| Not perfect but
on the right track Ruben
Navarrette
UNION-TRIBUNE
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20060305-9999-lz1e5navarret.html
March 5, 2006
In trying to get mileage out of the
immigration debate, those fire-breathing House Republicans pretty
much cornered the market on silliness, sideshows and sound bites.
I mean, besides tossing red meat to the mob, why propose
something as outlandish as a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico
border or denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal
immigrants or turning local police into surrogate immigration
agents?
Hopefully, the grown-ups in the Senate will do better when they
take a stab at immigration reform in the next few weeks.
Already, senators deserve credit for tackling the thorniest issue
of this entire debate: What to do with the estimated 11 million
illegal immigrants who are already in the United States? All three
of the top bills in the Senate – Cornyn/Kyl, McCain/Kennedy and the
new draft legislation proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Arlen Specter – offer some kind of solution.
Some of what the senators are proposing is workable and wise –
and some of it is just wishful thinking.
The Cornyn/Kyl bill falls into the second category. While most
people who study this debate talk about the need to create
incentives and disincentives – carrots and sticks – to lure illegal
immigrants out of the shadows, this bill is more like sticks and
stones. It cops out by simply decreeing that those here illegally
must leave and return to their home countries, where they could then
apply to re-enter the United States through a temporary worker
program.
And what if people don't cooperate? What if they don't leave? And
why would they, given that they have no incentive to do so?
Supporters of Cornyn/Kyl insist that people will feel compelled
because we will have cracked down on employers to the point where
the only people who will be able to find jobs are those who register
through the government-sponsored guest worker program.
Speaking of wishful thinking.
Back in the real world, the McCain/Kennedy bill offers workers
something tangible – the chance to stay in the United States with
permanent residency – if they, in essence, acknowledge the crime of
coming illegally by paying a $2,000 fine.
Amnesty is more of a problem than a solution. You often hear that
allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States legally
either “rewards lawbreakers” or encourages more illegal immigrants
to come. But there's something that already does both of those
things. It's jobs, and they're being offered like crazy by U.S.
employers desperate to find workers to do, as President Bush often
says, “jobs that Americans won't do.” A better argument against
amnesty is that it cheapens the right to reside in the United States
legally by granting the privilege en masse. It also lets individuals
off the hook by absolving them of their personal responsibility to
either come legally or take the steps necessary to become legal once
they get here. That doesn't come easy, but nothing worth having
does.
That leaves us with Specter's bill, over which the Judiciary
Committee began haggling last week. Specter did something that
neither the White House nor other members of Congress did, and
that's clarify the difference between our approach to current
workers and to future ones. In other words, between amnesty and
guest workers. Though it may come as news to CNN's Lou Dobbs and
others who hyperventilate over these issues, the terms aren't
synonymous.
Specter wants to (1) create a temporary guest worker program that
would allow hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to fill jobs in
the United States for up to six years and (2) allow millions of
illegal immigrants who are already here to remain indefinitely,
provided they register with the Department of Homeland Security, pay
back taxes, abide by the law and remain employed.
Here's the problem: While Specter's bill does give the hundreds
of thousands of new guest workers the right to switch jobs and
requires that participating employers pay the prevailing wage, he
leaves the millions who are already here in the legal equivalent of
suspended animation. They won't have legal residency, or even be on
a path to one day achieve it, and so they'll be vulnerable to cheats
and scoundrels. You know, the way they are now. So, whatever else
you call the bill, I'm not sure it can be called reform.
The Specter bill is a good beginning. But, it needs amendments,
and there's still a long way to go.
After all, I said I didn't want government to simply turn illegal
immigrants into citizens or legal residents. But, that doesn't mean
I want them turned into prey.
|