« Very True | Main | The Galt! »
May 18, 2007
Immigration Compromise
The worth of the new bill hinges on whether you think an effective amnesty for the country's 12 million undocumented immigrants is worth a 400,000 to 600,000 person guest worker program. That's the trade-off: A bad guest-worker program set against a broader path-to-citizenship program. My sense is that the system we've got right now is so bad, that even a regulated guest worker program is better than what we're living with. And bringing the 12 million undocumented immigrants who currently live in this country into the light would be a huge boon. So my snap reaction is that the guest worker program is problematic, but this might nevertheless be a deal worth making. The onus is now on Reid to better it through the legislative process.
Additionally, the legislation opens the way for far more high-skills immigration and converts the current family-based system -- in which relatives of immigrants have priority, which is how you get so many extended families -- to a merit-based system, wherein only immediate family members have preference, and you gain "points" for other metrics, such language ability, skills, education, sector, etc. The bill inexplicably lacks a significant increase in high-skills visas, but the movement towards a more rational prioritizing system makes a lot of sense. For instance: Under the proposed system, nurses, whom we need, would start with eight points, and workers in occupations the Bureau of Labor judges as likely to experience the most growth in the next decade get 15 points.
But I'm open to being convinced on all this.
Crossed to Tapped
May 18, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
The whole "travel back to your home country" is ridiculous though.
Posted by: Jason | May 18, 2007 8:28:56 AM
We had immigration laws and no one bothered to enforce them. This caused an illegal alien problem so amnesty for illegal aliens was given in the 80's. Since then, no one enforced he immigration laws (again)so here we are (again) with an illegal alien problem.
After all of the bluster and pomp and decisions made, what makes anyone believe that this time, the laws will be enforced? And when they are not, we will have another illegal alien problem sometime in the future.
The lesson to be learned is that it doesn't matter what immigration laws are passed in Washington if no one is willing to rigorously enforce the laws. Without enforcement, it's all bullshit and won't matter.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 18, 2007 8:40:27 AM
I loathe guest worker provisions with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. If you earn a living here, contributing to our economy and our society, you deserve to be a citizen. If we're obligated to justify every governmental action we take with an analysis of the GDP effects, everybody that does the real work of making the GDP go up should get a share in our pie-of-democracy.
That said, I'm willing to be convinced to live with a guest worker program in exchange for amnesty and saner policies dealing with low-skill workers who want to come here and take our money (and not enough of it) to pick our fruits and sweep our floors.
But in the long run, 'guest worker' is just another word for 'serf'.
Posted by: NBarnes | May 18, 2007 8:43:23 AM
Nobody will ever be willing to enforce our immigration laws as written. They are based on a flawed understanding of the US' relationship to prospective resident workers and citizens, as well as (mostly willful) blindness to the role that undocumented workers play in our economy.
You're right, however, that our illegal alien problem is not solved by amnesty. Amnesty merely pushes back the time that we'll have to decide that our economy wants immigrants, immigrants want to live here, and that restricting immigration is neither effective nor in our best interests.
But as stopgaps go, it's a stopgap that makes life much better and happier for millions of people, so I like it.
Posted by: NBarnes | May 18, 2007 8:47:04 AM
The whole concept of enforcing immigration laws reminds me of that Simpsons episode where the American embassy in Australia has a mechanism forcing the water in their toilets to drain in the "American" direction when they're flushed.
You're up against market forces. You can be as "willing" to enforce immigration laws as you want, but if there is a fundamental market reason for people to come to the US illegally, then they will do so, and trying to stop it humanely (which I realize is not necessarily a priority for some people) will ultimately be futile. See Drugs, War on.
Posted by: tps12 | May 18, 2007 9:01:50 AM
My question is whether the 12 million illegal immigrants want to be citizens. It is logical to assume that many must, especially those who immigrated as children and grew up here. But many lose a competitive advantage if they become legal. Once legal, they can no longer easily work in an unregulated semi-underground economy where they are paid small, untaxed wages under the table. That might not be so bad, but once they become legal workers, they have to compete with all the other legal workers. And they are likely to be at more of a competitive disadvantage in the legal labor market that they are in the underground labor market.
Obviously there is a big trade-off. Some will risk the change from underground laborer to legal laborer (the potential pay-off for switching is high), but some will prefer to stay in their current situation rather than risk the new situation, going with the devil they know.
Given this, how many illegal workers will we still have after this program goes through?
Posted by: RWB | May 18, 2007 9:13:38 AM
This is an easy choice for Ezra to make. this won't harmfully impact him at all. He can afford to be compassionate to others, but in doing so he is betraying his own countrymen. He will sit back and reap the benefits of cheaper labor, cheaper products, and cheaper services while never once having to suffer for it.
This entire column is about brazen self-interest. It is not about helping the American people. It is not about building a better future. It's about elitists like Ezra not giving a damn about normal people. This bill won't remove a single illegal worker. All it will do is ad 1/2 a million new workers to further depress wages. I am growing increasingly disgusted by the Democrat's captivity to the immigrant lobby. Treating Americans of spanish and native descent with respectful fairness is one thing. Importing untold numbers of cheap labor is quite another. I find Ezra's inability to understand the issue about as convincing as I found Ted Koppel's inability to grasp the 2000 Tax Cut. Willful ignorance brought up by being too comfortable, and feeling you deserve to live on the backs of your fellow citizens.
Posted by: soullite | May 18, 2007 9:47:12 AM
TPs12, you can violate market laws. They are not natural laws. Natural laws are a function of particle strings. I'm not aware of any type of "Marketon" that forces nature to bend to it's will in the way that Graviton or Bozon does.
That's the big problem with market whacko's. They're dealing with a psychological construct, not a natural one. But they refuse to acknowledge that they aren't dealing with a natural construct, so they make up laws that no more apply to nature than the laws passed by congress.
Look at it this way Tps12, You're basically arguing that we shouldn't pass a law because people would break it. Indeed, you're using this fact, that some will break a law, to indicate that it is a type of natural law. But that means we shouldn't bother criminalizing murder, rape or theft, and that all three are naturally part of life. People should accept being murdered, raped or stolen from. That's not how society works though. We don't believe in natural laws of human behavior (nor should we, our understanding of genetic instinct and socialization simple isn't strong enough to determine what causes which behaviors). Your argument is a fundamentally criminal one: That because nobody can prevent you from doing something, it is natural good and just.
Posted by: soullite | May 18, 2007 9:58:11 AM
I'm not happy with the tradeoffs proposed for the bill, but the proposal is just starting the legislative process and the final bill could be much worse or possibly better.
The country would be better off if no agreement is reached on a bill this year, since it will be a major source of confusion, half-truths, mistruths and lies through the elections at the end of 08. Best to wait for a potentially better solution after a new Pres. is in place with changed legislative balances.
Let me add that there are NO JOBS WITHOUT EMPLOYERS, so those who rant about lack of enforcement should be ranting that employers have been essentially free of law enforcement. The onus on illegal immigration is there on the employers, not on the workers. If the law isn't being enforced, ask why the employers never get heavily sanctioned. No fences, nor any employee enforcement will stop people if there are jobs available.
A guest worker program is a terrible idea. Germany set itself up for decades of woe by having a guest worker program for the Turks involved in it. Once in place there is no reasonable action that can take place to fix problems, which are inevitable. It is a two-class labor pool, and endless friction will result.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 18, 2007 10:01:20 AM
The enforcement that I promote is not so much as going after the workers, but harsh punishment for those who knowingly hire illegal aliens....meat packing plants, chicken farms and in the cities, fast food and lawn care workers.
Liberals who wish to raise the wages for workers in this country should get behind this as, I'm sure, the unions will as well. There is no doubt that waves of cheap labor is holding down wages in these and other areas, particularly in construction.
Without the magnet of available work and/or available domiciles (Farmers Branch, TX), this problem will be mitigated. And, YES, I'm willing to pay more for my goods and services rather than take advantage of this unlawful underclass, and so are many others if this problem can be stemmed.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 18, 2007 10:17:00 AM
Jim, this bill won't end up better. If you believe it will, I'd suggest you get yourself more acquainted with our system of law making. They aren't going to make enforcement more strict when they remove the bill from the light of day and perform their backroom deals. when this bill gets voted on, everything even kind of good from it will be stripped. Everything bad will be increased tenfold. They promised most of this same shit with NAFTA. They lied through their rotten fucking teeth then, and they're doing it now.
As for enforcement.. no shit, if you want to destroy supply, you attack demand. That's about as basic as tactical thinking gets. As I've said on another board, the only kind of immigration reform that can possible be good is one that fines every employer 100k per head, for every illegal immigrant they are found to employ. If that's not enough, increase the fine to 500k or 1m. I don't care. I'm sick of people like Ezra putting foriegners and businesses ahead of Americans. this program just rewards criminal businesses by making their illegal labor legal.
Posted by: soullite | May 18, 2007 10:23:28 AM
Agreed
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 18, 2007 10:27:53 AM
I agree completely with soullite. This problem needs to be attacked on all sides and that starts with wicked harsh employer enforcement + an effective background checking system for the employers. Both parties are screwing the general public in favor of the dread 12 million.
Posted by: Klug | May 18, 2007 10:41:59 AM
P.S. Double amen to the example of Germany and the Turks. A guest worker program is a complete and utter disaster.
Posted by: Klug | May 18, 2007 10:43:13 AM
The bill might be a marginal improvement over the status quo, depending on your perspective.
On the other hand, because this guest worker program is unpopular to everyone other than wall street, it's just such a juicy political opportunity to oppose it, regardless of the merits. Both the right and the left hate guest worker programs. The political capital acquired by opposing guest workers could be employed on far more useful reforms than anything we'll see on immigration.
Posted by: Consumatopia | May 18, 2007 11:31:13 AM
If the positive provisions survive the back room deal making, they might never be implemented. The Washington Post's article mentions some preconditions:
Before those immigrant-rights measures could go into effect, the government must deploy 18,000 new Border Patrol agents and four unmanned aerial vehicles; build 200 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, and 70 ground-based radar and camera towers; provide funds for the detention of 27,500 illegal immigrants a day; and complete new identification tools to help employers screen out illegal job applicants.Skeptics say those would take years, but Chertoff stressed yesterday that they could be done in 18 months.
Yeah, right. 18 months. Perhaps the word "months" has been redefined within DHS to mean something else. Or Chertoff has plans to provide exceptionally lucrative incentives to Halliburton and others who will do the work.
Posted by: meander | May 18, 2007 11:39:38 AM
While not as scared of the Brown Menance as some appear to be here, I am not a fan of this program. I would rather the Democrats focus on getting rid of some of the indefinite detentions, neglect of processing for legitimate immigrants, and other deep-rooted issues in the Dept of Immigration while this President is in the White House. After he's gone, depending on Congress, we might be able to get some better bills.
This is a blatant play for the growing Hispanic vote, but like most Republican initiatives, the solution is probably worse than the problem. And once it's in, it will be hard to get rid of it.
As for the nursing shortage, that is largely due to factors such as the misery of working for hospitals on 12-hour shifts (the norm for most medical workers, for no good reason) and dealing with constant red-tape barriers to actually doing your job--with consequent declines in patient care quality. There are lots of American nurses who have quit because they can't take the grind. Hospitals respond not by improving their conditions but by importing nurses from countries where a nursing degree earns far less. But even if the money's a boon to a Filipino immigrant (where many come from), they are being exploited as much as native-born nurses. Not a good solution. And not, as some would say, connected to illegal immigration either; those nurses come over legally, and get treated like dirt.
Posted by: emjaybee | May 18, 2007 11:41:39 AM
I think Atrios and Nathan Newman are right: between the guest-worker provision, the senseless hurdles to amnesty, and the chimera of 'enforcement', the bill is pretty bad all around. (Worse than status quo? Hard to say.)
But it could have one beneficial effect: driving a wedge between the 27 percenters and the Republican party. Tancredo (as a third-party candidate) in 2008!
Posted by: Tom Hilton | May 18, 2007 11:51:19 AM
Forgive my ignorance on this issue, but it sounds to me like the best solution is to heavily fine employers who employ illegal immigrants while providing increased opportunities for immigrants to obtain citizenship.
Posted by: Ben | May 18, 2007 11:59:24 AM
Forgive my ignorance on this issue, but it sounds to me like the best solution is to heavily fine employers who employ illegal immigrants while providing increased opportunities for immigrants to obtain citizenship.
Posted by: Ben | May 18, 2007 12:02:06 PM
The onus is now on Reid to better it through the legislative process.
Really, if Reid can get it passed as is, that's the best we can hope for. Any better than this won't pass.
Best to wait for a potentially better solution after a new Pres. is in place with changed legislative balances.
After he's gone, depending on Congress, we might be able to get some better bills.
No, it's less likely when Bush is gone. Best to do it now while it can be done with votes and political cover from Republicans, including Bush.
The bill inexplicably lacks a significant increase in high-skills visas
Mexico might oppose more visas of this kind.
After all of the bluster and pomp and decisions made, what makes anyone believe that this time, the laws will be enforced? And when they are not, we will have another illegal alien problem sometime in the future.
If you Republicans keep hiring them, they'll keep coming. There are increased penalties for hiring.
My question is whether the 12 million illegal immigrants want to be citizens.
Yes. Most illegals already get legal wages.
Can't follow your reasoning, soullite. Ezra wants those living and working here to have full rights. What do you want to do with them--expel them? That would be compassionate? Do you have evidence that the legislators are lying, or is it just part of your generally blackened view of the world?
This is a blatant play for the growing Hispanic vote
No, it's a way to have cheap labor while satisfying those upset by illegal aliens.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 18, 2007 12:16:28 PM
I'm surprised by the number of people who want to drop most family-based immigration entirely. Why shouldn't a U.S. citizen be able to petition for their sibling's green card, or a legal permanent resident for their adult child's? Ignore for a moment that these petitions, due to visa backlogs, can take up to 22 years to go through; these are people who couldn't qualify for a green card any other way without marrying a U.S. citizen or somehow fabricating an advanced degree and five years of progressive experience in a technical field.
The merit-based notion also bothers me, because I don't doubt that it'll favor the educated and the wealthy more than our current system already does. It seems to me that as a diverse nation, we're well served by an immigration system that encourages immigration from all races, classes and countries.
Posted by: Urs | May 18, 2007 12:26:15 PM
"I'm sick of people like Ezra putting foriegners and businesses ahead of Americans"
What is your best argument for why the interests of Americans should carry more weight than those of foreigners?
I understand that there are some consequentialist arguments against immigration which may tend to show that it results in a net reduction in social welfare --ecological issues surrounding immigration, in particular, may deserve a closer look. But bracket those for a moment. And I understand that there is a good economic case to be made that immigration actually helps the standard of living for Americans generally. Bracket that too.
Lets suppose instead that you're right and immigration reduces job opportunities for Americans while increasing them for people born outside the country. Why should the interests of the Americans come first? Why should the fact that a person is born on the other side of an imaginary line mean that their well-being doesn't count in the moral calculus?
I find the notion completely baffling, but it seems to be widely shared. Maybe you can explain it in a way that seems plausible.
Posted by: RW | May 18, 2007 12:38:28 PM
unless you heavily penalize the businesses- I can't see how it will work since the incentive still remains for them to hire illegals to get around minimum wage, health and other laws.
Posted by: akaison | May 18, 2007 12:50:52 PM
unless you heavily penalize the businesses
That's in the bill.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 18, 2007 12:59:21 PM
