal immigrants who were in the United States before 2004 to continuing working legally for six years if they pay a $1,000 fine and clear a criminal background check. They would become eligible for permanent residence upon paying another $1,000 fine, any back taxes and having learned English.

* Says new immigrants would have to have temporary work visas. They also could earn legal permanent residence after six years.

* Adds up to 14,000 new Border Patrol agents by 2011 to the current force of 11,300 agents.

* Authorizes a "virtual wall" of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border.

* Creates a special guest-worker program for an estimated 1.5 million immigrant farm workers, who can also earn legal permanent residency.

You could actually end the immigration debate tomorrow in this country: simply have the Justice Department fine any business shown to have employed undocumented workers by the amount needed to raise the wages of those workers to that of a living wage, plus benefits, and fine them that every day. This Senate Judiciary proposal at least shows a path to citizenship, but still allows for several years of a permanent underclass under a federally administered guest-worker program. Being a federal program, I'm sure it's only necessary for employers to provide workers with the federal minimum wage, now at a criminal $5.15 an hour and well below many state minimums. The immigration debate has splintered the GOP because they are trying to navigate the choppy waters between the anti-immigrant wing who scapegoats those trying to feed their families for all the world's ills, and the corporate wing who needs a steady supply of essentially willing indentured servants. Obviously tougher border security isn't going to work; it hasn't worked for the last three decades, as border security has increased steadily. You need a comprehensive strategy that includes allowing countries like Mexico to improve their own lot instead of having agribusiness export corn to them.

This is a difficult debate and I was pleasantly surprised to see the Senate committee handle it with candor and goodwill rather than the usual rancor. Immigration as it stands right now is unsustainable, but we have to understand that the reason in part is because we've made it unsustainable through our policies like NAFTA, and through the enormous power of corporate interests who invite (and actually count on) illegal activity as part of their economic growth plans. That so many illegal immigrants can get jobs with impunity means that we're either not letting enough legal immigrants into the job market, or we're not enforcing existing laws on employers, with whom we have the only leverage in the matter (it's a lot easier to chase down public businesses than people who may have no fixed address or documentation).

So, that's my perspective. Guest worker=bad. Eventual path to citizenship=good unless you want a permanent class of poor worker bees. Tightening the border=fine but won't solve the problem. Tightening employer enforcement=quickest thing you can do right now to solve the problem.