SAN DIEGO -- 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.
©
2006, The San Diego Union-Tribune
