16 May '06 - 1278 W - + 10 - 4 Bush and Immigration
As any readers (I guess that means you, Aaron) are probably aware, Bush
made a speech last night calling for new immigration policy. The full
text of his speech is available from the White House
here.
There's two things I want to talk about here: first, the rhetorical
commitments Bush is making here, and second, the responses to it that
have been floating around the blogosphere.
Early on in the speech, Bush states:
Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use
forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to
verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts
pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local
budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems.
Yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are
decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith,
and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are
beyond the reach and protection of American law.
Now, first off, I find it completely uncredible that employers cannot
verify that the workers they're hiring are, in fact, illegal
immigrants. I'd think the fact that they weren't complaining about
being paid less then minimum wage would be a good clue. Employers KNOW
they hire illegals. In fact, they seek them out because they will do
work Americans won't or will work longer for less then the domestic
workforce. Being that they're illegally here, they have little legal
protection, and they know it. This is also attractive to more shady
employers. That said, it's not "illegal immigration" that puts pressure
on schools and hospitals, and it's certainly not "illegal immigration"
that brings crime to our communities - underfunding and poverty do
that.
Of course, I take the larger point that there's a substantial amount of
tax money lost when undocumented immigrants don't pay into the system
they use. But to blame budget shortfalls, strained schools and
hospitals, and increases on crime on immigration alone is to ignore the
fact that all these things have other causes as well. Like, for
instance, chronic underfunding of schools at the federal level, a
private healthcare system that doesn't cover the lower class (and
covers illegals not at all), and a lack of real opportunities for urban
youth (due itself, in part, to an underfunded education system). But I
digress.
Bush continues his speech, proposing a five-point solution:
1. Secure borders by increasing funding, hiring an additional 6,000
Border Patrol agents by 2008, and launching "the most
technologically advanced border security initiative in American
history." Additionally, deploying up to 6,000 National Guard soldiers
to patrol the border in the interim. Apparently, we're out of room to
detain illegals, so more beds in "detention centers" are needed. We've
also apparently expedited the deportation process, so they're being
sent back faster then ever. The reasoning is "When people know that
they'll be caught and sent home if
they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to
sneak
in." Honestly, I'm a little skeptical on this point. People already
know that if they get caught, they'll likely get sent home. He
acknowledges this in the speech, when he says that 85% of those caught
are Mexican, and are immediately sent home. So the threat of being
returned home is supposed to provide a deterrant to the 15% who
travelled all the way through Mexico from god knows how far south to
get here already?
2. Create a temporary worker program:
A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it
would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while
respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of
human smugglers, and make it less likely that people would risk their lives
to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local
governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above
all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain
we know who is in our country and why they are here.
Of
course, this will only work if it's simple enough that the (often
illiterate) population trying to sneak across the border can use it,
provides enough temporary worker positions (in the right places) to
slow the flow of immigrants in the first place, and is drafted
correctly so that employers and illegals don't have an incentive to
continue operating illegally. Being that the House has already shown
itself to be pretty radical on this topic, I don't know how effective
legislation could possibly be drafted. If a temporary worker program
works to put immigrants in a worse off position then they already are,
they'll have no reason to not just try their luck and sneak across in
the first place.
3. Biometric "tamper proof" (?) IDs for all immigrants. This would
somehow keep employers from hiring illegals, again resting on the
assumption that they do so by mistake. How, exactly, is biometrics
going to help things? Unless you have a system to verify the biometric
data, it's worthless. And unless you've got individual employers
somehow verifying the IDs at every single hiring point, it's, again,
worthless. Or is the legislation supposed to punish employers for
hiring people with bad IDs when they couldn't verify the IDs were good?
4. No deportation, but no "amnesty" either:
I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to
stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay
their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years.
People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship,
but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line
behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I've just
described is not amnesty, it is a way for those who have broken the law to
pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good
citizen.
It seems to me that paying all your
back taxes since you came to the country and a "meaningful penalty"
might be a bit excessive. What's a meaningful penalty, and how exactly,
is one of the most empoverished sections of our population going to
afford it? How are they supposed to learn English? It sounds like this
isn't providing amnesty at all, but just setting up substantial
barriers to citizenship in the name some perversion of fairness.
5. Learning English = immigrant success! Since we're
a melting pot, we must make sure everyone speaks the same language. Or
something. While it's true that non-English-speaking people tend to be
marginalized in America, making them learn English isn't necessarily
going to fix the problem. While proficiency in English certainly
breaks down some barriers to
gainful employment, it's not a cure-all, and requiring immigrants to
speak it as a condition for citizenship isn't going to fix much.
Bush then calls for substantial reform, and soon. And claims that all
these points need to be addressed for legislation to be successful.
Which is also probably true. However, I think it's very unlikely that
any legislation is going to go deep enough, examine the real causes of
problems caused by immigration: poverty coupled with a lack of
opportunity, and racism. Until those things are addressed, immigration
will always be a substantial problem in this country.
Well I think somebody else must be reading, because stuff is getting voted up and down by somebody other than me. So unless you’re voting your own stuff down (which is unlikely unless you’re testing out the functionality), then there is somebody else out there.
But anyway, nice writeup. I’d say the bottom line for this issue is it’s a rock-and-a-hard-place type of situation for Bush. You’re right that the roots of this are poverty, racism, and other social ills, and that none of them will be genuinely addressed. However, I’d say that this may indirectly help those issues, because regardless of what Bush does he’ll be alienating supporters (either he irritates his conservative base by leaning towards amnesty or he does the opposite and irritates the latino population, which is of increasing importance to Republicans in key states as per the Rovian social conservatism strategy).
At this point, if the Democrats don’t make substantial gains in the midterm election, then it’s safe to say that they have become so dramatically inept as to be utterly hopeless. This issue is just the icing on the cake – Iraq, the economy, and basically everything else are stacking up against Republicans. Confronting the immigration issue isn’t just Bush shooting himself in the foot – he’s cutting his foot off and feeding it to dogs. And if the Democrats are able to do as they should and harness this into some electoral victories, we might see some
real review of the Bush administration during their twilight years (e.g. Democrat congress might actually consider impeachment precedings, or at least real investigations).
I’m being optimistic, I know, but hey, it’s my right. Or something. And I do think it’s not too terribly unrealistic…
Aaron (URL) - 17 May '06 - 09:14
It’s true that he’s alienating supporters – I forgot to include that part of the response in my post. The right-wing blogosphere is foaming at the mouth over it. Some even drafted articles of impeachment (ha!). And I agree about the Democrats. So much has happened recently, if they can’t make gains, they’re a dead party. The fact that this administration is still in power is ludicrous. If the Dems can’t convince the electorate that they offer a better alternative, I don’t think it’d be overstating it to say American politics is done for absent radical change. The problem is they keep trying to run as Republicans lite, or by sniping votes from their base (see Dean’s appearance recently on the fucking 700 Club), rather then appealing to the 70% of Americans who are completely disinterested in American politics.
Tim () - 19 May '06 - 09:57